Russia has consistently sought to test how far they can go without encountering a unified response.
As of late, I am seeing a growing number of people – including people who would define themselves as ‘pro-freedom’ pushing a narrative that is largely based on Russian talking points.
Given that I have always committed to speaking the truth as I see it, and speaking independently, I feel compelled to push back against this.
One of the narratives being spread is that democratic nations are making World War III more likely by providing support to Ukraine.
However, I would argue that supporting Ukraine now makes a wider war much less likely.
Here’s why:
To start with, many people forget that Russia – and the Soviet Union before them – have been invading their neighbours for quite some time.
Most recently, Russia invaded the nation of Georgia in 2008, and Ukraine in 2014 and 2022.
Russia has been testing the limits of what they could get away with, and a war-weary Western world generally had little to say or do in response.
The response in 2008 was muted, and while sanctions were levied against Russia in 2014, the basic relationship between Russia and many energy-poor European nations remained.
Russia also benefitted from the tension between the desire to dissuade their invasions, and the radical ‘green’ agenda that further depleted energy production in many Western nations, making them more dependent on Russia.
Combined with the rise of ‘woke’ worldview in the West that blamed all problems in the world on democratic capitalist nations (a barely-disguised echo of Soviet rhetoric), and Russia clearly felt they could get away with another invasion.
Thankfully, Ukrainian’s fought bravely and effectively, and the Western world found its nerve in time to stop Russia from rapidly conquering Ukraine.
But let’s take a moment to consider what would have happened if the Western world didn’t help Ukraine, and if Ukraine fell after a few months of fighting.
Russia’s population would expand by about 30-35 million people (many Ukrainians would have fled rather than live under Putin’s rule).
Russia’s industrial base and military industrial complex would be significantly enlarged.
Russia would have access to more resources, including coal, titanium, uranium, lithium, iron ore, and oil & gas.
Russia’s pool of recruitable military personnel would be much larger, and while Ukrainians forced into the Russian military would be deeply unmotivated – and many would rebel – Russia has shown a willingness to throw poorly motivated convicts into the current war, and wouldn’t hesitate to make use of a larger pool of ‘cannon fodder.’
Russia would thus be more powerful relative to NATO countries in Europe, and would be emboldened.
And that sense of power would make World War III much more likely.
Having tested the limits and won over and over again, Russia would be tempted to break apart NATO, likely by pressuring some of NATO’s most vulnerable members.
The three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania were all formerly controlled by the Soviet Union, and have small populations/small militaries.
If Russia were to invade and annex Estonia in a rapid campaign, they would then proceed to threaten nuclear war in the event of a NATO military response.
Russia would spread propaganda – targeting the US in particular – saying things like “why should you die to protect little Estonia of just 1.3 million people?”
Many would buy into this argument, feeling the cost wouldn’t be worth it.
But of course, all NATO countries would be obligated to respond, and since that response would have to include pushing Russia out of Estonia, a direct military clash between NATO forces and Russian forces would take place.
In that scenario, a massive desperate increase in military spending in NATO countries would take place, accompanied by massive tax hikes, a severe economic downturn, and likely a military draft. We would be spending far more, and would be far more directly involved.
That would be World War III, or at the very least an incredibly dangerous moment for humanity.
And yet, none of this has happened.
And it hasn’t happened because Ukraine is fighting bravely, and because many democratic nations are helping Ukraine.
Notably, Ukraine isn’t asking for NATO boots on the ground. Not one currently-serving Canadian or American or other NATO country soldier has fought in Ukraine (some volunteers who chose to go there have perished).
Russia is demonstrably weaker militarily than they were a year ago, and the image of Russia as one of the three top military powers alongside the United States and China has been severely eroded.
Furthermore, Russia has lost many men of military-age who fled the country, or who have been killed in battle.
NATO is more unified and is set to expand further, with both Finland and Sweden seeking to join the alliance – though differences between Turkey & Sweden likely means Finland will join first.
Many NATO countries are also finally starting to ramp up military production after years of stunningly naïve underspending. Even Canada made a move to buy F-35s, though we won’t get them for quite some time.
The key point is that – in basic utilitarian terms – the balance of power has shifted in NATO’s favour.
Russia is unable to conquer Ukraine, and thus also unable to launch a wider war against any NATO countries.
Russia is much weaker than they would have been if they had defeated Ukraine last year, and not one NATO soldier has been lost.
Of course, Ukraine has paid a horrendous price for this, but they have done so entirely of their own accord. The kind of nation-wide resistance and ingenuity in fighting against Russia’s invasion that has been shown by Ukraine over the past year is a testament to the desire for freedom, and the lengths human beings will go to defend it.
Russia’s nuclear threats?
It’s not surprising that Russia has made nuclear threats, as those threats are designed to elicit the exact response they often get: People get understandably scared, want the fear to go away, and want to give Russia what it wants to make the fear go away.
What is notable however is that Russia’s nuclear threats are being made precisely because their conventional military has been weakened.
Nuclear weapons are the one area in which Russia still has true parity with the United States, and threatening the use of those weapons is a way for Russia to try and drive down support for helping Ukraine in the West, and show that they are still a ‘big player.’
For example, in Putin’s speech yesterday he said Russia would ‘suspend’ their participation in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, and said Russia would resume the testing of nuclear weapons, but only if the United States resumed testing first.
As of late, Putin has actually toned-down the nuclear rhetoric, a shift which occurred after China stated their opposition to the use of nuclear weapons.
All of this is to say that while there is always a risk of a nuclear war – that risk will exist as long as humans posses nuclear weapons – there is no reason to believe that helping Ukraine defend it’s own territory makes WWIII inevitable.
Russia now finds itself bogged down in Ukraine, having failed to take the country rapidly, having lost much of the territory they did take, having suffered immense casualties, and having turned the Ukrainian People against Russia perhaps for all time.
Russia is now far less capable of launching a large-scale attack on any NATO country.
Russia has finally found the limit of what the Western world will accept, and this has made long-term peace more likely.
That’s why, if we want to save money in the long-run, and reduce the risk of a wider war, we should continue to provide support to Ukraine.
Spencer Fernando
Photo – YouTube
