By Eze Eluchie, Esq.
As Ukraine
gets more audacious in its attacks deep inside Russia, hitting facilities in
the eastern flank of Russia, as far east as the city of Bashkortostan,
thousands of kilometers away from the frontlines of its 5-year long conflict
with Russia, the wonder in some circles has been: ‘why has Russia allowed the “Special
Military Operation” to linger for so long?’
Some may
argue that the question raised above evidences obvious bias in favor of Russia,
and overlooks the fact that Russia has itself been pummeling locations deep
inside Ukraine – attacking the western Ukrainian cities of Odessa, Lviv and
others since the inception of the conflict. Asserting that by its attacks deep
in Russian territory, Ukraine is merely retaliating for what it had suffered in
the hands of the Russia’s’ military.
Those who
allege bias as indicated in the paragraph above are more likely to be same
folks who claim that Russia is the aggressor in this conflict citing the
incursion into Ukrainian territory by the Russian Army in February 2022 – conveniently
omitting the events which commenced with the pact entered between US President
Ronald Reagan and USSR leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, soon after the fall of the
Berlin Wall, that North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) would not advance
an inch eastwards; and was further exacerbated by the externally-orchestrated
Orange Revolution of 2004, amongst other events that reveal a deeper schism.
The reality
is that there is no, and ought not be any, comparison between the military
capacity and capabilities of Russia on the one hand, and Ukraine on the other.
Ukraine is only able to resist the Russian onslaught because it is being used
as a proxy by NATO to stretch and hopefully degrade Russia militarily, and
ultimately subdue the Russian state.
Whilst
Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear bombs, Ukraine is not a nuclear
power; the personnel size of the Russian military far surpasses that of
Ukraine, the latter being largely populated by forcefully conscripted
youngsters; Russia’s land mass and population dwarfs that of Ukraine by a wide
margin. A combination of the above prevailing factors shows there is simply no
cause of comparison of the strength of Russia and that of Ukraine.
Without the
massive infusion of NATO military hardware, expertise and personnel, Ukraine
would have long capitulated to Russia’s superior firepower and numerical
strength. Whilst some had opted for the hashtag ‘#RussiaUkraineWar’ to describe
the conflict, it has always been more practical to refer to the conflict as
‘#RussiaUkraineNATOWar’
With Ukraine
now indiscriminately hitting targets in Moscow, Crimea, and as they claim,
‘taking the war to ordinary Russians’, an ideal query becomes: why has Russia
not tried to abruptly end this conflict by deploying tactical nukes? Would the
only other super nuclear power state, the United States, with similar weaponry
have tolerated existential threats against her from a direction it can easily
extinguish? In 1945, an attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, led the
United States to unleash two Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan
immediately capitulated to superior firepower, saving itself and her population
what might have been slow and painful extermination. The unnecessary
prolongation of the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is leading to
unquantifiable destructions of property and lives, mostly Ukrainian.
It appears
Russia is taking into consideration its filial connections with the peoples in
the territory referred to as Ukraine and the fact that three former leaders of
the former Soviet Union, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, and Gorbachev, had roots in
Ukraine.
Considering
the willingness of some European countries and the EU bureaucracy, to goad
Ukraine on in what is clearly very dangerous acts of brinksmanship and gambling
on the continuing Russian self-restraint from using tactical nuclear weapons,
which attack from Ukraine will break the proverbial camel’s back, and force
Russia to use more decisive tactics? A mass-murder of Russian School children?
A direct attack on the Kremlin? A hit on Russian leader, Putin? What really?
Clearly, sooner than later, something will give, and there may be resort to a
catastrophic end for a war that ought never have been.
Having
already exhausted their possibilities of economic, cultural and social warfare
against Russia, would NATO risk direct military conflict with Russia, in the
event that Russia abruptly ends the conflict with Ukraine? Such conflict would
be a mutually destructive and mutually annihilating World War ‘WWIII’ fought
with nuclear weapons. The answer would be a resounding ‘No’. Why has the Russian leadership then refrained
from abruptly ending this conflict?
So why is
the Ukrainian dictator, Zelensky, who has decreed away virtually all democratic
rights and privileges of the Ukrainian people, including the rights to choose
their leaders and freedoms of religion, not willing to take up the various
peace overtures offered by the United States, and end this debilitating
conflict which is diminishing the people of Ukraine?
Image: Russia's TU-160 nuclear bomber:
