The announcement by Russian President Vladimir Putin that he has put his entire nuclear arsenal on alert has raised fears around the world. Given the current potency of atomic bombs, a direct conflict with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would cause a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.
It is unclear whether this is a bluff or how far Putin would be willing to go in a conflict of this magnitude. The Russian threat, however, is, above all, a strong deterrent to prevent the United States and the European Union from directly engaging against the invasion of Ukraine.
+ Russia adopts package of anti-sanctions laws
+ Fear of a cultural ‘iron curtain’ in Russia due to the invasion of Ukraine
“There is indeed the risk of a nuclear war. It is for this reason that NATO and Europe are so cautious in this matter. A NATO nuclear response, which, together with the countries, has a nuclear power greater than Putin’s, would throw the world into an unimaginable sphere. Putin invades Ukraine, but he knows there are limits – he will probably also invade Moldova”, analyzes Marcio Coimbra, professor of International Relations at Mackenzie.
Putin also declared that the world would see “consequences never before seen in history” if NATO countries interfere in the action in Ukraine. The threat also extends to Finland and Sweden, should the Nordic countries join the US-led Western military alliance.
The possibility of an effectively nuclear war is low because all political actors are aware of the disastrous consequences: in this context, there would be no winners. Thus, Western countries limit themselves to sending weapons to Ukraine, but have stated several times that they will not send troops to war.
“I don’t believe there is a great risk of nuclear conflict because the West/NATO declares that it will not directly engage in the conflict with Russia. Zelensky (President of Ukraine) asks NATO to decree a no-fly zone, which could intercept any hostile aircraft, but the West denies it. Putin has warned on several occasions of the catastrophic risk that such direct intervention could entail. The catastrophic scenario is hardly imaginable”, points out Vicente Ferraro, political scientist and researcher at the Laboratory of Asian Studies at the University of São Paulo (USP).
According to Russian news agency RIA Novosti, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that if there is a third World War, the fighting would involve nuclear weapons and would be destructive.
What would be the consequences of a nuclear war?
Scientists point to an apocalyptic scenario: a cloud of dust and rust would engulf the entire planet and take at least a year to dissolve. Sunlight would be blocked and would cause the planet to reach a temperature of -40°C.
This scenario is called “Nuclear Winter” and would basically compromise agriculture all over the world. There would still be radiation spreading through the atmosphere, which could kill billions of human beings.
According to Federal American Scientist, Russia has 5,977 nuclear warheads against 5,428 for the US. It is worth remembering that the destructive capacity of current nuclear weapons is much greater than those that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II. Although the number is uncertain, it is estimated that 140,000 died in the first city and 74,000 in the second.
“We would have the death of 2 billion people and a nuclear winter of 3 to 4 years, but that in a small nuclear conflict. I think NATO and the European Union made the right decision: you cannot engage in the Ukraine conflict. We do not treat a war as it was in the past”, argues Coimbra.
“I can’t even speculate, it would practically be the end of the world. Today’s nuclear weapons have much greater potential than those used in Japan. In the Cold War there was prudence: the parties avoided direct conflict and now that can be expected as well”, adds Ferraro.
Countries with nuclear warheads:
– Russia: 5,977
– USA: 5,428;
– France: 290;
– United Kingdom: 225;
– China: 350;
– Pakistan: 165;
– India: 160;
– Israel: 90;
– North Korea: 20.
Putin’s motivations
Despite Putin’s claims that he initiated the conflict to defend Russia from NATO expansion, Ukraine is a relevant geopolitical area in territorial, strategic and economic terms.
There are oil and natural gas reserves in southern Ukraine, in Odesa; in the east, in the maritime region near Donbas; and in the west, close to the Moldovan border. As Ukraine does not have enough technology or resources, these areas have not yet been explored.
Furthermore, with the eventual annexation of Ukraine, it would be easier for Russia to control the gas pipelines that supply Europe.
In addition, water supply is also a relevant factor in the scenario. Coimbra explains that the Ukrainians, as soon as they left the Soviet Union, cemented the crossing of the Dnieper River, made during the Soviet Union. This caused, in 2021, the worst drought in the history of Crimea, a region annexed by Russia in 2014.
“Putin thinks that if there is an attack on Volgograd (ex-Stalingrad), it could cut off Moscow’s water supply, as happened in Crimea. With the domination of the southern region of Ukraine, Crimea has water again”, says Coimbra.
internal resistance
Despite a heavy crackdown that has arrested thousands of anti-war protesters in Russia, Putin could suffer from a strain on his own oligarchy as economic sanctions cripple Russian business and economy.
It is worth remembering that Putin, when he took power in 2000, overthrew many of the oligarchs who inherited the privatized companies of the Soviet Union to create their own economic elite. His allies mysteriously died, like Boris Berezovsky, then his most dangerous opponent.
For Ferraro, the war can cause both resistance from the Russian elite, but it can also have the opposite effect, of reinforcing Putin’s speech in defense of national sovereignty. Both through nationalism and polarization, internal resistance can play an important role in preventing nuclear war.
“There is a very strong system of repression and denunciation among citizens who come from the Soviet Union. It is not easy to protest because the consequences are very serious. Without the pressure from the oligarchs for the economy, combined with public questioning in the streets, he will remain in power”, said Coimbra.
Putin, who has been in power for 22 years, has an official term until 2036.
know more
+ Omicron: Unexpected symptom of infection in children worries medical teams
+ Mercadão de SP vendors threaten customers with fruit scam
+ Video: Mother is attacked on social media for wearing tight clothes to take her son to school
+ Horoscope: check today’s forecast for your sign
+ What is known about fluorone?
+ Trick to squeeze lemons becomes a craze on social media
+ ‘Monster Ichthyosaur’ is discovered in Colombia
+ One twin became vegan, the other ate meat. Check the result
+ See which were the most stolen cars in SP in 2021
+ Expedition identifies giant squid responsible for ship sinking in 2011
+ US Agency warns: never wash raw chicken meat
#Understand #possibility #nuclear #war #Ukraine