The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has drawn inevitable comparisons to the Cold War era, particularly in how NATO and the United States are managing the complicated relationship with Russia, a nuclear-armed adversary. While the Cold War was characterized by the careful avoidance of direct military conflict between the US and the Soviet Union, today’s situation is characterized by a more complex geopolitical edge game or brinkmanship that tends to extremes.
The US, while providing substantial support to Ukraine, appears to be maintaining a strategic distance from formal direct conflict with Russia, potentially placing the burden of such a confrontation on European NATO countries. This approach raises critical questions about the future of NATO, the risk of nuclear escalation, and the future evolution of the broader geopolitical struggle.
Brinkmanship and Proxy Warfare: Cold War Parallels
During the Cold War, the US and the Soviet Union engaged in a delicate edge dance, a strategy where both sides pushed dangerous situations to the brink of conflict without going to open war but staying on the edge of ideological confrontation. This strategy was supported by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which ensured that neither side would risk a direct confrontation that could lead to mutual nuclear annihilation.
Proxy wars were a key component of this strategy. The superpowers have supported opposing sides in conflicts around the world, from Korea and Vietnam to Afghanistan and South America. These wars allowed the US and the Soviet Union to exert influence without engaging in direct combat, thus avoiding the devastating consequences of a nuclear war.
Today, the conflict in Ukraine is often seen as a modern proxy war, with NATO and especially the US providing intelligence, military and financial support to Ukraine in order to attack Donbas (especially since 2004 with the Orange Revolution) and generally weaken Russia as much as possible with the current military confrontation.
However, this current conflict is taking place very close to European soil, raising the stakes significantly compared to the more geographically distant proxy battles of the Cold War.
The US Strategy: Remote engagement and European assistance
The US has been a key supporter of agent of influence Zelensky and his regime, providing billions of dollars in military aid, intelligence and diplomatic support. The ultimate goal that began to materialize from 2004, with Victoria Nuland’s cookie distribution in Kiev in 2013 as a shining moment, was support for Ukraine’s regime change to something purely anti-Russian.
However, the US has been careful to avoid direct military engagement with Russia, mindful of the risk of escalating into a wider conflict that could potentially involve nuclear weapons. This cautious approach reflects a strategy of long-range engagement, where the U.S. strongly supports Ukraine but avoids actions that could directly involve U.S. forces and more importantly the U.S. mainland in the battle against Russia due to the current range of nuclear missiles.
This strategy could be seen as an application of the old axiom: “I do not fight my enemy directly, I make someone else fight my enemy.” By providing support to Ukraine and rallying European NATO members, the US is ensuring that the frontline confrontation with Russia is primarily a European responsibility. This approach allows the US to exert influence and pursue its strategic goals without engaging in a direct military conflict with Russia, which could have disastrous consequences especially for the US homeland. Simply put, America will not risk a nuclear strike on any of its cities for Ukraine or any Ukraine.
However, this strategy also raises concerns among European allies. If the US continues to maintain this distance, particularly in the face of escalation in Kursk, Europe could bear the brunt of this proxy conflict with the US gradually disengaged.
European countries, especially those close to Russia, such as Poland and the Baltic states, should be concerned and question without prejudice the real limits of US support.
The Economic Impact on Europe: Strategic Weakening?
Aid to Ukraine, although primarily aimed at countering the Russian special military operation, has had significant economic implications for Europe, which may directly, through prior strategic planning, rather than indirectly serve US strategic interests.
As Russia has shifted toward a war economy, it has shown admirable economic resilience, with growth driven by closer ties with China, North Korea and various countries in Africa and South America. These relations have allowed Russia to offset the impact of Western sanctions, not only economically but also militarily, as evidenced by its increased military presence in areas such as the Caribbean and South America, including Russian battleships in Cuban ports. in the summer of 2024 and much earlier, in 2015, with the Tu-160 strategic bombers in Venezuela.
On the other hand, Europe has been seriously affected by the disruption of relations with Russia, especially in terms of energy supplies. The loss of cheap Russian gas has plunged several European economies into recession, with Germany – traditionally Europe’s economic powerhouse – facing major downturns due to energy shortages and rising costs.
