Many principled American patriots are realists and non-interventionists who want friendly engagement with Russia, but it doesn’t mean they are capitulating to a Moscow narrative as Russian agents.
I have occasionally been criticized by some in academic circles that I move within for publishing my geopolitical ideas in a Russian venue. I face criticisms similar to those leveled against Colonel Douglas Macgregor (Ret.) of being too conciliatory to the Russians, of promoting “Moscow narratives” or “Russian information,” or accusations of being a “Russian agent,” “apologist for Putin,” or some other smear that plays well in Western corporate media but has no real basis in fact, just not as loudly, as frequently, or from those as noteworthy as Colonel Macgregor’s critics because he has a much higher profile.
If we consider Colonel Macgregor, he fought for the USA as a soldier in our army, yet he adopts positions his critics call ‘pro-Russian.’ I don’t believe Colonel Macgregor would compromise his obligations and duties to the USA any more than I would be willing to, not even to benefit a nation such as Russia, which we may admire and appreciate. We are American patriots; we are not looking to burn our own nation down to help another nation. With that said, my position is that the best service I can provide the USA is to identify the genuine core national interests and help pursue the securing and maintaining of those interests.
This means I am directly at odds with the liberal interventionists who see the American military as a mechanism by which to expand American influence through poorly defined nation-building exercises and attempts at ‘spreading democracy,’ which are clearly insincere and disingenuous aside from being unnecessary.
Peaceful commerce and mutual cooperation on economic matters do not require uniformity of belief and conformity to a standard set of supposed international norms in a ‘rules-based order.’
Likewise, just because I have an affinity for the Russian culture, history, people, and nation, and I admire their philosophy and ideas in the modern era, it does not mean that I would throw the USA under the bus to bolster a Russian position or that I would smuggle blueprints to Russians. Although if the US administration authorized and ordered me to engage in some trade with Russian, to trade blueprints, to go to Russia with a team of military contractors working on a project, to train alongside a comparable Russian team, to compare notes, to learn from the Russians what they have been developing on their end, and to share our notes of what we had been learning, I would not have to be told twice; I would promptly obey, and I would gladly participate in such an exchange. I would not object to privately protesting; I would not ‘rage quit’ and publicly resign in protest with social media grandstanding the way many people have done to try to humiliate the administration over policy disagreements about border security. I would do my job, and I would be pleased to work with Russians on a collaborative project of mutual benefit.
It would certainly not devastate me if a détente between Russia and the USA occurred; indeed, I would welcome it, even if it were to mean reduced opportunities to sell munitions to the US and foreign American-allied or aligned client states. If there is a reduced market for munitions, then we will sell something else, perhaps drones and optics. If there is a reduced market for those, then we will continue providing training and consulting to military, paramilitary, and police forces. There is always something to sell in the context of defense and security, whether military, paramilitary, or police, whether munitions, weapons systems, or training of some sort. It isn’t necessary to foment a war or to seek to deepen and prolong a war just to make sales. There is always somebody somewhere looking to stockpile weapons and munitions in preparation for some hypothetical future conflict that they are obsessively paranoid about the prospect of. Nations always use peacetime to prepare for the possibility of war. In the ideal world I would sell munitions that sit in warehouses waiting for wars that never come and that only wind up being expended in training.
Serious national voices in the US are calling for an escalation of the conflict with Russia
From a realistic perspective, war is a very risky proposition, not to be undertaken lightly. War is extremely expensive in terms of blood and treasure, and with the developed world population implosion crisis in full swing, there are few lives to spare. From a Christian perspective, war is a last resort on moral grounds; we seek only to participate in the just war, a war that cannot be avoided.
I do not want to see my countrymen die and my country go bankrupt, certainly not unnecessarily, in a matter where no crucial interests were ever at stake. I do not accept the prevailing narrative in the West that the US has crucial interests in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia, and that we should seek to weaken Russia in these spheres. From my perspective, that is nonsensical and illogical. It puts the USA on a potential collision course for what would be war with Russia, a war I judge to be unnecessary and very risky.
