Escalation Paralysis

Escalation Paralysis

Call it what it is – Escalation Paralysis. 

Defined as the inability to provide military support due to the fear of direct confrontation with Russia and the possibility of triggering a nuclear war. Goes by the narrative of ‘we don’t want a direct confrontation with Russia,’ ‘we don’t want to start World War III,’ or ‘we don’t want to escalate the situation.’ Used almost exclusively by the Biden Administration, and echoed by the main stream media, to avoid any situation that would confront Putin and his Russian military. 

Apparently providing lethal aid to Ukraine doesn’t contribute to escalation. Stinger missiles (man-portable air defense systems), Javelin anti-tank missiles, 7.62mm ammunition, etc., all used to kill Russian Soldiers. Nope, no escalation. But Polish MiG-29s? Yes.

In the meantime, Ukrainian civilians are being indiscriminately targeted and slaughtered, towns and cities are being leveled, nuclear facilities are being overrun and held hostage, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have been displaced, seeking shelter in neighboring countries. 

Escalation has only come from Putin. From exercise to invasion of a sovereign country. From military targets to targeting civilians in their homes and along negotiated humanitarian corridors as they try to leave the war zone. Multiple cease fire violations. Deliberate artillery strikes against population centers – villages, towns and cities. Targeting hospitals, churches, schools, etc. The bombing of the Maternity and Children’s Hospital in Mariupol comes to mind. The use of thermobaric weapons systems (aka vacuum bombs). The introduction of mercenaries from Chechnya and Syria to fight the urban fight, and assassins to find and assassinate President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. 

It’s just a matter of time before chemical weapons are introduced into the equation. Russians won’t be able to bomb Ukrainian fighters out of the cities, and their mercenaries will become hesitant to go in and uproot them.  And it’s just a matter of time before Russia locates the transfer points for the lethal aide coming from the West, and target them – on NATO soil. They’ll claim it’s a defensive strike – not aggression against NATO.

As the crisis in Ukraine continues to unfold, the escalation paralysis exhibited by the United States and NATO provides cover for Putin’s wholesale slaughter and annihilation of a country. How do we, the United States, NATO, the United Nations just sit back and watch? How many dead Ukrainians on television will it take? Economic sanctions haven’t deterred Putin. Tough talk needs to be met with the real consequences, there needs to be a ‘red line’ drawn … somewhere. Someone needs to make a stand against evil.

If Ukraine is going to get through this, they’ll need to play less defense and more offense. They’ll need to take the fight to the Russians. Stand-off indirect weapons systems (artillery) are literally killing them. To further level the playing field, something has to be done. Sounds like a reasonable target for an MiG-29. Taking the fight to the Russians.

Does anyone think Putin is afraid of US or NATO escalation? He doesn’t fear confrontation because we told him we won’t fight in the Ukraine. His only ‘red line’ is a boundary. He’s been given card blanche … and using it.

And what about the second and third order effects of paralysis escalation with Russia? What have Iran, China, and North Korea learned about leveraging nuclear capability?

Not much of a strategy – more of a Neville Chamberlain reset.

 

Darren Zimmer

Leadership - Management - Logistics Consulting Business Owner at Auroral Strategies, LLC

2y

Jon, I find yours to be an excellent assessment; it characterizes the current situation as it is, a failing of vision, a failing of accepting responsibilities, and a failing of leadership.  Another author once wrote that the cowardice in us makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others we know not of (loosely paraphrased). Many ‘professional news analysts’ would use the 'unknown' to excuse inaction. But, as you pointed out, history teaches us how this type of unbridled aggression ends, and it’s never good. Thanks for the article.

R J Lillibridge

VP for Support Services at Enterprise Solutions & Retired Soldier

2y

Spot on Jon. It's exacerbating to watch the US and NATO leadership's cowardness against Putin, against the backdrop of worldwide moral outrage. This is the west's opportunity to take a stand and send a message to other countries' considering similar attacks and invasions in the future, and the west has done nothing to give those countries any pause.

Paul M Davis, MBA

President JANUSThink LLC

2y

Well said Jon, a better word at this point may be cowardice. I have tried to look back into history to find an equivalent, but could not. Even Neville Chamberlain had an out, the UK was in no shape to go to war in 1938, so he bought them a year. After the start of the war FDR had no problem finding ways to support the UK with equipment transfers. In the 1960's we rearmed Israel with aircraft using our carriers in the Med. This may not have been the Russians, but it was when we supplied the mujhideem in Afghanistan. We should have responed to Putin as the French did, " you have nukes, so do we." This is a tough bluff to call but I am sure his miliary understands MAD.

To view or add a comment, sign in

Insights from the community

Others also viewed

Explore topics