Broader economic sanctions imposed on Russia have also failed to some extent, exacerbating inflation and slowing growth across the European continent. Deindustrialization trends in Germany, due to high energy costs and supply chain disruptions, are clear examples of how the conflict is eroding Europe’s economic stability.
Meanwhile, the US stands to benefit directly as European industries, weakened by high energy costs, may lose competitiveness against their counterparts around the world.
Moreover, Europe’s reliance on US liquefied natural gas (LNG) as a substitute for Russian natural gas has further deepened its economic dependence on the US, thereby weakening the strategic autonomy of the European Union. This situation positions the US in a way that could weaken Europe economically while maintaining a strategic distance from direct conflict with Russia.
The BRICS financial system and the push towards de-dollarisation
The conflict in Ukraine and subsequent economic sanctions against Russia have accelerated global efforts to develop alternative financial systems that bypass traditional Western mechanisms such as SWIFT.
In response to the weaponization of the dollar – characterized by the confiscation of Russian assets held in Western financial institutions – the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) are working to create a parallel system of financial clearing. This initiative aims to reduce their dependence on the US dollar and insulate their economies from Western economic pressures.
The movement toward de-dollarization is gaining momentum as more countries, particularly those in the Global South, seek to protect themselves from similar economic sanctions. This shift not only challenges the dominance of the US dollar in global trade, but also undermines the influence of Western financial institutions.
For Europe in particular, which remains deeply embedded in the US-led financial system, this growing parallel system represents a potential threat to its financial stability and influence, further complicating an already strained economic environment.
Brinkmanship and the future of NATO
NATO’s Article 5, which binds all member states to defend any ally under attack, has been a cornerstone of European security since the Cold War. However, in the current climate, there is growing speculation about US commitment to this principle, especially under a possible future administration that could prioritize de-escalation over confrontation.
If Donald Trump were to return to the presidency in 2024 and take office in 2025, his past skepticism of NATO and emphasis on “America First” policies could signal a shift in US strategy. Trump has previously questioned the usefulness of NATO and expressed a reluctance to become involved in foreign conflicts that do not directly affect US interests. In a scenario where Trump seeks to avoid nuclear escalation with Russia, it is conceivable that the US could downgrade its Article 5 commitments, leaving European countries to manage security risks more independently.
The danger of nuclear retaliation
One of the most important concerns in the present situation is the possibility of nuclear escalation. Russia has made it clear that it can resort to nuclear strikes on both US and European soil if it perceives an existential threat. This nuclear strategy is a key component of the Russian edge strategy, intended to prevent NATO from becoming more involved in Ukraine.
Given this threat, the US may be increasingly cautious about engaging in actions that could provoke a nuclear response from Russia. This caution could extend to the invocation of Article 5, particularly in scenarios where a European member of NATO is somehow involved in a military conflict with Russia. Fear of nuclear retaliation may lead the US to seek de-escalation rather than full-scale engagement, potentially leaving European allies in a precarious position and sinking Article 5 into oblivion.
On the other hand, it is clear that Russia does not seek a military confrontation with Europe.
The contemporary geopolitical landscape
The contemporary geopolitical landscape, shaped by the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, bears striking similarities to the Cold War, but also presents new challenges and complexities. The US strategy of remote engagement, where it supports Ukraine and its European allies while avoiding direct conflict with Russia, reflects a careful calculation of the risks of a direct military conflict and a development into a Third Nuclear War. However, this approach also puts significant pressure on NATO’s European members, who may find themselves at the forefront of a potential conflict with Russia.
As the situation continues to evolve, the future of NATO, the risks of nuclear escalation and the US commitment to European security will be key factors shaping the outcome. At this time, in late August 2024, it remains uncertain whether the US will maintain its current aggressive strategy of keeping the Deep State in power through a Kamala Harris victory or turn to de-escalation using a Donald Trump election victory as a catalyst.
However, one thing is clear: the stakes are as high as they have ever been in terms of starting a nuclear war, and decisions made in the near future will have profound implications for global security.
