It's Debatable: Has President's military support of Ukraine endangered American security?

In this week's "It's Debatable" segment, Rick Rosen and Charles Moster debate whether U.S. involvement in Ukraine has made America safer. Rosen is the Glenn D. West Endowed Research Professor of Law at the Texas Tech University School of Law and a retired U.S. Army colonel. Charles Moster is the Founder of the Moster Law Firm with 8 offices in Texas, author of 12 books, and an award winning playwright and composer.

Moster 1

Tragically for America and the World, Biden’s military support of Ukraine has senselessly raised the risk of nuclear war by exponential proportions. I certainly abhor the belligerent and barbarous attack by Putin on Ukraine but cannot condone a reactive foreign policy which presents no viable opportunity of settlement between the parties.

Biden comprehends how close we are to nuclear Armageddon and has concluded that the risk of deliberate or accidental nuclear war is the highest since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 which brought the Soviet Union and us on the brink of nuclear war. Although Biden got his history correct, he either forgot the “behind the scenes” strategy employed by JFK or never learned it. JFK and his brother Bobby were firm with Khrushchev but exceedingly careful not to alienate him or disrupt the communications between the parties. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the famed “hotline” between the parties was in full swing – and thank the Lord for that.

Not so with Biden who has directly and personally attacked Putin, declared him a “war criminal” and barred him from the United States. The above characterizations are likely true but fatal to U.S. – Russian relations which are essential to resolving the Ukrainian crisis and reducing the risks of nuclear war. In the accusatory environment created by Biden there is and cannot be any communication with Putin which is disasterous to both countries.

The second and essential takeaway of the Cuban Missile Crisis is that JFK offered Khrushchev an “exit ramp” to get off the highway to hell – nuclear war. Behind the scenes, JFK offered Khrushchev a concession by removing missiles in Europe. That was enough to break the blockade and end the crisis. Khrushchev needed “cover” to placate his internal critics and declare a nebulous victory. JFK smartly offered him such opportunity.

Biden has offered no exit ramp to Putin. He must either admit defeat or escalate an attack which will lead to nuclear war and the death of hundreds of millions of innocent people on both sides. His statements continue to be cavalier and personal, which only exacerbates the crisis.

My concern is that unlike JFK, Biden has let the crisis progress to such a point that no back door exit ramp is possible at this juncture. At the early stages of the crisis that may have been possible, but no more.

Unless Biden rapidly changes course and gets appreciably “smarter” – we may be on the precipice of the “End of Days”. Tragically for all of us, Biden lacks both the intelligence and foresight to steer all of us through the eye of the nuclear needle.

Rosen 2

Charles’ comments are deeply frightening, but unfortunately accurate. Indeed, I believe the situation is even more dire than Charles’ cogent analysis suggests. Last year, President Biden said of Putin: “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.” And while, as it often does, the

Administration tried to “clean up” the President’s statement by asserting Biden was not calling for regime change, many people—especially Putin—understood the meaning of the President’s clearly stated remark. Moreover, the United States and its allies have pushed Russia into the arms of China and Iran, who combined pose the most serious existential threat this nation has ever encountered.

Nevertheless, I believe the nation must maintain the course in supporting Ukraine. Under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, Ukraine surrendered the nuclear weapons left in the country after the breakup of the Soviet Union (Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s father was then Ambassador to Hungary). Ukraine did so with security assurances from the United States and other nations. President Obama essentially ignored the assurances by refusing to send lethal aid to Ukraine in 2014 when Russia invaded the Crimea. To his credit, Biden honored the assurances when Russia invaded Ukraine last year.

The United States should not breach its security assurance to Ukraine. The disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan plainly undermined the nation’s credibility and reliability. A similar precipitous abandonment of Ukraine will likely shatter both. Not fearing any reaction from the United States, it will almost certainly lead to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan (if the Afghanistan debacle has not done so already). Moreover, Russia will see such a withdrawal as profound weakness, and it may be emboldened to “recover” other former Soviet-bloc states.

By their war of aggression against a sovereign nation and their indiscriminate and perhaps intentional attacks on Ukraine’s civilian population, Putin and members of his military have unquestionably committed grave breaches of the law of armed conflict. But I hope the Biden Administration can lower tensions with Russia by giving it a face-saving means of ending the war while still abiding by the security assurances we gave to Ukraine nearly 30 years ago. Otherwise, the United States may be sleep-walking into a world-wide conflagration, which the American people neither want nor for which the nation is prepared.

Moster 2

I must disagree with Rick’s assessment that “the nation must maintain the course in supporting Ukraine”. If so, I would ask him to append his statement by adding – “and also make available potassium iodide to all Americans without charge”. I am steadfast in my belief that continuation of the disasterous path reactively tread by Biden will likely lead to nuclear war.

