By George Koumoulli
I have the impression that most Cypriots have not realized the danger of a Third World War with nuclear weapons and the armageddon that it will inevitably cause. Perhaps the main reason is that we have become addicted to living on the razor’s edge since 1963, and so the possible escalation of the war in Ukraine makes no sense of it. Unless, of course, due to ignorance of the consequences of a nuclear war, many people have the illusion that Cyprus, which does not belong to NATO, can make the war unscathed!
We should all be aware that, if a thermonuclear bomb explodes, the temperature within a large radius will reach 100 000 000° Celsius. I succumb to the temptation to make some comparisons: in the summer when the mercury sometimes reaches 40°, we are all talking about a “heatwave”, while a housewife bakes chicken in the oven at 200°. If, the non-genito, exploded such a bomb in the center of Cyprus and after a few days an alien (there will be no earthmen anymore) passed by helicopter over Nicosia, he would see only a vast ash – he would not see where the Presidential was or where the Archdiocese was. In any case, today, researchers, using new powerful computers, with better climate models and relying on natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions, have shown that even a regional war could destabilize our entire planet, endangering the whole of humanity, while a world war would permanently exterminate humanity (See Chapter C “The Probability of Nuclear War”, Rudolf Avenhaus).
The other day, Putin warned of the consequences of foreign interference in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, leaving spikes for the use of nuclear weapons. Indeed, if, with the military help of the West, Ukraine succeeds and pushes Russian troops back beyond its borders, then it will be very likely that Putin will use nuclear weapons to prevent such a gigantic humiliation.
In addition to the Involvement of the West in the war, direct or indirect, a second scenario could also have the potential to lead to nuclear war. Putin, like all dictators over the years, is determined to retain his power at all costs, which raises the question of the means to which he could resort to to secure his status. For the West, this fact is a double provocation: On the one hand, Western states want to increase sanctions against Russia to reduce its ability to wage war and thus bring about a change in its policy. On the other hand, the threat of regime change could incentivize Putin to use nuclear weapons to show that he prefers to resort to extreme measures than to relinquish power.
The big dilemma for the West is how to deal with an unpredictable dictator, like Putin, who possesses nuclear weapons. Inevitably, the 1960s come to mind, when two events occurred that brought humanity to the brink of nuclear war: the construction of the Wall that divided Berlin into East and West and the Cuban missile crisis, which the Soviet Union planned to install missiles with nuclear warheads in Cuba. The slogan that prevailed at the time was “Better dead than red”, a trend that, by the way, encouraged western nuclear powers to increase their (nuclear) arsenal. But Bertrand Russell appeared in the spotlight and reversed the slogan, making it “Better red than dead”, because, as he explained, all tyrannies have an expiration date – none lasts forever, no matter how powerful it may be, predicting, by the way, the dissolution of the USSR. Why, then, Russell said, should we engage in a nuclear war in which everyone, enemies and allies, will die? Is it not preferable for the sake of future generations to endure a communist/tyrannical regime for a period of time? Why should we choose the death of future generations? Do we have that right?
These concerns of Russell still apply today in the case of Ukraine. I hasten to clarify that, for me, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not legitimised in any way. However, it is worth sacrificing all of humanity for the sake of Ukraine which, truth be told, is not a model of democracy! After all, if the choices were A) the annihilation of the human race or B) life in a plutocratic/tyrannical regime like Putin’s, what would you choose if you believed that no tyranny lasts forever? That is why I consider the statements of American officials, that “Ukraine will win the war”, and other similar, provocative and unnecessary, because they cultivate in Putin’s mind the idea, or provocation, of using nuclear weapons to defeat his opponents. I am not at all sure whether sending arms to Ukraine promotes peace. On the contrary, prolonging the war will cost more lives, while increasing the likelihood of nuclear devastation. The golden rule is that you don’t challenge a dictator when he has the ability to exterminate you. You fight it by other means, mainly by questioning the propaganda that the dictator is channeling to his oppressed people.
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of CypriumNews.
