Fernando Alcoforado*
This article aims to demonstrate that the irresponsible diplomacy of the US government in the case of the Ukraine war can lead to the 3rd world war. This irresponsible diplomacy of the Joe Biden administration is compared with the diplomatic work of the John Kennedy administration in the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, it is worth remembering that, since the end of the 2nd World War, the United States and the Soviet Union were leaders of antagonistic ideological blocs during the Cold War period. The former defended capitalism, while the Soviet Union, socialism. In November 1961, the United States deployed 15 “Jupiter” nuclear missiles in Turkey and 30 missiles in Italy. These weapons had a range of 2,400 km and threatened Moscow. Faced with this fact, the Soviet Union promoted the installation of missiles in socialist Cuba as a counterpart to the installation of missiles in Turkey and Italy. The event, called the missile crisis, is considered the most tense moment of the Cold War when the world had a real chance of succumbing to nuclear war.
On October 14, 1962, U2 spy planes from the United States photographed and revealed constructions of bases and installed nuclear warheads, including ramps that would allow the launch of missiles. For the United States, it was unacceptable to have nuclear missiles so close to its territory, while for Cuba, the weapons were a guarantee that they would not be invaded again. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, showed that it could install weapons on the American continent. A fierce dispute would then begin between the two countries. President John Kennedy strove to achieve a peaceful solution unlike the US General Staff that preferred an invasion of the Caribbean island or a preemptive air strike. The US government opted for a naval blockade of Cuba. The US Navy inspected Soviet-flagged ships and those that contained weapons were sent back to their home port. The initiative was supported by the western military alliance NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization).
In Cuba, the population took to the streets to defend the Socialist Revolution and criticize what they believed to be US intervention in their internal affairs. Likewise, the Cuban army mobilized in anticipation of a US invasion. As for the Soviet Union, Prime Minister Nikita Khrushchev showed no signs of backing down. He even asked Cubans to shoot at a group of planes flying over the island. Faced with the impasse, the United Nations convened its Security Council. On October 28, 1962, Khrushchev agreed to withdraw the missiles from Cuba, demanding the withdrawal of the missiles in Turkey, which the United States did. After two weeks of tense negotiations between the United States, the Soviet Union and Cuba, the dispute ended.
It can be seen from the above that the Soviet Union installed the missiles in Cuba that threatened US territory to force the US government to withdraw its missiles from Turkey that threatened Soviet territory. The behavior of US government diplomacy in the case of the Cuban missile crisis differed from the current behavior in the case of the war in Ukraine. In the missile crisis, the US government acted responsibly in preventing the outbreak of a nuclear war by negotiating with the Soviet Union. In the Ukraine war, the US government acts irresponsibly, putting the world before the possibility of a nuclear hecatomb by not seeking a negotiation with Russia.
It is very likely that, by invading Ukraine, the Russian government led by Vladimir Putin intended to do what Khrushchev did in the 1962 missile crisis. Its purpose would probably be to invade Ukraine to create the conditions to negotiate with the US government a commitment to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, which would pose a threat to Russia’s security. It is worth noting that the attempt to incorporate Ukraine into NATO would serve the geopolitical interests of the US government because it would complete the siege of Russia. Figure 1 shows in blue the countries that joined NATO up to 1997 and in orange the countries that joined it after 1997. Ukraine joining NATO would complete the siege of Russia.
Figure 1- The siege of Russia by NATO in Europe
Source: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-60129112
It is important to note that, after the 2nd World War, the United States and its European allies united in the military plan to face the Soviet Union and its allies with the constitution of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in 1949 under the leadership of the United States. In turn, the Soviet Union formed a military alliance with the socialist countries creating the Warsaw Pact. One of NATO’s pillars is to guarantee the security of its member countries, which can occur diplomatically or with the use of military forces. NATO member countries provide part of their military contingent for eventual actions of this size, since the organization does not have its own military force.
During the Cold War until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989, NATO had 16 countries: 1) Germany; 2) Belgium; 3) Canada; 4) Denmark; 5) Spain; 6) United States; 7) France; 8) Greece; 9) Holland; 10) Iceland; 11) Italy; 12) Luxembourg; 13) Norway; 14) Portugal; 15) Turkey; 16) United Kingdom. To meet the geopolitical interests of the United States and the arms industry, NATO expanded after the end of the Soviet Union, attracting 14 more countries that were part of the socialist system of Eastern Europe, such as Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania.
In the case of the Ukraine war, the diplomatic behavior of the Joe Biden administration of the United States towards Russia was different from the behavior of the Kennedy administration in the case of the missile crisis of 1962 towards the Soviet Union. Rather than trying to negotiate a negotiated solution to the war in Ukraine, the Biden administration preferred confrontation by establishing economic sanctions against Russia and its citizens, as well as arming Ukraine’s government to resist Russian invasion. Biden himself, in a statement made last October 6, during a Democratic Party event in New York, sees the risk of nuclear “Armageddon” – final war – which is at the highest level since the Cold War, citing that Putin “not kidding” when talking about the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons, chemical or biological weapons, because your Army is significantly less capable. According to him, the use of a nuclear weapon could get out of control and lead to global destruction. This statement demonstrates that Biden acts irresponsibly because he is aware of the risk of a nuclear hecatomb and does nothing to avoid it by seeking a diplomatically negotiated solution with Russia as Kennedy did in 1962 with the Soviet Union.
Most likely, the Biden administration does nothing to find a negotiated solution with Russia for three reasons: 1) it seeks to eliminate Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas by transferring this European dependence to US LNG (liquefied natural gas); 2) it seeks to secure the interests of the North American war industry with the expansion of NATO and, 3) it seeks to increase the war in Ukraine to promote the expansion of the North American economy.