Our current course has gone way beyond mere defensive support of Ukraine as initially proposed. Although well intentioned, our strategy has morphed into supplying Ukraine with lethal offensive weapons and intelligence which represents a direct and existential threat to Russia. Putin has made clear that the use of nuclear weapons will be unleashed if and when Russia deems that is very existence is at stake. This is a very real possibility particularly given the current assessment for making F-16 fighter training available to Ukrainian pilots in the U.S.

It appears that the only takeaway from Biden and Blinken’s strategy is to humiliate, antagonize, and criminally threaten Putin and his decision makers at every turn. While I share in Rick’s hope that Biden “can lower tensions with Russia by giving it a face-saving means of ending the war” –

constant antagonism coupled with the disintegration of one-on-one communications between the world leaders – has not advanced this goal. With every humiliating defeat, infusion of more dollars and lethal arms, and drones crossing the borders into Russia itself, this conflict is on the verge of instigating a World War and nuclear conflagration.

Yes – we must provide military support to Ukraine – but this effort must be carefully measured as was anticipated at inception. Instead – the proverbial horse is out of the barn – and it may be too late to forestall the ultimate disaster for humankind.

Biden is over his head along with his Secretary of State who has done nothing but exacerbate the situation. They need to study carefully what JFK and RFK achieved contrary to the disasterous counsel of their military advisers at the time. The concession to Khrushchev by removing missiles from Europe was not tantamount to the dreaded “appeasement” which precipitated WW-II as it stopped the Soviet Union in its tracks from military expansion into Cuba and defused the immediate threat of nuclear war. It was highly intelligent, calibrated, and delivered with elegant timing. Such was the polar opposite of the toxic bantering which spews from the Biden Administration. Every day is a replay of the Cuban Missile Crisis standoff which has become our “new normal”. And that is frightening.

I have written extensively on the effects of a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. The most conservative models demonstrate that our respective populations would be mostly wiped out in the time it takes to watch the Evening News. Anyone left would fall prey to radiation poisoning and a grisly death. In the now immortal words of Nikita Khrushchev – “The living will envy the dead”.

Think about that. Think about your children and grandchildren. This is not an esoteric topic.

Right now, the only unacceptable risk is maintaining Biden’s malignant strategy in Ukraine. I hope and pray that we will make it to the next election.

Rosen 2

The bottom line is this: The United States guaranteed Ukraine’s territorial integrity. President Biden is fulfilling this commitment by furnishing military aid to enable Ukraine to resist Russia’s war of aggression.

And what happens if Ukraine falls because we tailor support to appease Russia? Will Putin be satisfied with just Ukraine? He will perceive appeasement as weakness and, as he vowed, seek to restore Russia’s control over other former Soviet states. He already has eyes on the Balkans, which are NATO members. What happens when he uses military force to subdue Lithuania, Estonia, or Latvia? Under Article 5 of the NATO Charter, such an attack is the same as an attack on the United States. And unless we abandon our NATO allies because we fear a Russian nuclear response, we will face a full-scale war directly involving the nation’s armed forces. Ukraine is the 21st Century’s Sudetenland. Appeasement in Ukraine will lead to a much wider war.

I agree with one issue in Charles’ response: the Biden Administration’s foreign policy is inept. The same is true with respect to national defense. Only a robust U.S. military can deter future Russian imperialism, which is, unfortunately, not what we have. As Bret Stephens notes in a recent New York Times editorial, “U.S. military spending as a share of gross domestic product — around 3.5 percent, as compared with over 6.3 percent 40 years ago — is near historical lows, even as we face simultaneous and growing military threats from Russia and China.” For example, while China rapidly builds a navy to prepare for war in the Pacific, our Secretary of the Navy shrinks the size of our fleet, perceiving fighting climate change as the Navy’s top priority. I don’t doubt the seriousness of climate change, but fighting climate change is not the Navy’s mission; it is to deploy naval forces “capable of winning wars, deterring aggression, and maintaining freedom of the seas.”

Like it or not, we are in a new Cold War. Unless the parties come together to strengthen our country’s defense capabilities, we may lose a major armed conflict. As Mr. Stephens concludes: “Too much of the world has become hostile to liberal values in the last few years, and no regimes have done more to promote the new illiberalism than Moscow and Beijing. They will not be shamed into better behavior by moralistic rebukes, much less thwarted from their ambitions by diplomatic condemnation. A liberalism that knows that it is both valuable and fragile should be willing to pay a premium for its own defense, and that of its most vulnerable friends.”

This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: It's Debatable: Has military support of Ukraine endangered America?