If the Russians were building up the logistics base in Chukotka and Kamchatka in preparation to invade or pressure Alaska and proclaiming Alaska to be in their sphere of influence or pressing for a ‘recovering’ of Alaska, that would be unacceptable. But I have never heard such outrageous remarks from Russians except from Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and he doesn’t count (aside from his being deceased) because he was known for bombastic remarks and absurd theatrics; it was performative rhetoric from a populist politician; it was never Kremlin policy or statecraft being pursued by Russian senior leadership. However, serious national voices in the US have called for escalation with Russia, specifically numerous recent Secretaries of State, top Pentagon brass, and generals in the NATO command structure, such as General Donahue explicitly stating the US can ‘take Kaliningrad down faster than ever.’ Such rhetoric is not helpful to international relations.
If Donahue said it without presidential approval, then he should have been relieved of command that same day. If he said it with presidential approval, then the president is very poorly advised by an inner circle who should have made it clear that such remarks should not have been authorized.
There are several factors that would have to be applicable before American patriots, such as myself, would support a war against Russia.
The war would have to involve crucial core American interests.
The war would have to have clear, defined objectives.
The objectives would have to be reasonably attainable without significant damage to the United States or its long-term ability to project power elsewhere. This means that losing half of the US Navy or the majority of an entire Marine Division to take Kaliningrad or Crimea would likely be unacceptable, aside from those things not being crucial core American interests.
The war would have to be capable of being prosecuted to an ultimate successful conclusion.
The war would have to be necessary to achieving the objectives. That is to say the objectives could not be secured otherwise, such as through diplomacy, trade, or leverage.
All five factors would have to be present and satisfactorily established, yet today none of those factors are present.
War is not a game
In short, the clarion call of ‘Russia is bad, we must weaken Russia’ carries no weight with me. I don’t accept the premise that Russia is ‘morally bad’ because I don’t share the civilizational view or the metaphysical relativism of post-modern liberal interventionist orthodoxy giving rise to that worldview. Even if Russia were “morally bad,” which I don’t grant, differing morals would not be an acceptable reason to engage in a war, let alone an unnecessary war. Wars are not moral crusades; they are serious pursuits undertaken by the senior leadership of a nation-state that has decided to resort to the pursuit of politics by other means, those means being the last resort. War is not a game for pursuing an ideology or for moralizing on the world stage. It is a serious matter of life and death for millions of soldiers and possibly for the nation itself. A war is undertaken to advance crucial national interests that cannot be secured through other means.
I will admit, I admire the Russian civilization and people; I have affection for them, I appreciate their contribution to Traditional Western Civilization (which is such that they may be the last bastion of this Traditional Western Civilization left in the world), but I would not throw the USA under the bus simply to benefit a foreign nation whose civilization model I appreciate and admire. I would not compromise the crucial core interests of the United States for the benefit of Russia, but with that said, I would not participate in the attempt at undermining and subjugating Russia for the gain of a handful of power-hungry elites in the DC beltway who see Russia as either an existential boogeyman or an easy mark for a color revolution or invasion. There should only be a war with Russia if it meets the criteria I provided above, and no information that I have access to indicates to me that such criteria have been met and that such a war is necessary for American interests.
I respect the Russians, I admire their history and people, and I like them. I trust them to act within the scope and limit of their interests, I trust them not to act irrationally or illogically within the framework of their interests, and I trust them in some regards, but I do not fully trust them in other regards (because not all of their interests align with our interests; sometimes there is competition), although I trust that they do not want to needlessly bring about a general war, whether conventional or nuclear. I look at them not with rose colored glasses that have me hypnotized and enamored, but in a realistic yet amicable manner. They are not an evil boogeyman on the world stage looking to ignite a continental war; nations seldom are ever such things. I trust that we can reach reasonable agreements and accommodations based on mutual respect and shared interests with the Russians, at least on some points.
My preference is to build friendly relations with Russia and to see America lay the foundation for long-term cooperation that allows both nations to uphold their crucial core interests in their respective spheres, and to cooperate, as we once did against pirates, in maintaining open shipping lanes for international commerce.
Bryan Anthony Reo is a licensed attorney based in Ohio and an analyst of military history, geopolitics, and international relations
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