Who is benefited from the recent sabotage of Russian gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea? The Europeans are not interested in sabotage because they need Russian gas to face the winter, much less the Russians because they would stop selling gas. What fuels the thesis that the United States would be responsible for sabotaging Russian pipelines is the fact that, for the first time, the Americans are supplying more natural gas to Europe than Russia sends via pipelines, according to the Energy International Agency. The United States has become the world’s top exporter in just six years since 2016, as the shale gas revolution boosted domestic production and turned the country into a powerful force in global energy markets. The Biden administration works with other suppliers to ship an additional 15 billion cubic meters of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the European Union by 2022. Energy experts say US LNG export terminals are up this year, putting the target of the Biden administration within reach. LNG is not shipped via pipelines. Instead, the gas is cooled to a liquid and loaded onto ships. A big rise in gas prices in Europe was attracting more shipments from the United States. Russian President Vladimir Putin has pointed the finger at the United States, denouncing the attempt to “destroy the energy infrastructure” that feeds central Europe. All this demonstrates that the Biden government intends to replace Europe’s dependence on Russian natural gas with US LNG.
It is no secret that there is a military industrial complex in the United States that holds all American rulers hostage to it. Who is interested in the armed conflict in Ukraine? There is no doubt that the main interested party in the conflict is the arms industry with the sale of arms. The US Congress voted on a bill called “Protect Ukraine” to supply Ukraine with weapons. The same is happening with other NATO member countries. The question is: Even well armed, would Ukraine be able to win the war with Russia? The answer is no. In addition to the vast military superiority, Russia is an atomic power, which makes a direct confrontation of NATO allies, with the exception of the United States, with Russia impossible. But almost all countries in the region are buying weapons, military equipment and ammunition. All this demonstrates that the Biden administration seeks to secure the interests of the North American arms industry with the expansion of NATO.
The American arms industry is the largest in the world. Of the 10 largest arms manufacturers in the world, six are North American, five of which are leaders in the world arms industry, as shown in the following table:
There is no doubt that the arms industry sponsors the war in Ukraine as it has promoted other wars in the past to make money. The record production of weapons, increasingly lethal and surgical, needs to be put to work in practice.
Figure 2 presents the highest military expenditures in the world by country. The United States has the highest military expenditure in the world (39% of the total).
Figure 2- The largest military expenditures in the world by country
With 102 wars in its bellicose “curriculum”, the United States is probably one of the countries most involved in military actions in the world that began with the annexation of land from Mexico to its territory. It is no coincidence that the United States is one of the countries that benefit most economically from armed conflicts, as the largest arms exporters in the world are Americans. In addition to the sale of ammunition and weapons, the United States also monetizes with security contracts and military training, which makes many members of the US Congress understand wars as a machine for employment and money. Peace, for the United States, could cost dearly. It is these facts that lead many to question the real motivation of the United States in the defense of Ukraine, which for years has been in a state of tension with Russia. It is evident that, as long as there is a war industry in the world, wars will continue to proliferate across the planet. Peace in the world will only happen when all countries are disarmed and the manufacture of weapons ceases.
From the above, it is evident the irresponsible behavior of US diplomacy in the Ukraine war by not seeking a negotiation with Russia to avoid the nuclear hecatomb that threatens the end of life on the planet whose main responsibility are of the Putin governments of Russia, Ukraine, of the United States and the countries of the European Union, as well as the UN, NATO, the North American arms industry and the Russian arms industry. Russia’s Putin government is one of those responsible for the outbreak of a new world war because it destabilized the international system by invading Ukraine and the government of this country is one of those responsible for a new world conflict by admitting the presence in its territory of NATO because would represent a existential threat to Russia. The United States government is responsible for the outbreak of a new world war because since 1997 it has promoted the expansion of NATO to the borders of Russia, which would be completed with the incorporation of Ukraine into the Western military alliance, in addition to imposing economic sanctions against Russia. The governments of the European Union countries are responsible for the outbreak of a new world war because they contributed to the expansion of NATO in addition to having attracted the countries of the former Warsaw Pact to their incorporation into the European economic bloc, in addition to imposing economic sanctions against Russia. On the other hand, the UN is one of those responsible for the outbreak of a new world war because it has not contributed towards seeking an end to the war in Ukraine and, on the contrary, is collaborating for its intensification with the anti-Russia resolutions approved by the General Assembly.
* Fernando Alcoforado, awarded the medal of Engineering Merit of the CONFEA / CREA System, member of the Bahia Academy of Education, of the SBPC- Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science and of IPB- Polytechnic Institute of Bahia, engineer and doctor in Territorial Planning and Regional Development from the University of Barcelona, university professor and consultant in the areas of strategic planning, business planning, regional planning, urban planning and energy systems, was Advisor to the Vice President of Engineering and Technology at LIGHT S.A. Electric power distribution company from Rio de Janeiro, Strategic Planning Coordinator of CEPED- Bahia Research and Development Center, Undersecretary of Energy of the State of Bahia, Secretary of Planning of Salvador, is author of the books Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de Barcelona,http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social Development- The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011), Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), Energia no Mundo e no Brasil- Energia e Mudança Climática Catastrófica no Século XXI (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2015), As Grandes Revoluções Científicas, Econômicas e Sociais que Mudaram o Mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2016), A Invenção de um novo Brasil (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2017), Esquerda x Direita e a sua convergência (Associação Baiana de Imprensa, Salvador, 2018), Como inventar o futuro para mudar o mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2019) and A humanidade ameaçada e as estratégias para sua sobrevivência (Editora Dialética, São Paulo, 2021) .
Site Title 