This article aims to demonstrate that the irresponsible diplomacy of the US government in the case of the Ukraine war can lead to the 3rd world war.

1. 1
IRRESPONSIBLE AMERICAN DIPLOMACY IN THE UKRAINE WAR MAY
LEAD TO WORLD WAR 3
Fernando Alcoforado*
This article aims to demonstrate that the irresponsible diplomacy of the US government
in the case of the Ukraine war can lead to the 3rd world war. This irresponsible diplomacy
of the Joe Biden administration is compared with the diplomatic work of the John
Kennedy administration in the case of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962.
Regarding the Cuban Missile Crisis, it is worth remembering that, since the end of the
2nd World War, the United States and the Soviet Union were leaders of antagonistic
ideological blocs during the Cold War period. The former defended capitalism, while the
Soviet Union, socialism. In November 1961, the United States deployed 15 "Jupiter"
nuclear missiles in Turkey and 30 missiles in Italy. These weapons had a range of 2,400
km and threatened Moscow. Faced with this fact, the Soviet Union promoted the
installation of missiles in socialist Cuba as a counterpart to the installation of missiles in
Turkey and Italy. The event, called the missile crisis, is considered the most tense moment
of the Cold War when the world had a real chance of succumbing to nuclear war.
On October 14, 1962, U2 spy planes from the United States photographed and revealed
constructions of bases and installed nuclear warheads, including ramps that would allow
the launch of missiles. For the United States, it was unacceptable to have nuclear missiles
so close to its territory, while for Cuba, the weapons were a guarantee that they would not
be invaded again. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, showed that it could install
weapons on the American continent. A fierce dispute would then begin between the two
countries. President John Kennedy strove to achieve a peaceful solution unlike the US
General Staff that preferred an invasion of the Caribbean island or a preemptive air strike.
The US government opted for a naval blockade of Cuba. The US Navy inspected Soviet-
flagged ships and those that contained weapons were sent back to their home port. The
initiative was supported by the western military alliance NATO (North Atlantic Treaty
Organization).
In Cuba, the population took to the streets to defend the Socialist Revolution and criticize
what they believed to be US intervention in their internal affairs. Likewise, the Cuban
army mobilized in anticipation of a US invasion. As for the Soviet Union, Prime Minister
Nikita Khrushchev showed no signs of backing down. He even asked Cubans to shoot at
a group of planes flying over the island. Faced with the impasse, the United Nations
convened its Security Council. On October 28, 1962, Khrushchev agreed to withdraw the
missiles from Cuba, demanding the withdrawal of the missiles in Turkey, which the
United States did. After two weeks of tense negotiations between the United States, the
Soviet Union and Cuba, the dispute ended.
It can be seen from the above that the Soviet Union installed the missiles in Cuba that
threatened US territory to force the US government to withdraw its missiles from Turkey
that threatened Soviet territory. The behavior of US government diplomacy in the case of
the Cuban missile crisis differed from the current behavior in the case of the war in
Ukraine. In the missile crisis, the US government acted responsibly in preventing the
outbreak of a nuclear war by negotiating with the Soviet Union. In the Ukraine war, the

2. 2
US government acts irresponsibly, putting the world before the possibility of a nuclear
hecatomb by not seeking a negotiation with Russia.
It is very likely that, by invading Ukraine, the Russian government led by Vladimir Putin
intended to do what Khrushchev did in the 1962 missile crisis. Its purpose would probably
be to invade Ukraine to create the conditions to negotiate with the US government a
commitment to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, which would pose a threat to
Russia's security. It is worth noting that the attempt to incorporate Ukraine into NATO
would serve the geopolitical interests of the US government because it would complete
the siege of Russia. Figure 1 shows in blue the countries that joined NATO up to 1997
and in orange the countries that joined it after 1997. Ukraine joining NATO would
complete the siege of Russia.
Figure 1- The siege of Russia by NATO in Europe
Source: https://www.bbc.com/portuguese/internacional-60129112
It is important to note that, after the 2nd World War, the United States and its European
allies united in the military plan to face the Soviet Union and its allies with the
constitution of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) in 1949 under the leadership
of the United States. In turn, the Soviet Union formed a military alliance with the socialist
countries creating the Warsaw Pact. One of NATO's pillars is to guarantee the security of
its member countries, which can occur diplomatically or with the use of military forces.
NATO member countries provide part of their military contingent for eventual actions of
this size, since the organization does not have its own military force.
During the Cold War until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989, NATO had 16
countries: 1) Germany; 2) Belgium; 3) Canada; 4) Denmark; 5) Spain; 6) United States;
7) France; 8) Greece; 9) Holland; 10) Iceland; 11) Italy; 12) Luxembourg; 13) Norway;
14) Portugal; 15) Turkey; 16) United Kingdom. To meet the geopolitical interests of the

