The Ukraine War May Engulf the World
What was a local conflict is shaping up as a battle between alliances.

One year after it began, Russia's invasion of Ukraine has evolved into a grinding war with no end in sight. Worse, the conflict threatens to further draw in other nations as Ukraine's support by the West is matched by a growing Russian alliance with China. The dangerous, fractured world that appears to be emerging might look more familiar to somebody living a century ago than to people raised in the aftermath of the Cold War—with the addition of nuclear weapons, of course.
"In early February, the North Atlantic alliance made a statement with actual demand to Russia, as they put it, to return to the implementation of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, including admission of inspections to our nuclear defense facilities," Russia's President Vladimir Putin announced February 21. "I don't even know what to call this. It is a kind of a theatre of the absurd," he added, pointing to the adversarial nature of NATO's strong support for Ukraine's defensive war against the invading army. "I am compelled to announce today that Russia is suspending its membership in the New START Treaty."
Russia's State Duma, the lower legislative house, promptly approved the decision.
In fact, Russia made its own trouble by sending tanks and troops across its neighbors' border. But it would be jarring if cooperation on arms reduction continued while western countries funnel weapons, money, and other aid to Ukraine in what seems like an endless flow to counter Russia's military.
"Adding pledges of nearly 37 billion euros in December, the Americans have earmarked a total of just over 73.1 billion euros ($77 billion) for Ukraine support," according to Germany's Kiel Institute for the World Economy. "For the EU, the comparable figure is 54.9 billion euros ($62 billion). Overall, pledges of humanitarian assistance remained relatively constant over the course of the year, while the share of financial and military support pledges grew."
That's a lot of expense to impose on taxpayers in already heavily indebted countries.
The Atlantic Council breaks down that aid, from cartridges to artillery shells, including to-be-delivered tanks promised by Germany and the U.S. It doesn't yet include the latest pledges of an additional $460 million in military aid made during President Biden's trip to Europe where, as Reason's Christian Britschgi warned, "he promised Ukrainians interminable support in the war against Russia."
Afterwards, President Biden met with the leaders of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, and the Slovak Republic, who issued a joint statement promising continued backing:
"In line with the UN Charter and international law, Ukraine is exercising its legitimate right to defend itself against the Russian aggression to regain full control of its territory and has the right to liberate occupied territories within its internationally recognized borders. We will continue to support Ukraine's efforts to this end, as long as necessary."
The statement won endorsement from NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg who vowed, "we must give Ukraine what they need to prevail."
It's possible to be deeply sympathetic to Ukraine, which began the conflict as a flawed but relatively free country before it was attacked by its powerful neighbor, and also to worry where this is going. Ukraine has a claim on western support under the terms of the 1994 Budapest memorandum which guaranteed its security in return for nuclear disarmament, and the plan has clearly been to grind Russia down with assistance to Ukraine's forces. But now that may be matched by support for Russia from China, turning a local war into a battle between alliances and threatening to broaden the conflict.
China's top diplomat, Wang Yi, met Putin in Moscow this week, just days before the one-year anniversary of the start of the Ukraine war.
"Against the backdrop of a very complex and volatile international situation, Sino-Russian relations have withstood pressure from the international community and are developing very steadily," Wang commented on his visit.
The meeting has to be viewed in the context of a document published Monday by China's Foreign Ministry blaming the U.S. for the world's woes.
"Since becoming the world's most powerful country after the two world wars and the Cold War, the United States has acted more boldly to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, pursue, maintain and abuse hegemony, advance subversion and infiltration, and willfully wage wars, bringing harm to the international community," the document charged. "Today, in Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan and Yemen, the United States is repeating its old tactics of waging proxy, low-intensity, and drone wars."
Does this mean China will support Russia's war effort? The U.S. Department of Defense says its hasn't yet seen that, but Secretary of State Antony Blinken claims to have intelligence that such aid is in the works. He warned China against providing weapons to Russia. Frankly, military assistance for Russia would be consistent with the Chinese government's professed concerns over "U.S. hegemony" and allegations of a U.S. proxy war in Ukraine. That may have been the point of the document and its timing.
