The most terrifying fear in people’s minds, including the inhabitants of Guyana, is that the Russia/Ukraine conflict will become, sooner rather than later, a nuclear catastrophe. It is well-known that Russia has at its disposal an arsenal of weapons ready for use against the “enemy.” We also know that Putin has declared on several occasions that he is not “bluffing;” if he is forced to, he is prepared to use the weapons available to him – 6,000 nuclear warheads, the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, to secure his objectives.
Since one cannot read Putin’s mind, prudence dictates that we be prepared for the eventuality of his using a bomb to achieve his aims. Those of us who remember know that the bomb which destroyed Hiroshima and killed around 140,000 people by the end of 1945, was one of the smallest in the Russian arsenal. One can only imagine the terrible consequences such a weapon will have for the world. Generations later after Hiroshima, people are still suffering from radiation releases. Medical services were hard put to deal with the suffering of the victims affected. Reports abound on the humanitarian disasters which would befall large cities if such a bomb was again used. The consequences are well known, “no place to hide, nuclear weapons; and the collapse of health care systems.”
We must also anticipate a severe disruption in the aftermath, of the economic and financial markets, large deficits of fertilizer, fuel and grain supplies which would diminish food stocks everywhere. We will face an enormous challenge to restore supply chains and to build public infrastructure. Although there are no real precedents to go by, the short 9/11 attack on the USA resulted in losses of US$1.4 trillion. Imagine what life would be for our a small population; hunger, famine and starvation!
It has been said that the first tactical weapons have now been deployed to Belarus and that the rest will be delivered before the end of the year. It was Moscow’s first transfer of tactical weapons abroad to Belarus since the fall of the Soviet Union. Washington’s official position was that there is no indication that Russia is preparing to use nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Minister has warned that Ukraine was planning to strike Russia and Crimea with long-range weapons which, he said, would mean the full involvement of the West.
In these circumstances, what can we do? Although we are not directly involved in the Russia/Ukraine conflict and may not have much clout in the international community, we have a role to play, especially now that we are on the Security Council. We must associate ourselves with all calls for nuclear deterrence to avoid the serious humanitarian consequences that can follow a launch of such weapons. If we have not already done so, we should sign on to the Treaty on the Prohibition of nuclear weapons – an act that would add to our moral standing and allow us to consistently and categorically condemn the use of the deadly bombs.
The international community, including the UN’s General Assembly and the Security Council in particular, should immediately undertake a strong and widespread campaign to deter Russia from using nuclear weapons. The danger is that if Russia continues to lose on the battle fields, it will be tempted to go the nuclear route. Putin himself has said that he will unleash his most powerful weapon if Russia’s sovereignty and territorial interests were threatened. We should take him seriously at his word as he continues to express his fury. Judging from the electronic media, there are thousands of world supporters who are rooting for “Mother” Russia. I too have a sneaking admiration for Russia and the role it played in defeating Nazi Germany at a great cost to itself. The nuclear threat posed by Russia however, is a different matter; I believe that if the world stands firmly against the aggressor, he may decide to forego using the bomb.
While a nuclear war cannot be ruled out, there is some comfort to be drawn from the fact that the use of nuclear weapons is based on “the principle of mutually assured destruction” – i.e., no country can make a first strike without the expectation of a counterstrike. This principle greatly reduced the risk of a nuclear conflict during the Cold war. Many threats were made but nuclear weapons were not subsequently used. It was perhaps realized that both international and domestic public opinion would never accept the use of the bomb. It is to be hoped therefore that Putin will restrict himself to using conventional weapons if he wishes to retrieve his popularity both abroad and among his own people. The African continent has since come forward with a plan, warning Putin that he should not use nuclear weapons in the war with Ukraine. In return Putin has promised to supply free grain to six needy African countries. The Africans also urged Putin to quickly bring the war to an end.
The winter offensive will soon begin. It should find the Ukrainian side ready for battle with the same commitment it did in the first year. Once Ukraine and its supporters are satisfied that the country’s national interests are satisfied, they should be ready to negotiate. Punishing the Russians may cause them to lose and prompt them to use the nuclear bomb. This is an option for no one – Cooperation with Nato is vital.
It is difficult to predict the outcome of the battle. At the outset, one expected to see the Red Army, a battle-hardened and disciplined force, quickly dominate Zelensky’s relatively untrained and inexperienced troops – the “underdog” – seemed destined to defeat. Surprisingly, some of the Army’s initiatives seemed ill-conceived and conducive to defeat. In contrast, Zelensky’s men fought, it seemed, with inspiration and zest. It appeared that Russia’s Command Centre controlled the army’s movement without any planned thinking. There were constant reports of logistical shortfalls, questionable frontal assaults and the deaths of senior commanders.
If these divergent strategies persist, it is quite possible for Zelensky to be victorious. But the outcome depends on a number of other conditions. a) A long military engagement would impact negatively on both sides b) Zelensky must have the absolute support of his allies c) If the war is prolonged; there may be an inclination to negotiation, Zelensky must be prepared for this d) If Putin loses on the battle field, he may decide on the use of the nuclear bomb. We must do all we can to deny this option, there will be no winners – only losers – in a nuclear conflagration.