3. 3
United States and the arms industry, NATO expanded after the end of the Soviet Union,
attracting 14 more countries that were part of the socialist system of Eastern Europe, such
as Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania,
Macedonia, Montenegro, Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania.
In the case of the Ukraine war, the diplomatic behavior of the Joe Biden administration
of the United States towards Russia was different from the behavior of the Kennedy
administration in the case of the missile crisis of 1962 towards the Soviet Union. Rather
than trying to negotiate a negotiated solution to the war in Ukraine, the Biden
administration preferred confrontation by establishing economic sanctions against Russia
and its citizens, as well as arming Ukraine's government to resist Russian invasion. Biden
himself, in a statement made last October 6, during a Democratic Party event in New
York, sees the risk of nuclear “Armageddon” – final war – which is at the highest level
since the Cold War, citing that Putin “not kidding” when talking about the potential use
of tactical nuclear weapons, chemical or biological weapons, because your Army is
significantly less capable. According to him, the use of a nuclear weapon could get out of
control and lead to global destruction. This statement demonstrates that Biden acts
irresponsibly because he is aware of the risk of a nuclear hecatomb and does nothing to
avoid it by seeking a diplomatically negotiated solution with Russia as Kennedy did in
1962 with the Soviet Union.
Most likely, the Biden administration does nothing to find a negotiated solution with
Russia for three reasons: 1) it seeks to eliminate Europe's dependence on Russian natural
gas by transferring this European dependence to US LNG (liquefied natural gas); 2) it
seeks to secure the interests of the North American war industry with the expansion of
NATO and, 3) it seeks to increase the war in Ukraine to promote the expansion of the
North American economy.
Who is benefited from the recent sabotage of Russian gas pipelines in the Baltic Sea? The
Europeans are not interested in sabotage because they need Russian gas to face the winter,
much less the Russians because they would stop selling gas. What fuels the thesis that
the United States would be responsible for sabotaging Russian pipelines is the fact that,
for the first time, the Americans are supplying more natural gas to Europe than Russia
sends via pipelines, according to the Energy International Agency. The United States has
become the world's top exporter in just six years since 2016, as the shale gas revolution
boosted domestic production and turned the country into a powerful force in global energy
markets. The Biden administration works with other suppliers to ship an additional 15
billion cubic meters of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the European Union by 2022.
Energy experts say US LNG export terminals are up this year, putting the target of the
Biden administration within reach. LNG is not shipped via pipelines. Instead, the gas is
cooled to a liquid and loaded onto ships. A big rise in gas prices in Europe was attracting
more shipments from the United States. Russian President Vladimir Putin has pointed the
finger at the United States, denouncing the attempt to "destroy the energy infrastructure"
that feeds central Europe. All this demonstrates that the Biden government intends to
replace Europe's dependence on Russian natural gas with US LNG.
It is no secret that there is a military industrial complex in the United States that holds all
American rulers hostage to it. Who is interested in the armed conflict in Ukraine? There

4. 4
is no doubt that the main interested party in the conflict is the arms industry with the sale
of arms. The US Congress voted on a bill called “Protect Ukraine” to supply Ukraine with
weapons. The same is happening with other NATO member countries. The question is:
Even well armed, would Ukraine be able to win the war with Russia? The answer is no.
In addition to the vast military superiority, Russia is an atomic power, which makes a
direct confrontation of NATO allies, with the exception of the United States, with Russia
impossible. But almost all countries in the region are buying weapons, military equipment
and ammunition. All this demonstrates that the Biden administration seeks to secure the
interests of the North American arms industry with the expansion of NATO.
The American arms industry is the largest in the world. Of the 10 largest arms
manufacturers in the world, six are North American, five of which are leaders in the world
arms industry, as shown in the following table:
Source: https://www.poder360.com.br/internacional/100-maiores-empresas-de-armas-venderam-us-531-
bilhoes-em-2020/
There is no doubt that the arms industry sponsors the war in Ukraine as it has promoted
other wars in the past to make money. The record production of weapons, increasingly
lethal and surgical, needs to be put to work in practice.
Figure 2 presents the highest military expenditures in the world by country. The United
States has the highest military expenditure in the world (39% of the total).

