Everything for war: resources, sanctions and historical references (original)

“When the United States was attacked on this day in 2001, our NATO allies stood by us, even invoking Article 5 to declare war on al-Qaeda and the Taliban. At least today we should speak with one voice with our NATO ally, Poland. More sanctions should be applied to Russia and more weapons to Ukraine,” wrote Michael McFaul, a Stanford professor and US ambassador to Russia during the Obama era, on social media. The objective of his subtle message is clear: to use the coincidence between the incursion of 19 Russian drones into Polish airspace and the anniversary of the attacks in New York and Washington to achieve his political goals. Like a true lobbyist—McFaul is one half of the Yermak-McFaul Group, a pressure group seeking to impose coercive measures against Russia—the former diplomat seizes on an example that sparked international solidarity with the United States and the 2,997 deaths of September 11, 2001, and presents NATO’s unity and action in the aftermath of those attacks as positive. When the argument is for direct NATO participation in the war, any argument is good, even what George W. Bush called the “war on terror.”

“The total death toll from the violence wrought by the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, let alone the broader global war on terror, remains elusive,” The Washington Post wrote in 2023, adding that it “has long since been surpassed by an even larger and more opaque figure: the indirect count of people who have died as a result of the far-reaching aftereffects of post-9/11 conflicts, including waves of violence, hunger, the devastation of public services and the spread of disease.” That article referenced a study by Brown University, whose “Cost of War” project indicated that “more than 940,000 people are estimated to have died as a direct result of post-9/11 war violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan between 2001 and 2023. Of these, more than 432,000 were civilians. The number of people injured or sickened as a result of conflict is far higher, as is the number of civilians who died ‘indirectly’ as a result of the destruction of economies, health systems, infrastructure, and the environment caused by war. An estimated 3.6 to 3.8 million people have died indirectly in post-9/11 war zones, bringing the total death toll to at least 4.5 to 4.7 million, and the number is rising.” According to these data, the number of civilians killed in NATO’s unity wars after September 11 would be 145 times higher than the number of people killed in those attacks, a ratio even higher than that of those killed in the Israeli massacre against Gaza after October 7 (53:1), which is being investigated as genocide.

The path forged by Michael McFaul, which does not deviate from that of the most belligerent hawks and is based on NATO’s greater involvement in a war they insist must be considered existential, has two distinct aspects: weapons and sanctions. In Europe, Ukraine’s continental allies continue their work to increase arms supplies, domestic production, and, above all, those future security guarantees that must include their presence on the ground, officially as a deterrent, but also as a way to claim the territory as their own, part of the EU and NATO sphere of influence. “Together with advisors from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy, we are implementing the Coalition of the Willing agreements reached in Paris. This is a show of solidarity with Ukraine, especially now that Russia is blocking any real negotiations and showing no desire for peace,” Andriy Yermak wrote yesterday, forgetting that Russia cannot block negotiations that don’t exist and preferring not to admit that any Coalition of the Willing agreement depends on the country that invented it precisely for the war on terror, the United States.

“Russia will not stop alone. It is waging war against the entire free world. It can only be stopped with collective strength and solid guarantees. Only together can we achieve a just and lasting peace,” Yermak added, emphasizing the same idea used by his partner McFaul: unity. Like peace, a term used to mean victory, unity is also a euphemism for the participation of the United States, the indispensable country without which plans to bring Russia to a future negotiating table to accept the terms negotiated by Ukraine and its allies are impossible.

However, the terms currently being discussed go beyond the outcome of the war in Ukraine, as the European security architecture after a future ceasefire will depend on it. And while Russia demands a halt to NATO’s expansion, the Alliance responds to what it presents as aggression against one of its members. On Friday, with few details, Mark Rutte and Alexus Grynkewich, Supreme Allied Commander Europe, announced their Eastern Sentinel, a catchy name for what is, in reality, the continuation of the steady militarization of Eastern Europe since it was decided that the European security architecture should be built not only against what the war on terror called the “axis of evil,” but also against Russia. In NATO’s words, Eastern Sentinel is not a mission or an operation but “a military activity aimed at strengthening NATO’s posture on the eastern flank.” Despite the aggressive rhetoric this week, the Alliance has not invoked Article V of collective security in the event of an attack, as it is aware that one has not even occurred and that it is in the interest of all parties that the situation not escalate into the danger of a direct clash with Russia. For the moment, Eastern Sentinel is limited to the announcements of the dispatch to Poland of two Danish F-16s, three French Rafales, and four German Eurofighters, in addition to Rutte’s promise that “this effort will also include elements designed to address the particular challenges associated with the use of drones.” This is a further mobilization of resources to a country that has not been attacked and seeks to exaggerate the danger of a Russian attack as an argument to increase assistance to Ukraine and convince Donald Trump that Russia is in no way seeking peace but rather to expand the war.

