- The Ukrainians are fighting back valiantly.
- Those of other countries, apart from Poland and Hungary, are minimal at best.
- France relies on posturing and its nuclear deterrent.
Although Russian President Vladimir Putin’s soldiers may conquer Ukraine by taking its major towns, there is a significant difference between conquering territory and cowing and controlling its people as reported by The Hill.
Middle class
The Ukrainians are fighting back valiantly.
History demonstrates that military occupation is expensive, labour-intensive and difficult.
Consider, for example, Afghanistan and Iraq in the 20th century, and colonial America in the late 1700s.
This is unquestionably true when neighbouring countries provide arms, ammunition and other help to restive and rebel citizens of the country that is invaded.
Within Russia, Putin likely will face questions from his supporters, growing criticism from demonetized oligarchs, and more demonstrations in the streets by the Russian “middle class” increasingly impoverished by international sanctions.
NATO members
It is possible that he will move against a smaller nearby country, with Belarus as an ally.
Former countries of the USSR that are now NATO members, such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, might be choice candidates for a Russian invasion.
Each is small, with little or no air force, with large Russian-speaking populations and long Baltic Sea coastlines.
Such a move, however, would invoke Article 5 of the NATO charter, requiring NATO nations to fight against the aggressor of a member state.
And the response by NATO members to Putin’s current aggression — albeit against a non-NATO member — has been timorous and tempered at best.
Marginal existence
Over the past two decades, the once strong German Armed Forces have been reduced to a marginal existence.
France relies on posturing and its nuclear deterrent.
The armies of Spain, Italy and Greece, except for their air forces, possibly, are marginal players.
It was the “Arsenal of Democracy” in World War II.
However, a missile-delivered electromagnetic pulse (EMP) of sufficient size, exploded high above St. Louis, for example, could basically fry the electricity systems of the United States and those of the main populated parts of Canada and northern Mexico.
Nuclear response
EMP Commission estimates project a death toll of 90% of the population within one year, where something of this nature to happen.
The remaining authorities would be overwhelmed by civil unrest decimating the dwindling population as they fought for their survival.
The question, then, is: “Would such an EMP attack provoke a nuclear response by the United States?”
The answer to that likely depends on where the U.S. believed the EMP originated.
If North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un could be persuaded to fire an EMP missile over the United States, or to detonate a preloaded bomb on either one of the two North Korean satellites it claims to have circling Earth, both China and Russia could claim plausible deniability.
Empires of evil
But even if North Korea did not initiate the EMP, and it was clear from missile tracks that Russia did, the American response likely would be based on 30-year-old nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) targeted toward Russia.
If they did, already the EMP-devastated U.S. could be utterly destroyed.
This would leave China and Russia as the sole remaining superpowers, able to dominate the world.
Inevitably, these “empires of evil” would clash with each other for global dominance.
This unthinkable scenario is why we believe the future of mankind could be at stake in Russia’s war in Ukraine if the worst-case possibilities were to unfold.
Did you subscribe to our newsletter?
It’s free! Click here to subscribe!
Source: The Hill