In response to rising tensions with China, including the recent "spy balloon" panic, the U.S. government announced it is increasing the number of troops deployed to train Taiwan's military. The total is only a couple of hundred personnel, but it's a clear slap at China, which claims the island nation.
"China and the United States are in a headlong descent from a competitive but sometimes cooperative relationship to one that is confrontational in nearly every respect," former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson, Jr. observed even before officials of the two countries squabbled over airships and military aid.
China's growing alliance with Russia may well turn their aligned grievances with the U.S. and the West, justified or not (China and Russia are extremely aggressive in their own right), into a larger confrontation. That's because, in addition to the high costs it imposes on western taxpayers, continued support for Ukraine's defensive efforts looks increasingly like a game of chicken with whatever is developing between Moscow and Beijing.
"One of the challenges of setting yourself up as the world's policeman is that people may take you seriously," I cautioned a year ago about the West's assurances to Ukraine. "Then they expect you to intervene in horrendous situations that you have limited will or capability to address."
That's even more true now as the Ukraine war takes on global dimensions.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Time? How Much Time?
We are being told that sanctions will succeed in time. Really? How much time? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? These United States have sanctions levied against dozens of countries. Have they been successful? Have the sanctions toppled the government in Iran?
With regard to the policy of employing economics as a tool of diplomacy, all embargoes and sanctions prohibiting American companies selling to other countries with which these United States are not at war formally declared by the Congress will be lifted. Such restrictions typically are ineffective in the long term, harming mainly American commercial interests while often benefitting those of foreign competitors. The exceptions will be goods, services, and intellectual properties having obvious military value for which the government paid all or part. -excerpt from the novel, Retribution Fever
Sanctions play well politically at home. The politicians appear to be doing something. They are — something harmful to American citizens. Are you better off financially now or before the sanctions against Russia? Yes, sanctions can hurt the economies of the targeted countries, but rarely do they fulfill the stated goals. Recall how Biden blustered about breaking the Russian economy? Has he? Has he done more harm to the American, the European, or the Russian? That which he has accomplished is to drive Russia into the arms of China in an alliance to topple these United States as the preëminent power. They well may succeed. Meanwhile, if we rely on sanctions to win the conflict that we started, we'll go broke waiting.
https://www.nationonfire.com/whose-war/ .
Everybody knows that sanctions work. One need only look at Cuba, a nation under severe US economic sanction. It will crumble any day now. Be patient. Sanctions take time. It's only been 64 years.
Cuba might have become the American organized crime casino playground it was becoming in the 50’s.
Similar to the multinational playground the US is trying to coordinate in Ukraine after organizing the coup in 2014, putting the Jew Zelensky in charge and using Nazis to wage a bloody civil war, resulting in Russia protecting its border and the Ukrainian people who had democratically elected Yankovych as the pro-Russian president.
"Since becoming the world's most powerful country after the two world wars and the Cold War, the United States has acted more boldly to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, pursue, maintain and abuse hegemony, advance subversion and infiltration, and willfully wage wars, bringing harm to the international community," the document charged. "Today, in Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Pakistan and Yemen, the United States is repeating its old tactics of waging proxy, low-intensity, and drone wars.""
If the Chinese could only make the instructions to my bluetooth headphones as clear, correct and accurate as this.
Yeah, their take is essentially right here. The truth is the Russians do seem to have made a good faith effort to arrive at a diplomatic compromise. Only to be rebuffed by the U.S. and its client state in Kiev. Hell, after the war started, the Ukraine and Russia seem to have arrived at the outlines of a settlement before Boris Johnson was sent in to scuttle them. Bluntly, the Russians and Chinese seem to have every reason to work out a mutual defense strategy against us.
"...The truth is the Russians do seem to have made a good faith effort to arrive at a diplomatic compromise..."
They might better have tried a good-faith effort and not invaded Unkraine.
Russia did. For seven years. During that time, Kiev was conducting or supporting genocide.
Is that bullshit the best you Russians can come up with?
Stop projecting your own crimes against humanity on others trollsky.
Biden, Paytheon and Cockseed Fartin thank you for your shitposting.
