This is an unequal war. Russia is a military power and Ukraine is not. This has been, for centuries, part of Russia and its history. His neighbors in Western Europe, located to the west of that continent, support him. Most of them, some 27 gradually, were grouped into what is now the European Union and became a community of nations with common governance and economically integrated. As far as their military defense is concerned, they created NATO, made up today of 30 nations, some of which were part of the Soviet Union. Until now, neither Russia nor Ukraine have joined the European Union or NATO.
For years, Russia has warned that it will not allow NATO military bases to be installed on its borders with Ukraine and Finland. A few months ago, and for that reason, Russia invaded Ukraine and what seemed to be an easy victory has dragged on. It is to be feared that one day, whether by accident or on purpose, the war could spread to other NATO member countries. That would lead to a declaration of war with that organization and possibly a global nuclear conflict. Within this scenario, the first big question arises: Are Western Europeans willing to go to a nuclear war with Russia? I am one of those who believe that they do not want this. They suffered a lot in the Second World War and they do not want a nuclear war that would cause great material destruction and human loss. They also know that the end result will depend on what America decides to do, just as it did in World War II. In turn, the North Americans know that a war of this nature would not be like the two previous ones in which the continental territory of the United States was not affected. In a nuclear war with Russia the destruction of the main cities of North America, of its military installations and great loss of human lives will be a certain fact. Then the second big question arises: Can the United States, even being the first world power but currently politically divided, get involved in a nuclear conflict with Russia? This will be, in my opinion, a very difficult decision. but circumstances and facts may lead you to have to participate.
Some days ago, Sweden and Finland announced that they were taking steps to join NATO. This was something that seemed extremely strange to me, at the same time very dangerous. Finland has a border with Russia of about 1,300 kilometers and during the Second World War it allied with Hitler. They considered that being conquered by Stalin would be worse than being an ally of Hitler and that this would be the lesser of evils. The reality is that the Red Army could have occupied him in 1944-45, but Stalin chose not to. Finland recognized his mistake against Russia, but now makes a dangerous move, which could spark a bigger conflict. That is why the third big question arises. How to explain the attitude of Finland and Sweden that had always struck a balance between the West and Russia? My answer is that the process to find out about its integration into NATO will be rejected and, for now, there will be no final decision. Later, and when the cards are put on the negotiating table, Finland and Sweden will be part of the solution to avoid a nuclear war.
What will China do in the current circumstances? This is where the fourth big question arises. This nation has one of the greatest military powers and appears to be supporting Russia in its conflict with Ukraine, but her position does not seem firm to me. It is as if they are performing a balancing act between the main actors in this conflict. I think that in case of a nuclear war, China’s attitude could be the same and they would try to stay away from that conflagration.
Having cleared the four questions, two hypotheses arise. Before raising them, I must bear in mind that great empires have neither friends nor enemies. They, in the end, understand each other. However, in this case the difficulty lies in the fact that whoever has the economic and military power, which is the United States, has not done so. Rather, by his actions he has ruled himself out as an arbitrator for this case. Mentioning the other possible arbitrator, which is the United Nations, is a waste of time. This weak, discredited organization, whose highest body is a Security Council that has not been able to agree on many other minor issues, would not be suitable for this case either.
Taking into account the aforementioned questions, the first hypothesis arises. This is the search for a negotiated solution to the war. The powerful nations know that none of them benefit from the destruction caused by a nuclear conflict. Therefore, the conflicting empires will have to work hard to find solutions. In this the main actors of the conflict will gain and lose something. In this stage, Ukraine will have to cede part of its territory to Russia, I mean the Crimean peninsula, Mariupol, Donetsk and Luhansk, but the province of Odessa and its port will remain in the hands of the Ukraine. Likewise, it would be negotiated that this nation can never belong to NATO. But yes to the European Union that would facilitate the funds for its reconstruction. Russia and allies will have to consent to Finland and Sweden joining NATO. With this result Russia wins something, the Western allies win without firing a shot and without suffering and the loser is obviously Ukraine.
My second hypothesis is the one that nobody wants and the worst for all humanity. It is a scenario in which, in the absence of agreements, a nuclear war is unleashed whose final results would be:
• Europa Occidental y
the UK destroyed.
• Russia destroyed.
• United States and some urban centers and military installations seriously affected.
– China intact.
• India intact and emerging as a new world power.
• Africa, the missiles that will fall there will be of a different nature and generate a famine with thousands of deaths.
• Latin America intact in its territory, but seriously affected in its political, economic and social governance.
The nuclear war will bring great destruction and a new order in the world order. We have to achieve peace.