by: Courtney Suber
On the darkest and earliest hours of Thursday morning, February 24th, 2022, Russia invaded its neighbor and ex-soviet partner, Ukraine. The topic has been plastered all over the news, and rising tension primed an audience for this moment. Each day new developments are introduced, causing world citizens to watch closely and loudly condemn the actions of the Russian government VIA all sorts of environments. The Russian invasion seemed to pique conversation in the quirkiest of places, like my 2nd period AP Macroeconomics class.
We had just finished reviewing a test and began our PowerPoint on employment numbers and percentages. To jokingly open the lesson to my senior class, my teacher showed a slide that discussed selective service and related it to the lesson at hand. Because the topic of Russian invasion has weaseled itself into conversation akin to asking, “How’s that weather today”, my teacher implied the freshly turned 18 would be going to war. A boy in my class quipped, “We’ll be fighting in Russia in no time.” The comment was off handed, not meant to stoke thought-provoking discussion or debate, but it was the comment my teacher made after which made my chest ache. “You guys would definitely be in the blast zone, if Russia is targeting civilian landmarks Hartsfield-Jackson would be on the list.” My teacher was joking and appealing to the humor of my peers and friends, however, my mind still spun at the suggestion.
I went home and looked up everything that was to know about the incident. I investigated the complicated relationship between Russia and Ukraine and studied the turmoil. The former USSR members were at odds, Russia being vehemently against Ukraine joining NATO. I saw how Moscow had been placing troops at the border between Ukraine and Russia for months. I saw the way they were bombing civilians’ areas, and seemingly breaking into the capitol, Kyiv, with ease. I saw that Moscow placed their nuclear forces “on high alert.” It’s safe to say that at this point I was freaking out, and the comments from my peers and teacher swirled in my head like wind in a winter storm.
Bystanders, spectators, and even Ukraine themselves looked to the western world for aid. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said during a state address, “If you my dear European leaders, my dear world leaders, leaders of the free world, don’t help us today, if you do not strongly help Ukraine, then tomorrow war will knock on your doors…” This public cry for help, the videos of Ukrainian citizens stumbling out of missile-caused rubble, and the active calls for US interference from those with the hottest Twitter fingers caused me to think: How viable is the option of US interference in the Russia-Ukraine conflict?
First, I had to establish what it would mean for the US to intervene. The US is no stranger to inserting themselves into otherworldly conflicts, but the different ways they operated under such methods varied. In events such as the Iran conflict of early 2020 in the early months of the Trump presidency, the US decided to economically intervene into the conflict. The controversial president issued multiple sanctions in response to the bombing of an Iraqi base which held US troops. The strike in question, however, was in response to a prior intervention made on the behalf of the US in the week earlier. The US decided to utilize military intervention in the killing of Iran’s top military official, Maj, Gen. Qassim Suleimani. This killing was in response to Iranian-caused trouble which was occurring in Saudi Arabia, an American ally. The now-long forgotten conflict which was swiftly covered by breaking news of the start of the COVID-19 pandemic served as a perfect definition of “intervention”, military or economic.
Russia and the US together own about 90% of the world’s nuclear warheads, the other 10% being spread between China, France, and the UK. This was caused by tensions during the Cold War between the US and USSR, where both entities scrambled to obtain as many nuclear warheads as possible. The Cold War was cold for a reason, and the missiles and weapons went not unused, but stored away for possible future ventures. If the US and Russia were to go head-to-head in an all-nuclear war, the world would crumble. Not only would cities be destroyed, and lives lost, but the environment of Earth would become virtually unlivable. It is reported by the NY Post that in a nuclear fallout smoke would be pumped into the environment, which would virtually destroy the ozone and heavily pollute the air. It is also reported that nuclear war could cause a nuclear winter, the decimation and alteration of ocean habitats, and the ravaging of possible food supply for billions of people. The possibility of military intervention is unpractical and dangerous.
It’s safe to say that our leaders—Russia and the US alike—are not wishing for the demolition and genocide of the entire planet. This crucial block has led me to believe the US is very limited in what they can do with military arsenal to help Ukraine. If the US jumps into help, it can be assumed that Russia would begin hellfire. Military intervention on behalf of the US is extremely limited, However, US spectators should not lose hope in the extent to which the US is able to become involved.
While physically plunging into Ukraine is not ideal, the US has found another way to attempt to help and assert dominance to the ex-soviet member. The US has placed a copious number of sanctions on the Russian government, boiling the Russian Ruble down to be less than children-game currency: Robux. The sanctions put in place have also hindered Russia from purchasing technology which may be used to advance their military powers. The US not only limited Russian purchasing power in this brainly move, but American as well. President Biden decided to make the arduous decision of completely cutting off Russian oil in attempt to hurt the Russian economy further. This form of economic intervention demonstrated American strength, and the lengths which top officials would be willing to go to stop the unwarranted war. Despite the fumes that have erupted from Twitter over lack of US involvement, the US is doing all that they can.
So all in all, the US becoming physically involved in the conflict would create nuclear warfare so insane the population of planet Earth would become void. This is dramatization—but with the unhinged nature of Russia it could very well occur. The US is extremely limited in what can be done in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and is using the power of economic intervention to the best of their ability. It can also be reasoned that out of fear are war it is unlikely Russia will take direct military action against the US.
After copious amounts of research, my tensions and fears were eased. Although we are not deemed completely safe from selective service in case of other worldly conflict, the idea of Russia invasion and demented detonation is unfounded. Unless Russia wishes to destroy human life, the country would not launch warheads towards US soil, and the US would not choose military intervention. Overall, it can be found that US intervention is necessary, but it must be strategic and strictly economic unless Russia were to raise a hand to the US. Despite this relieving fact and my deeper understanding of the viability of US interference, Americans and world citizens alike shall still fear. Civil liberty and freedom are not only being uprooted and outright attacked by Russia, but innocent citizens are dying. In a world where this can occur, I’m forced to ask myself a question deeper than worries about selective service. What does this mean for world freedom and peace? Must we suffer, sitting on the sidelines to watch? Will my kids be sitting in a history class, gripe with the same fears I held in my AP Macroeconomics class? I’ll have to look back to this article to be able to answer my own questions.