Putin thanks your for your fascist support.
Shut up, Ukaeren.
Google paying a splendid earnings from domestic 6,850 USD a week, this is awesome a 12 months beyond I was laid-off in a totally horrible financial system. “w many thank you google every day for blessing the ones oa-11 guidelines and presently it’s miles my responsibility to pay and percentage it with all and Sunday.
.
.
Proper right here I started————————>>> GOOGLE WORK
Trolsky? Crimes against humanity? Does Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Sudan and Somalia mean anything to you or have you been asleep for most of your life? These were all countries the US invaded and bombed killing millions. They are smaller, weaker defenseless countries many thousands of miles away from the US, countries that did absolutely nothing to you, to me or anyone else in the US. By the Neuremberg War Trial Standards, these are all crimes against humanity committed by the US government. Henry Kissinger, aka the butcher of Vietnam will not travel to some countries as they have a warrant out for his arrest for crimes against humanity (Vietnam war), yet he gets paid good money to do speeches. It is like inviting and paying Hitler to talk at your event. And it is rather hard to an uninformed naive person like you to accept that there actually are well informed people in the US that have a different point of view on the war in Ukraine, which the flunkies in the State Department have engineered and grossly miscalculated the outcome, because they are not very bright to begin with, they got their jobs because they knew someone and it is their standard procedure and yours obviously to rebuke when, in a democracy, someone expresses a different point of view, they automatically brand him as a Russian troll. Rather than admit these lunatics have made a huge mistake by pocking the Russian bear once too many times, they are willing to fight to the last living Ukrainian and take us into a nuclear holocaust. You are one uninformed and very naive little puppy.
Too long, won't read.
You mean for the two decades that they were saying "if you expand NATO and/or incorporate Ukraine into the West, we will have no choice but to respond with military force?"
A Russia-friendly Ukraine is essential for Russia; without it, they believe they just become another client state of the US, like Germany. That's why they are not going to back down, neither Putin nor anybody who replaces him.
Is the official line from the Kremlin Ivan?
No, I'm stating simple historical facts.
You're delusional if you think anybody's propaganda at this point would even make a difference. The war will run its course: Ukraine will be completely destroyed, upwards of a million people will die, and the US will have spent upwards of a trillion dollars on it.
What's unpredictable at this point is whether there will be a nuclear exchange and what the post-war world looks like.
I'm not sure invading them is the best way to keep them on their side, but without a doubt, this isn't nearly as simple as Putin invaded them because he's the only bad guy involved.
Putin doesn't care much about keeping the Ukrainians on his side. He wants a buffer against NATO and control over Ukraine fossil fuels. He'd prefer not to completely destroy Ukraine in the process, but he will if he has to.
Ukraine didn't have a future even without the war.
It is not essential or in any way justified for Russia to think it can control another country just because it happens to share a border.
It's not Russia that tried to control Ukraine. It was the U.S. organized coup in 2014 prior to which Ukraine was a neutral nation. Since then Ukraine Nazis have been waging a genocidal war on Russian speaking people of the Donbas region. Those people begged Putin to annex them into Russia and until last year he refused. This is a lot more than a shared border. It is a shared border with a belligerent puppet state whose declared intention is to destroy the Russian state. Have to say the first half of your handle is appropriate.
Yeah, do what we say, not what we do.
I have been reliably informed that borders aren’t real, and probably racist.
"a mutual defense strategy against us"
Typical Libertarian double speak.
You are so mentally disturbed that you don't even realize it.
It sucks blundering through Chingrish. Amirite?
Too soon to point out the 'domino theory' was correct?
The path the west is currently on has one outcome.
Yes, to keep supporting Ukraine until Russia completely fails and pulls back to 2014 borders.
That’s not on the menu. You are free to head there and volunteer for Zelensky.
Well you sure are doing your part for Putin,
How about if Russia pulls back to the February 18, 1954 borders?
The path the west is currently on has one outcome.
And it likely speaks Russian.
Chinese and Korean too.
