As Nuclear War Looms: Does Russia Have a Right to its Own Monroe Doctrine?

With news that Israeli intelligence has detected an “irregular presence” of nuclear-capable Russian bombers near Finland and retired general David Petraeus casually saying NATO would likely sink Vladimir Putin’s Black Sea fleet if Russia used a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, it’s perhaps time for a few questions:

First, can we discuss a situation that could very well result in thermonuclear war — and the end of life as we know it — intelligently and rationally? Or must all questions about our Dr. Strangelove policy be met with childish name-calling (e.g., “stooge of Putin!”) designed to silence debate?

Second, is it a good idea to essentially tell a man who controls 6,200 nuclear weapons, and who our pseudo-elites may label “crazy,” you want to kill him? This is what Joe Biden’s and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s call for Russian “regime change” really amounts to, mind you.

It’s important realizing that this conflict means infinitely more to Putin than it does to us. Our pseudo-elites are playing some kind of geopolitical game (with our lives and our children’s) as is their wont.

To Putin this is an existential crisis.

Our globalist chicken hawks have ensured that.

Putin currently has no graceful exit from this situation. It’s apparently all or nothing, victory or death. Do you really think the wounded Bear will collapse into the waiting arms of those who’d devour him and not lash out, no-holds-barred, driven by self-preservation? Do we know what the phrase “Nothing to lose” means?

It’s time now for some realpolitik (there is a moral component here, too; more on that momentarily). In the early 19th century, we formulated the Monroe Doctrine, which stated that foreign intervention in the Americas could be considered a hostile act against the United States. Now, question:

Does Russia have a right to its own Monroe Doctrine? Or, a better question may be, can we realistically prevent it from effecting such?

Some may now say that Putin had no right to invade Ukraine. Fair enough. But we invaded Mexico in 1846 and overthrew Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz in a CIA-backed coup in 1954, to mention just two of our Latin American interventions. Whether we had a “right” to do so, or were right in doing so, is not the point here. We could enforce our will in our sphere of influence because we had the power. Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, for example and in contrast, could not — i.e., when annexing Kuwait — because it didn’t have the power. Yet Russia is no Iraq.

So, is this all about “Might makes right”? Not exactly. One element of what’s known as Just War Doctrine is that for a proposed military action to be moral, it must do more good than harm. Is this the case with our playing of chicken with Putin? The best-case scenario is that we help an internationalist pseudo-elite, Zelenskyy, retain power and preserve the borders of what even the left-wing Guardian called in 2015 “the most corrupt nation in Europe.”

The worst-case scenario is global thermonuclear war.

Do we really need the Fugaku supercomputer to do the cost-benefit analysis here?

Some may now wonder, “Why do we have to back down?” The answer is simple: Russia’s “Monroe Doctrine.”

Consider: President John F. Kennedy took a firm stand during the Cuban Missile Crisis, establishing a naval blockade of Cuba after the USSR deployed missile bases on the island. JFK took this hard line because it was our backyard, and you can’t back down at your own doorstep without losing an unacceptable amount of credibility on the world stage.

And so it is with Russia, with Ukraine being its Cuba. Like it or not, you can’t stomp around in another great power’s backyard like a t-Rex in Jurassic Park. That a Moscow defeat in this war means it would lose too much face globally is, along with Putin’s existential concerns, another reason why Russia won’t back down in Ukraine.

Yet if this analogy is valid, what was the equivalent here of the USSR having put missiles in Cuba? Answer: The prospect of Ukraine joining NATO.

Putin said, repeatedly, that this was a red line for him. A little history is in order here, too.

NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union; thus, that evil empire’s early-’90s collapse made it rational for NATO to, in a sense, stand down. This is especially true since after the Berlin Wall’s fall, Russia pulled its army back to within its borders and arguably began behaving in a more pro-American fashion. Why, there was perhaps an even opportunity to forge friendly ties with Moscow, which, being characteristically European and Christian as we were, could’ve been a culturally congruent ally against China.