5. 5
Figure 2- The largest military expenditures in the world by country
Source: https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2022/04/25/gasto-militar-mundial-bate-recorde-e-supera-us-2-
trilhoes-em-2021-aponta-relatorio
With 102 wars in its bellicose "curriculum", the United States is probably one of the
countries most involved in military actions in the world that began with the annexation
of land from Mexico to its territory. It is no coincidence that the United States is one of
the countries that benefit most economically from armed conflicts, as the largest arms
exporters in the world are Americans. In addition to the sale of ammunition and weapons,
the United States also monetizes with security contracts and military training, which
makes many members of the US Congress understand wars as a machine for employment
and money. Peace, for the United States, could cost dearly. It is these facts that lead many
to question the real motivation of the United States in the defense of Ukraine, which for
years has been in a state of tension with Russia. It is evident that, as long as there is a war
industry in the world, wars will continue to proliferate across the planet. Peace in the
world will only happen when all countries are disarmed and the manufacture of weapons
ceases.
From the above, it is evident the irresponsible behavior of US diplomacy in the Ukraine
war by not seeking a negotiation with Russia to avoid the nuclear hecatomb that threatens
the end of life on the planet whose main responsibility are of the Putin governments of
Russia, Ukraine, of the United States and the countries of the European Union, as well as
the UN, NATO, the North American arms industry and the Russian arms industry.
Russia's Putin government is one of those responsible for the outbreak of a new world
war because it destabilized the international system by invading Ukraine and the
government of this country is one of those responsible for a new world conflict by
admitting the presence in its territory of NATO because would represent a existential
threat to Russia. The United States government is responsible for the outbreak of a new
world war because since 1997 it has promoted the expansion of NATO to the borders of
Russia, which would be completed with the incorporation of Ukraine into the Western
military alliance, in addition to imposing economic sanctions against Russia. The

6. 6
governments of the European Union countries are responsible for the outbreak of a new
world war because they contributed to the expansion of NATO in addition to having
attracted the countries of the former Warsaw Pact to their incorporation into the European
economic bloc, in addition to imposing economic sanctions against Russia. On the other
hand, the UN is one of those responsible for the outbreak of a new world war because it
has not contributed towards seeking an end to the war in Ukraine and, on the contrary, is
collaborating for its intensification with the anti-Russia resolutions approved by the
General Assembly.
* Fernando Alcoforado, awarded the medal of Engineering Merit of the CONFEA / CREA System, member
of the Bahia Academy of Education, of the SBPC- Brazilian Society for the Progress of Science and of
IPB- Polytechnic Institute of Bahia, engineer and doctor in Territorial Planning and Regional Development
from the University of Barcelona, university professor and consultant in the areas of strategic planning,
business planning, regional planning, urban planning and energy systems, was Advisor to the Vice
President of Engineering and Technology at LIGHT S.A. Electric power distribution company from Rio de
Janeiro, Strategic Planning Coordinator of CEPED- Bahia Research and Development Center,
Undersecretary of Energy of the State of Bahia, Secretary of Planning of Salvador, is author of the books
Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial
(Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os
condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de
Barcelona,http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora
Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos
na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social
Development- The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Müller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG,
Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (Viena- Editora e Gráfica,
Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate
ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011), Os Fatores
Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), Energia no
Mundo e no Brasil- Energia e Mudança Climática Catastrófica no Século XXI (Editora CRV, Curitiba,
2015), As Grandes Revoluções Científicas, Econômicas e Sociais que Mudaram o Mundo (Editora CRV,
Curitiba, 2016), A Invenção de um novo Brasil (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2017), Esquerda x Direita e a sua
convergência (Associação Baiana de Imprensa, Salvador, 2018), Como inventar o futuro para mudar o
mundo (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2019) and A humanidade ameaçada e as estratégias para sua sobrevivência
(Editora Dialética, São Paulo, 2021) .