Biden (D) got barebacked by Toyota driving goat herders in Afghanistan. He can’t stop a balloon from traversing the nation. The US overextending itself creates additional theaters for activity. Committing in Ukraine, as he has done, gives Beijing and Pyongyang greater freedom to initiate against Taiwan and South Korea, respectively. I think all of those places should be left to sort out their own affairs but also recognize that the US has historically played babysitter for both. Action there likely means US playing too. Biden is essentially committing resources that don’t exist. In 60 years, there may be a movie called Downfall 2 with Biden banging on a desk screaming something that turns into memes of the day. The fucker could literally lose 4 campaigns in a single presidency.
"The path the west is currently on has one outcome."
The execution of Libertarian traitors?
Good job, Reason and never Trumpers.
Got what you wanted.
The price of liberty is being forced to fund a corrupt regime halfway around the planet. Those bioweapons facilities should be called freedom labs!
The price of liberty is being forced to fund a corrupt regime halfway around the planet [so they can genocide people who declared independence from them]. Those bioweapons facilities should be called freedom labs!
According to Biden, we’re going to fund their entire government in perpetuity.
Can we now claim them as dependents on our tax return?
I’m paid $185 per hour to complete the task using an Apple laptop. I absolutely didn’t think it was conceivable, but my dependable buddy convinced me to give this straightforward an03 chance a go after she made $26,547 in just 4 weeks working on it. Visit the following page to find out additional
.
.
instructions—————————>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
Are you forgetting the levels of corruption that the current administration has been engaged in by funding the corrupt regime they worked with in Ukraine. This shit goes both way, man.
And, to be sure, this is literally what they wanted. They are imagining that the outcome is "free trade" access to the vast agricultural and fossil fuel resources of Ukraine and a subjugation of Russia to the "rules based international order (we make the rules)".
That wouldn't be half bad if their economic policies worked as expected and if their international rules actually protected people. Unfortunately, like Soviet central planners, they are absolutely full of it.
And that includes the central planners at Reason, for whom "libertarianism" consists of a handful of policies where they want the US government to leave individuals alone (sex, drugs, zoning), and who otherwise embrace just about every government intrusion into the economy and people's lives imaginable.
Support for freedom and humanity instead of fascism and evil?
I'm good with that.
The pro nazi Avoz battalion thanks you for your blind loyalty to them.
Get a clue fascist.
Which shitty reason author are you?
WW3 is within normal parameters.
If the world ends in a nuclear holocaust will the Big Guy still get his ten percent?
Shameless, dishonest honorless hacks at Reason will never tell.
We should focus on getting rid of the democrats before they start the nuclear Holocaust.
By vote or by force. They already own the voting part by the way.
Let's do a thought experiment here.
Let's set it in 2040 or so. The US government is corrupt and incompetent, but within "normal parameters". Suddenly the government is toppled via coup and a new corrupt government is installed. In response, Florida and Texas secede.
Should they be violently reconquered by DC and ethnically cleansed. Is that the libertarian take here?
Ukraine is an independent and sovereign nation, not a vassal state of Russia.
Kiev is a puppet state of the west that thought NATO backing would prevent Russia from interceding in the seven years long genocide that Kiev was conducting against citizens in Donbas and Luhansk. They were promised more autonomy in Minsk 2 but instead received death.
You support NATO helping Serbia reintegrate Kosovo?
It was a vassal state of Russia. It is now turning into a vassal state of the US, like the rest of Europe has been since WWII.
Which is perfectly fine in principle if it serves American interests.
But let's not pretend that any of these nations can act independently.
No need for the thought experiment. It happened in 1860 with the election of Lincoln, who wasn't even on the ballot in ten states. Yes, the government will go to war and genocide Americans who oppose them. They will call it total war instead of ethnic cleansing though.
And you'll applaud?
Correct.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman%27s_March_to_the_Sea
Selected excerpts for those who don't link;
The campaign began on November 15 with Sherman's troops leaving Atlanta, recently taken by Union forces, and ended with the capture of the port of Savannah on December 21. His forces followed a "scorched earth" policy, destroying military targets as well as industry, infrastructure, and civilian property, disrupting the Confederacy's economy and transportation networks. The operation debilitated the Confederacy and helped lead to its eventual surrender. Sherman's decision to operate deep within enemy territory without supply lines was unusual for its time, and the campaign is regarded by some historians as an early example of modern warfare or total war.