Instead, the pseudo-elite globalists expanded NATO to Russia’s very borders, the equivalent of Moscow or China forging a military alliance with Mexico, Cuba, Canada and the Bahamas. In fact, despite then-U.S. secretary of state James Baker assuring Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would extend “not one inch [farther] eastward,” there are now on Russia’s borders four NATO members: Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

Again, what’s the cost-benefit-analysis verdict here? It’s clear how this military pact — and our Founders warned us about entangling alliances and involvement in European wars — benefits Estonia. But if there’s a Red Dawn and Russia or China lands troops on our soil tomorrow, will we say, “You know, normally I’d be beside myself. But let not your heart be troubled: Estonia’s got our back!”?

The insanity continues now, too. Finland and Sweden are poised to join NATO, and Ukraine is applying for expedited alliance membership. Of course, the latter could mean triggering WWIII with Russia, immediately. Is this rational?

Some do, of course, liken Putin to Hitler and warn that if we don’t take a stand now, it’s Ukraine today, the world tomorrow! This is more unserious, reckless talk at a perilous moment. Our planet is replete with evil leaders (it’s basically the norm), but not all are Hitler. Hitler was 44 when assuming power in 1933, and within six years had begun his war of conquest. Putin is 69, has been at the pinnacle of Russian power for more than two decades, has never exhibited world-conquest ambitions and perhaps is in his twilight years. But if the Hitler analogy must be entertained, alright, let’s follow it out.

Imagine it’s April 1945, and Hitler is in his bunker seeing his empire crumbling around him. But instead of being entirely impotent, he has at his disposal 6,200 nuclear weapons. What do you think he’ll do?

There could be a reason to risk atomic annihilation — that Red Dawn scenario comes to mind. But does it make sense to possibly turn Putin into a man who just may want to see the world burn? All, too, over a corrupt nation in Russia’s backyard, whose battles are not our own?

And what’s with the regime-change obsession, anyway? China annexed Tibet and perpetrates cultural and demographic genocide there, and the Soviets rolled tanks into Czechoslovakia in 1968. But we don’t arm the Tibetans and didn’t do so with the Czechs, and in neither case is/was regime change a goal. We did invade Panama in 1989 and remove strongman Manuel Noriega from power, but he couldn’t incinerate the planet. Taking this position with one of the world’s three nuclear superpowers is unprecedented — and seems far crazier than Putin could ever be.

Our “betters” — the same people who messed up Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya and who managed COVID with not even that level of competence — may say, as Lindsey Graham has, that a Putin underling would shoot him before allowing him to launch nukes. Well, that’s a lot to bet our lives on.

But, hey, our pseudo-elites may have well-equipped fallout shelters to retreat to. And you?

    Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWe, Gettr or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA

7 thoughts on “As Nuclear War Looms: Does Russia Have a Right to its Own Monroe Doctrine?”

  1. We own no “graceful exit” to a man who very ungracefully invaded Ukraine in February and stole land in 2014. Not to mention the long history of Russian social and political meddling in Ukrainian affairs.

    Do you owe a ‘graceful exit’ to a burglar in your home just because they may say that have a bigger gun out in their car that they will go get if don’t stop beating on them?

    Is it “chicken hawk” to believe in the eternal principles of Freedom and self determination of Peoples as did Ronald Reagan?

    Reply
  2. Well written. Well reasoned. Despots use foreign intervention to mask domestic failure. Some could say that about Putin. Many more could say that about Brandon.

    Reply
  3. Imagine, if you will, that neo-Nazi like, self-interested and evil armed battalions are operating across the border from San Diego or Yuma, operating in a corrupt country where anything and everything is for sale. Imagine that country is as corrupt as Ukraine. Maybe they operate, not as outward military units, but as organized crime units – cartels, if you will…. Imagine that those cartels begin to threaten US citizens living on the border. Maybe they even kill a few US citizens in the conduct of their internecine wars. Imagine further that your distant enemies are sending military arms to those cartels to support their efforts.

    What would you do, as President, to protect your territory and citizens? What steps would you take to protect the integrity of your native land?