“It gives the impression that residents of London or Madrid are safer than those of Tallinn. That is not true. Russia’s newest missiles travel at speeds five times the speed of sound and arrive in London or Madrid only five or ten minutes later than in Tallinn or Vilnius,” Mark Rutte stated at the press conference. He criticized the idea of describing NATO’s external border as the “eastern flank,” not because it is an openly bellicose term even though war has not been declared on Russia, but because it is not bellicose enough. “Russian missiles will reach London as quickly as they will reach Tallinn,” the NATO Secretary General declared, using a formulation that assumes a future Russian war of aggression against NATO countries, which grants Moscow intentions it has never shown and capabilities it does not possess.

Along the same lines, and more explicit than usual, Mykhailo Podolyak, intending to present the recipe that Ukraine hopes to implement, wrote that “Russia has shown that it will attack Europe until it receives a strong response. What is a strong response? The use of frozen Russian assets to finance the Ukrainian Armed Forces: approximately $380 billion, of which about $300 billion is held by Euroclear. This must be done regardless of Belgium’s position on reputational risks. Financing of military production, a significant expansion of European purchases of anti-missile systems and missiles. A substantial increase in attacks on sensitive Russian infrastructure using Ukrainian and partner systems. Sanctions without exceptions, closing all schemes and circumvention routes.” In short, the advisor to the President’s Office presents a scenario of total war with broad and direct attacks on Russia and massive financing of the war in Ukraine, a recipe that makes any agreement unviable and would condemn the conflict to an extremely dangerous escalation until only one remains.

Like all the approaches currently being pursued, the Podolyak solution requires active US involvement in arms supplies, permission for their use against Russian territory, and the imposition of sanctions. This is also the demand of the mainstream US media, which refuses to give up on continuing the common war against Russia in Ukraine. “Whether he knows it or not, Trump is playing with fire. Poland is a NATO ally and, as such, enjoys the treaty’s guarantees. Guarantees are nothing more than pieces of paper until they are tested. Regardless of whether the drones were deliberately sent into Polish airspace, they have become a test of the allies’ resolve. And Trump’s cautious rhetoric risks suspending that test,” stated The Washington Post ‘s Friday editorial, which insists that “NATO has stepped up” and demands that Donald Trump do the same. “The American president could be equally frank. ‘The ability to go to the limit without going to war is a necessary art,’ John Foster Dulles famously said. ‘If not mastered, one inevitably goes to war,’” concludes the outlet, which, like Michael McFaul, refers to another historical figure, in this case known for his fervent anti-communism and known, among other things, for his operations to overthrow Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 and Iranian Prime Minister Mohamed Mossadegh in 1953—neither communists, but overthrown for being so.

With historical examples of actions that caused millions of victims and seeking an even tougher war, the hardest sectors are appealing directly to Donald Trump, who yesterday confirmed on his personal social media account what media outlets such as Politico and the Financial Times had said: that he is willing to “impact massive sanctions against Russia when all NATO nations have agreed and begun to do the same and when all NATO nations STOP BUYING OIL FROM RUSSIA.” As previously reported, Trump is also demanding the imposition of tariffs of 50% or 100% against China, a step that the European Union cannot afford, but which the US president presents as an essential prerequisite. As has happened in the past with the miracle weapons that Ukraine believed would be decisive in winning the war, or the sanctions of February 2022, which the European Union believed would destroy the Russian economy and make it impossible for the Kremlin to continue the war, Donald Trump is signing up to his own pipe dream. In this case, it’s about tariffs against China, a country it attributes “strong control and even dominance over Russia,” the measure it considers will be decisive in ending this “bloody but RIDICULOUS WAR.” With no idea how to start a diplomatic process that the United States has failed to manage, the White House insists that this is not its war but that of “Biden and Zelensky,” blaming its predecessor and Ukraine for starting the war and Russia for prolonging it, and eliminating incentives from its strategy, focusing solely on threats, which are directed not only at Moscow but also at Brussels.