After the March, General Order 15;
I. The islands from Charleston south, the abandoned rice-fields along the rivers for thirty miles back from the sea, and the country bordering the Saint Johns River, Fla., are reserved and set apart for the settlement of the Negros now made free by the acts of war and the proclamation of the President of the United States.
II. At Beaufort, Hilton Head, Savannah, Fernandina, Saint Augustine, and Jacksonville the blacks may remain in their chosen or accustomed vocations; but on the islands, and in the settlements hereafter to be established, no white person whatever, unless military officers and soldiers detailed for duty, will be permitted to reside; and the sole and exclusive management of affairs will be left to the freed people themselves, subject only to the United States military authority and the acts of Congress
Whatever happened to the disputed territory along the Russian/Chinese border? Chinese have long memories and a Russia weak from taking on the West may look mighty tempting to Chinese expansionists.
There have been past skirmishes in those areas. Iirc, it became heated after Krushchev engaged in deStalinization where Mao was a staunch Stalinist. It looks like Biden (D) is looking to impose some sanctions on China where that will just push Xi more towards Moscow. Brandon keeps scoring own goals.
He bets on his own team, so why not score for them to ensure his 'wins' too.
Right now Russia is sending non-Russians (including the ethnic groups from the Far East) into Ukraine as cannon fodder. Pointing that out would be the easiest way to undermine the Ukraine invasion. Putins job before he became Prez was getting 40 or so separatist oblasts into line and submitting to Russia. War deaths have a way of reopening separatist tensions.
That has been the objective for a couple of decades: that is why NATO and the EU kept creeping up on Russia's borders. US and European foreign policy experts have been warning about this for just as long.
Unlike what you're being force fed by the Kremlin, NATO doesn't want a war with Russia.
“NATO” doesn’t “want” anything, it’s a treaty organization.
NATO officials and politicians in member states want power, influence, political donations, and defense contracts.
And war is, in fact, in the interest of many of them, in particular a proxy war in which no NATO member soldiers risk their lives.
"What was a local conflict is shaping up as a battle between alliances."
Once again, what was that nonsense about "avoiding foreign entanglements?"
Said no arms maker board member ever.
++
This topic always seems to attract the dumbest, most idiotic warboner drive-by trolls. Apparently if you don't want to finance another country's war effort in perpetuity and don't want to start WW3 you're a "Russian troll" now or some shit.
"Apparently if you don’t want to finance another country’s war effort in perpetuity and don’t want to start WW3 you’re a “Russian troll” now or some shit."
Or, at least, "Un-American"
To be fair, funding proxy wars while trying to start WW3 does seem to be the true "America's pastime" way more than baseball or any other sport.
Yeah, unfortunately, I can't really disagree with you on that.
The nation cannot prevent a China military balloon from crossing the nation nor can it adequately respond to a train derailment. Given that coupled with the recent track record in Afghanistan, maybe some priorities should be shifted after the govt has an honest internal evaluation of itself.
...maybe some priorities should be shifted after
the govt has an honest internal evaluation of itselfhell has frozen over.FTFY.
Many of those people have been proPutin and proRussian and proauthoritatian for a long time.
And yeah you can see that when an argument about non-intervention by the US is made by citing press releases and PR propaganda by/for Putin
If anybody ever wants 85 IQ analysis, jfree the neurotic woman is always here to provide it
I think Russia is in the wrong here AND we should not be involved anyways. Plenty of bad stuff happens globally and we cannot fix all of it. Spending hundreds of millions to stumble into World War III is a terrible use of anybody's resources.
That is perfectly reasonable and is exactly the sort of perspective that makes intervention-oriented people think twice
Don't interpret this as support for the US's involvement (or lack of support), but the 'sticker price' on military aid is fake. We aren't building (and paying for) new tanks to send to Ukraine. We already have the tanks, bought and paid for. They're sitting in giant tank parking lots. The reason we buy more tanks than we need is because we need the factory which makes tanks to stay in business, and we need its employees to retain the know-how to build tanks, and the US government is its only client. So we buy more tanks than we need. A lot more.