    The ‘Russian’ Monroe Doctrine referred to in the above article just might be the sanest interpretation of this situation I have read. That being said, Putin has certainly screwed the pooch in his conduct of the conflict; the US and NATO have exacerbated the situation with arms support of a corrupt regime. Not exactly a winning formula for peace in our time. Vald appears to be as evil as his Ukranian counterparts. Zelensky appears to be an opportunist who is mostly a self-promoter; a virtue signaling pseudo-patriot of Ukraine.

    I pray Vald doesn’t default to the use of tac nukes. I pray Joey Robinette gets permanently distracted by the closing of ice cream stores in Rehoboth Beach and that cooler, saner heads negotiate peace between Ukraine and Russia.

    Reply
    • you are all simply blinded by your hate of Biden and cannot see the Evil of Putin- over 20 years in the making, for what it is

      Did you believe Pres Reagan’s ideas of Free Peoples and their Right to self determination and that America, as the Arsenal of Freedom, should support their goals?

      That policy killed a lot of Russians and we never got scared about Nukes (any more than the threat was already) nor did we sing praises for some “Soviet Monroe Doctrine” either

      Reply
  4. I do not hate Biden one bit, but he needs to be removed and set aside, for he is a war monger. Starting war is a crime and it does not solve problems. Countries attacking others are criminal acts. Putin failed by attacking Ukraine. The USA attacking Iraq and Afghanistan we crimes too. Obama used terror weapons in his 8 year reign, and for what ?

    What was solved in the past 21 years ? Certainly not much of value here in the USA as those tools of oppression continue to be amplified towards our fellow Citizens. Maybe some planned attacks were thwarted, but we do not know since it’s all classified. What we have now is a Biden Regime bent on destroying our country in more ways than we know about.

    Ukraine is a side show and shows the fall of Russia at the expense of peace. A peace which should have been taken up 30 years ago. But this is hindsight. The American Global Empire, of Washington DC Hacks, continues to destabilize the World for reasons only they know about, and it is to the secrecy that they can go to hell for. Hindsight gives foresight which reason indicates that what the GAE is doing is wrong and immoral.

    Reply
  5. And, this is ALL well and good, as a person who firmly believe we should be diplomatically, economically and military engaged a LOT LESS with the world, I concur (ask Col Ford, he will tell you how ‘radical’ I am)

    However….

    its about 30 years to late

    In the early 90’s the US was abuzz with the concern over terror threats like “suitcase nukes” being made from material coming out of the Former Soviet Republics that had inherited nuclear weapons from the USSR, like Ukraine

    so concerned, Pres Clinton and Congressional Leadership, along with French and UK (not NATO) diplomats convinced Ukraine to give up its nukes as well as all of its delivery capability; such as cruise missiles and strategic bombers and I believe a submarine or two (all of the bombers and cruise missiles have been used against Ukraine since February BTW)

    In return, the US, UK and France GUARANTEED the security of Ukraine. With the intent of modernizing its ability to police domestically and secure its borders; crime, corruption, national defense.

    This is known as the Budapest Accord/Memorandum. And while it is not a US Law or Treaty, it was in effect rolled into the Nunn- Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction ACT of 1991 which is US Law.

    None of the three guarantors has ever done much by way of honoring our side of that deal; we even conned Ukraine (and Georgia as well, but another story) into sending its Army to serve in NATO missions in Kosovo and Afghanistan. At one time, the Ukrainian contingent in Iraq, was second in size only to the US force there. We told them that the experience would help better their troop’s readiness and training; speeding them on the path to NATO accession!

    An obvious lie of course!

    Now consider if the three signers- the US, UK and France, HAD honored the commitments made in 1993- as Ukraine honored hers- and begun a training program of Ukr’s police and defense forces? Ukr may well of had a NON NATO, self sustaining and self capable means of defending itself 20 years ago!

    Putin would never had considered taking Crimea in 2014 or invading full on last February.

    But, instead, now we are paying up in full, and in HASTE ,and its really damned expensive and looks really damned escalatory DOESN’T IT?

    These things do NOT happen absent events of history- LEARN your history.

    https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/12/04/the-budapest-memorandum-and-u-s-obligations/

    Reply

Leave a Comment