US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin conjured up a hazard from Russia in Pitching , Congress, with his request for more assistance for Ukraine.
Austin stated that it is “very good” that US troops on the ground in Europe will be fighting Russia if Congress does no correct$ 61 billion in support for Ukraine.
After only 20 minutes, Republican senators left the presentation for a variety of reasons, most notably an argument over whether to link the support to US border security.
Austin believed that Russia would start problems in Europe after finishing with Ukraine. However, there is no concrete proof that Russia poses a threat to anyone in Europe.
That’s not to suggest, however, that many Russians believe their generals ought to pose a threat to Europe. After all, Europe is giving Ukraine a ton of military support, knowledge, and technical assistance in the conflict with Russia, as well as training Russian troops and assisting with the creation of its war strategy. Western weapon stocks intended for NATO security have been delivered to Kiev.  , Most of them wo n’t be replaced for, if ever, decades.
NATO is the actual property magnet in Russia’s eyes.  : After all, NATO grew in the Balkans and Eastern Europe despite Russia’s openly broken promises and instructions to Russia. ( The Russians were frequently assured that NATO would not grow, beginning with a promise from former President Bill Clinton. )
Growth has entails providing the new NATO users with high-quality western weapons, establishing NATO bases on their territories, and instantly posing a threat to Russia.
At the end of World War II, Russia conquered the majority of Eastern Europe in order to establish a security cushion. Of course, that was n’t the only reason; the Russians were also eager to acquire resources in these nations. Andnbsp, One remembers that the Nazis and their friends caused significant destruction and emigration in Russia.
None of this implies that Russia would not want to regain what it lost as a result of NATO’s growth following the fall of the Soviet Union. It is also true that Russia’s” Special Defense Operation” could be seen as a land seize in Ukraine.
However, there are few indications that Russia has any plans to expand into Eastern Europe or the Baltic States, and there is essentially no information to back up the Austin conquest theory.  , You can bet that the Biden administration may inform Congress if there were any specific knowledge, especially since it has its hands out to raise more money for the war.
The opposing theory is supported by three factors, including the fact that Russia has no plans to leave the Ukraine issue zone.
The cognitive factor is the first.  , Russia could have used this vulnerability to move its forces against NATO targets, such as NATO operations in Poland or the Balkans, but it has n’t done so. NATO’s war stocks are at an all-time low.
An extremely sensitive Russian security concern, the Russians have displayed unheard-of caution, also tolerating hostile intelligence planes and NATO naval activities in the Black Sea. Additionally, the Black Sea is not only the entrance to Ukraine but even a means of confronting Russia.
Even when Ukraine used drones to attack a Russian airport where atomic bombers are stationed, Russia showed restraint. Two of these planes were either destroyed or damaged by the nbsp.  , NATO, mainly the US, and the Russians undoubtedly understood that such an attack required intelligence support.  , However, the Russians accepted the harm to some extent and did nothing to intensify the issue.
Given that Ukrainian drones lacked the range to approach the Soltsy- 2 airbase, there is some evidence that the Ukrainians launched the attack from Estonia.
Different instances of Russian restraint include the  , the US-aided sinking of Russia’s flagship Moskva and / or multiple attempts to destroy the Kerch Strait bridge, which connects Russia to Crimea, and numerous attacks on Moscow, including an attempt to assassinate Putin in what Russia claims was a Kremlin office.
The second reason Russia is hesitant to escalate the conflict is because doing so would be very expensive. Russia has already discovered how cheap the Ukraine conflict is, despite the fact that it has finally won the war after nearly two years of fighting. A RAND study found that even though NATO ground troops would face significant challenges, a war in Europe would only make Russia’s sorrow worse, adding US and Western fighter aircraft and aircraft to the mix.
The cost of labor and combat deaths for Russia is the greatest.  , It is challenging to determine actual casualties because both Ukrainians and Russians either do n’t tell the truth or remain silent.
However, the fact that Russia needs to increase its military recruitment and has even filled prisoner deficiencies indicates that the war has claimed a lot of lives. It also implies that if the number of dead and injured rises to large, the battle’s recognition in Russia may be in jeopardy.
Given the impact on labor, it is difficult to imagine that Russia may start a larger war. Andnbsp, The Soviet individuals, who know how to resist a issue when it starts to lick them at home, would not continue to support the war. Russia was coerced into leaving Afghanistan by  , that’s what, starting the removal in May 1988 and finishing it in February 1989. Andnbsp, ( That was n’t enough to stop a coup attempt or save Gorbachev, and it resulted in the collapse of the USSR.
The expected wild card of American sanctions on Russia is the second argument against Russia escalating the conflict.
In essence, NATO and many other nations allied with the United States or the European Union imposed severe sanctions on Russia in response to Putin’s” Unique Military Operation” in Ukraine.  , This forced Russia to reevaluate its coming and drove it into China’s hands. Above all else, it meant that Russia’s tools, trade, and economic system would be moved away from the west and Europe.
This is a significant new development that alters Russia’s corporate course.  , It blatantly refutes the claim that Russia stands to gain from any harm on Europe. The Russians are actually becoming less and less engaged in either Europe or the United States.  , It is safe to say that the extra-legal American sanctions were a significant tactical mistake for the EU, NATO, and its allies and friends. In addition,  ,
It is likely to late to repair the harm done to any potential relations, even if a peace agreement is reached with Ukraine and Europe and the US lifts sanctions against Russia. Russia will likely only enter into business agreements on its own terms, but it wo n’t reject trade with the West. Andnbsp, Russia is unlikely to permit eastern businesses to conduct business there once more as it collaborates more closely with China on technology and weaponry growth. In other words, the Russians accepted the ultimate order after the western filed for divorce.
The Austin explanation is false and misleading for the aforementioned reasons.  ,
Some claimed that the Biden president’s arguments were sour and unsatisfactory when the Republicans left the key lecture that had been set up for the Senate in an effort to sell them on supporting more funding for Ukraine. The Biden attempt to intimidate the Senate was a complete failure. In addition,  ,
What will the Trump group think of future?
Stephen Bryen, who oversaw the Near East Subcommittee of the
As a assistant secretary of security, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and nbsp
is now a senior colleague at Yorktown Institute and the , Center for Security Policy.
This article on his Weapons and Security Substack was formerly publishedin . It is republished with your type consent.