An American academic does not rule out the expansion of the war between the West and Russia

in The National Interest, Christopher Lane, professor of international affairs at Texas A&M University,

questioned the extent to which the United States and NATO could avert a wider war over Ukraine.

He pointed out that the Ukrainian President and former comedian Volodymyr Zelensky, in a recent speech to the US Congress, was able to evoke feelings and emotions, appealing to Washington to "do more" to protect his country from the Russian invasion.

He explained that the support of the United States and NATO is pushing Ukraine towards a fraught region, where the dangers of confrontation between them and Russia are increasing.

This comes at a time when the ongoing negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow suggest that a diplomatic solution to the war "is within reach."

Historical precedents are worrying

The writer asks again: What is the cause for concern about the possibility of Washington's military involvement in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict, although senior US and NATO officials have stated - on numerous occasions - that the United States will not send combat forces, or impose an exclusion zone over Ukraine.

In his article, he believes that what US President Joe Biden confirmed on March 11 that his country will not go to war against Russia in Ukraine, and that any direct confrontation between NATO and Russia will ignite a third world war that should be avoided, is the correct policy.

The writer added that there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of Biden on this point.

But the writer comes back and says that previous US presidents had made similar statements and then reneged on their promises.

He gave examples of that with President Woodrow Wilson, who in 1917 plunged his country into the First World War, even though he had pledged his people a year earlier not to get involved in it.

In a speech he gave in Boston on October 30, 1940, President Franklin Roosevelt pledged not to send soldiers to fight in any foreign war.

But a little more than a year later, the United States entered the war against Germany and Japan.

In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson announced that he had no intention of sending troops 9,000 to 10,000 miles from home to do what Asians should do.

But by mid-1965, American forces were fighting a war in South Vietnam that had claimed 58,000 American lives.

The impact of immigrants in America

In his article, the academic criticized the involvement of Congress and local public opinion in pushing US administrations to adopt "unwise" policies toward international issues.

And what he calls the "openness of the American political system" allows immigrant communities living in the United States to influence Washington's foreign policy decisions, using public relations firms and political lobby groups, and by forming political action committees to fund their campaigns.

In this regard, he singled out the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which has an "enormous and substantially detrimental" influence on US policy in the Middle East.

An "active and well-financed" Ukrainian community is putting pressure on the US administration to provide "stronger" support to Kiev.

In return, Poland and the Baltic states reap benefits from the activities of their expatriates who pressure the United States - via NATO - to defend it and stand up to Russia.

Ukraine won the war of concepts

There is a conviction in the United States (and Europe) that Ukraine is clearly winning the war in terms of managing perceptions aimed at controlling the public's mental image.

Since the outbreak of the war, Ukrainian President Zelensky has shown "an unerring intuition to influence American opinion" as he succeeded in portraying his country as a defender of democracy in what Biden called (even before the war) an international struggle between democracy and authoritarianism.

Today, it has become commonplace for American journalists to describe Ukraine as a democracy, even though Freedom House classifies it as having only a "partly free" domestic political system.

Transparency International did the same when it ranked Ukraine 122nd out of 180 countries as one of the most corrupt governments in the world.

Whatever the case, Ukraine - says the American academic in his article - is still far from a model of democracy, yet Zelensky and Kyiv supporters in the United States have succeeded in beautifying the flaws of governance in Ukraine and turning it into an embodiment of democratic virtues.

Zelensky.. Strong influence on Americans

In his speech to Congress, Zelensky's acting talents were evident when he "played the strings of Americans' innate sympathy for the underdog", specifically calling for a no-fly zone and more effective fighter jets and air defense systems.

The writer believes that Zelensky has a vested interest in changing the situation to a large extent, making the military intervention of Washington and NATO more likely.

Based on the first reactions, his rhetoric was so successful that Washington Post columnist David Ignatius called for Russia to be "destroyed," like Germany and Japan in World War II, that would lead to the "democratic rebuilding of Russia."

If the goal of US policy is really to destroy the Russian economy and depose President Vladimir Putin, this is a risky maneuver, as the article put it.

But if Washington's real goal - and if it does not state it - is regime change, then it should think twice. The war is not about Putin's "person" only, but the Russian elite involved in foreign policy.

pessimistic forecast

The article concludes that the Kremlin (and not Putin alone) is unlikely to accept defeat in the Ukraine war, "and the longer the war continues, the greater will be Moscow's motives to pursue the supply lines used to deliver military aid provided by the United States and NATO to Ukraine."

This would fuel the chances of a direct military clash between America and NATO on one side and Russia on the other side.

The writer goes on to say that the Biden administration is exploiting this war to send a message to Beijing confirming Washington's determination and credibility in maintaining the international order based on the liberal rules it established after World War II.

It is likely - according to the article - that Washington will reject any end to the conflict in Ukraine that would result in Putin's impunity, "which portends dire consequences" for the chances of defusing the war and resolving the conflict in Ukraine.