I'd guess similar things are true for a lot of military hardware.
Yeah, we can slap a sticker price on them, and claim some number of billions in aid to Ukraine, but the only cost actually imposed is the shipping cost. (Which isn't nothing, but it's not 70 billion either).
Agreed 100% for the US. For Europe - and for ammo - they will likely have to replace
25.2.23 BLAh BLAH BLAH. plenty talkin. No doin. Waste time putting comments here. The people on here fragmented. No change in 10.000 yrs. Same corruption in US. UK. China. Russia. Theres no sqeaky clean place. Wont bother us if whole planet disappears. You certainly richly deserve it. Heres a typical example-people on here thinkin about peoole dyin whats displayed at botton of screen footballers! You may pull our legs but its not workin.
25.2.23 BLAh BLAH BLAH. plenty talkin. No doin. Waste time putting comments here. The people on here fragmented. No change in 10.000 yrs. Same corruption in US. UK. China. Russia. Theres no sqeaky clean place. Wont bother us if whole planet disappears. You certainly richly deserve it. Heres a typical example-people on here thinkin about peoole dyin whats displayed at botton of screen footballers! You may pull our legs but its not workin.
25.2.23 BLAh BLAH BLAH. plenty talkin. No doin. Waste time putting comments here. The people on here fragmented. No change in 10.000 yrs. Same corruption in US. UK. China. Russia. Theres no sqeaky clean place. Wont bother us if whole planet disappears. You certainly richly deserve it. Heres a typical example-people on here thinkin about peoole dyin whats displayed at botton of screen footballers! You may pull our legs but its not workin.
'military assistance for Russia would be consistent with the Chinese government's professed concerns over "U.S. hegemony"'
What opportunities does China see in this? My sense is that China sees Russia as useful for certain things, but has no deep concern for it (or any other country). Instead, China would love a weakened but intact Russia that remains a buffer state against the West, but becomes China's Costco, while generally deferring to China on important matters.
It also wants the West distracted from events in China's realm while depleting its military supplies. For China, Taiwan is infinitely more important than what happens to a minor European state.
I.e., it has no need for Russia to win. It just wants it to keep fighting.
It also doesn't want to put itself under a heavier sanctions regime as a consequence of arming Russia. Thus instead of munitions, it may consult on expanding Russia's internal arms industry, while surreptitiously helping it circumvent sanctions on Russia.
My big unresolved question is how much pain China is willing to accept in order to take Taiwan militarily. Are they ready to get a bunch of their troop ships sunk in the Taiwan straight? Or are they more likely to take the boa constrictor route and steadily squeeze the tiny island? Maybe the latter.
I find it hard to believe that Reason would allow a statement like “It’s possible to be deeply sympathetic to Ukraine, which began the conflict as a flawed but relatively free country before it was attacked by its powerful neighbor,”. Ukraine was in no stretch of the imagination “free”, and the democratically elected government that was overthrown in a U.S.-backed coup in 2014 had been attacking seceding regions since that time. After fighting the biggest war in history against Nazism in the 20th century, it is ironic and disgusting that we are supporting their descendants.
Isn't that the whole point of the war? Kill as many people as possible, reduce the Earth's population, leave the rest destitute, and give the elites total power? As easy as other throwing a democratically elected government in Ukraine in 2014 for a bunch of Neo-Nazis and then to expand NATO on all Russian borders. Vlad didn't care for that, he knows he is NOT part of the Elite's plan.
China can’t go in too heavily on the Russian side for fear of western sanctions.
Russia and Iran can live as pariah countries.
China, with its export oriented economy cannot.
Imagine if Europe and the U.S. blocked imports of cheap Chinese sneakers, toys and low end electronics.
They could not sell enough of that stuff to Africa and Asia to make it up.
Imagine if the U.S. forced Apple to move iPhone production to Guatemala.
China’s economy would collapse
No
Mean
Tweets