Historically ,the foremost reason for most of the invasions across the world has been expansionism. May it be the annexation of Europe and Northern Africa by the Nazis, the rise of imperial forces across Asia and Africa, or the spread of Christianity and Islam across the world, the goal has been to increase the sphere of influence over the conquered lands. Russian invasion on Ukraine is no different.
Ukraine and Russia have had cordial relations up until 2013 when the pro Russian government was overthrown and the demand of the people to join NATO grew. Did the Russian invasion of Ukraine stems out only because of the reason that if Ukraine joins NATO, it would pose an “existential threat” to Russia? I do not think so. There are already reports that imply that the purpose of invasion was to capture the resources (like Lithium) on the Ukrainian soil. To add to that, Poland and Finland, are other two countries which share their borders with Russia, and are members of NATO. Did Russia invaded these aforementioned countries too? No, it did not. The three year conflict have left thousands killed, thousands displaced, and have caused one of the largest humanitarian crises the world has seen after the World War – II
To elaborate on why I think Russia is on the wrong footing here is a discussion for another time. To stay within the confines of the article, I would like to express my thoughts on as to why the bloody battle did not resulted in Russia striking Ukraine with its vast stockpile of nuclear weapons and opening the gates of hell on the entire European continent.
What prompted me to manifest my two cents as to why the war did not resulted in a nuclear conflict was a video of Major General G.D Bakshi. In the video he was drawing parallels between Indo-Pakistan conflict and the Russian-Ukrainian conflict stating that if Russia did not fired nukes on Ukraine even after three years of prolonged and costly battle, Pakistan would also not do the same. “How may nuclear bombs have Russia dropped on Ukraine since the war started?” were his words that I vividly remember. I base my arguments on the following four points:
First, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is not a conflict between two equal opponents. Even if NATO is behind Ukraine, it is a reality that Russia possesses the largest stock of nuclear weapons and Ukraine, even though has nuclear plants, does not have any weapons of mass destruction. In contrast, both India and Pakistan are nuclear states.
Secondly, in my opinion, Russia never had and never will face any threat to its existence even if the war prolongs for another decade. Russia is a vast country and history has proven that from the Napoleon aggression to the Nazi’s invasion, the country has never ever been under occupation by a foreign ruler. The depth, length and breadth of the country is so vast that it is almost impossible for any country to occupy it. Now, on the other hand, it is very much possible for India to capture a sizeable part of Pakistan or to enforce a complete blockade of the Karachi port thereby strangling that country to a definitive collapse. This dire situation, according to many Pakistani analysts including their revered Najam Sethi, will be considered as an existential threat. As per the Nuclear doctrine of Pakistan, if it faces this kind of a threat, it will use its tactical nuclear weapons on the Indian armed forces.
My third argument has its basis on what a responsible state and a responsible leadership is. Russia, even after the break up of Soviet Union, is a technologically advanced country. It has a robust space program and still is amongst the largest exporters of weapons in the world. According to a report, Moscow has the second largest number of billionaires in the world after New York City. Russia has seen immense progress in its past and is still recognized as a global power to reckon with. Viz-a-Viz, Pakistan is mostly a failed state with a plummeting economy and far from making any technological footprint on the world map.
My fourth and last argument revolves around the Jihadi mindset. As I have also iterated in my other articles that the intoxication of dying for one’s religion is the most destructive and the most lethal intoxications of all. Pakistani Army is headed by such an extremist mindset. Even though the country is on a verge of an economical collapse, its head, Asif Munir continues to arm his forces to its teeth. He also continues to spit venom against other religions as is evident by his recent speech against the Hindus. In the event of a conventional defeat, I am highly skeptical that this idiosyncratic Munir will not press the the “doomsday button”. Russia on the other hand, though fueled by its greed and ambition to exert and reestablish its sphere of influence in the Eastern European and the Baltic region, does not suffers from this “do or die” mindset of achieving martyrdom in the name of God.
Site Title 