How World War III Will Begin

The common date given for the start of World War II is September 1, 1939, when Hitler invaded Poland after signing the Molotov-Ribethrop Pact. But this was just one in a series of events that could then appear to be disconnected.

Among them: Japanese Manchuria invasion in 1931. Italian invasion of Abisinia in 1935. Rheinland's remilitarization in 1936 and the Spanish Civil War, which began in the same year. Joining Austria and the 1938 Sudet crisis. The Soviet invasion of Poland weeks after that German invasion and conquests west of Germany next year. Operation Barbarossa and Pearl Harbor in 1941.

The point is, World War II began until a host of things, such as water rising up until a dam broke down. We also lived for years when they grew up, although it took Ukraine's invasion of Russia for most of the world to notice.

Before the invasion we had Russian invasions in Georgia, Crime and Eastern Ukraine; Russian massacre bombings in Aleppo; the use of radioactive and chemical agents against Russian dissidents on British soil; Russian intervention in American elections and massive cyber networks retaliation; the murder of Boris Nemtsov and the flagrant poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navajo.

Did any of these violations of sovereignty, legal violations, violations of treaties, war crimes, and crimes against humanity face a strong, united, punitive response that could have avoided the next round of anger?

Did the use of chemical weapons from Syria against civilians, the eradication of Hong Kong's autonomy from Beijing, Iran's struggle with procuration against its neighbours, free Vladimir Putin?

In short, did Putin have any reason to think, before February 24, that he would not be able to lose power with his conquest?

No, there wasn't.

Contrary to the claim that Putin's behaviour is the result of Western provocation as refusing to absolutely exclude eventual NATO membership for Ukraine the West has spent mainly 22 years calming Putin in various forms. The destruction of Ukraine is a product of this behavior.

The Biden administration now faces the question if it wants to end this cycle.

The answer is not clear. Sanctions have damaged Russian economy, arms shipments to Ukraine have helped slow Russian progress, and Russia's brutality has united NATO. This is honoring the president.

But the administration continues to operate under a series of potentially catastrophic illusions.

Sanctions can destroy Russia in long term. But the immediate struggle in Ukraine is short-term. While one of the main effects of sanctions has been the sending of tens of thousands of middle class Russians into exile, they actually help Putin weaken a powerful base of political opposition. As for the oligarchs, they may have lost their yachts, but they cannot be thought to take up arms against Putin.

Ukraine's rifle of Yavelin and Stinger missiles has embarrassed the Russian army. Kiev's security with MIG-29 combat aircraft and other weapons systems that could change the situation on the ground could help change the course of war. The refusal to do so could only last Ukraine's agony.

The frequent suggestions Putin has already lost the war or that he cannot win when Ukrainians are united in their hatred for him or that he is looking for a way out and that we should think smart ways to secure him such a one could result in being right.

But they're extremely premature. This war is only in the third week; it took more time for the Nazis to invade Poland. The ability to subdue a war population is primarily a function of pain that an intruder is willing to cause. To have an indication of this, look what Putin did to Putin in his first year in office.

The refusal to establish a no-fly zone in Ukraine can be justified because it exceeds the risks NATO countries are prepared to tolerate. But the idea that doing so can begin the Third World War ignores history.

Americans faced Soviet pilots operating under Chinese or North Korean cover in the Korean War without blowing up the world. And our vocal rejection of confrontation is an invitation, not an obstacle, to Russian escalation.

Now there's a serious danger that these illusions can suddenly collapse.

There is little evidence so far that Putin intends to reduce the number of his losses, rather, to do so now after receiving the economic cost of sanctions, but without achieving a clear victory, he would risk controlling power.

Bottom Line: Wait for him to increase his aggression. If he uses chemical weapons, as Bashar al-Assad did, or uses nuclear weapons on the battlefield, in accordance with past Russian military doctrine, does he lose more than he wins? The answer to that is the question itself. /abcnews. al