By Chijioke Okoronkwo
On Nov. 19, Ukraine announced it launched the MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACM), a supersonic tactical ballistic missile, on Russia—the first since the war Russia-Ukraine war started on February 24, 2022.
The attack was executed shortly before Russia updated its nuclear weapons doctrine to allow for nuclear strikes in response to foreign ballistic missile attacks.
Russian President, Vladimir Putin, had warned that Russia could respond with nuclear weapons if Ukraine attacked with conventional arms provided by a nuclear power.
According to Putin, an attack against the country by a non-nuclear power with the participation or support of a nuclear power will be seen as a joint attack on the Russian Federation.
Nonetheless, military analysts say the U.S. granted Ukraine permission to use ATACM following the deployment of North Korean troops to join Russia units.
In a significant escalation, on Nov. 21, Ukrainian authorities announced that Russia launched an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) on Ukraine.
Reinforcing his stance, Putin said what Russia launched on Ukraine was the Oreshnik (hazel tree), a new missile.
Putin described the Oreshnik, an intermediate-range Ballistic Missile (IRBM), as a successful test, adding that more would come.
Worthy of note, the IRBM launched by Russia was not nuclear-charged.
“We will continue these tests, including in combat conditions, depending on the situation and the nature of the security threats that are created for Russia,” Putin said in a televised remark.
Obviously, the current wave of events has taken the standoff to a crescendo—heightening fears of a nuclear mayhem and by extension, World War III (WWIII).
In retrospect, the skirmish escalated on Feb. 24, 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine exacerbating the already volatile situation caused by the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014.
Perceptive scholars are of the view that urgent measures should be taken to tone down the nuclear rhetoric and save the world the calamitous consequences of a nuclear war.
Gerald Ezirim, a Professor of Political Science and International Relations, said a nuclear attack on Ukraine would be a cataclysmic event with cascading global consequences.
Ezirim, who is of the Department of Political Science, University of Nigeria, Nsukka(UNN), said that such an attack would unleash immediate and widespread destruction, resulting in mass casualties, long-term radiation contamination, and the obliteration of both critical infrastructure and homesteads.
“Beyond the immediate impact, it would shatter the global security architecture established after World War II, particularly the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons; the psychological and geopolitical shockwaves would push the world into unprecedented turmoil.
“Globally, the aftermath of a nuclear attack would be characterised by immense humanitarian crises; radiation fallouts would contaminate vast areas, rendering them uninhabitable for decades.
“Neighbouring countries in Europe would face a surge in refugees fleeing the affected zones, overwhelming their capacities and destabilizing their economies.
“Global supply chains, already strained by the war, would collapse further as key resources like grain, oil and gas become inaccessible.
“Nuclear attack would also trigger panic in financial markets, leading to a global economic recession, rising inflation, and the devaluation of currencies.” he said.
According to him, the risk of escalation to an all-out war involving other nuclear-armed states would be alarmingly high alongside the risk of triggering WW III.
He argued that countries like the U.S. and NATO allies might feel compelled to respond, which could provoke retaliatory strikes from Russia.
“This chain reaction could rapidly spiral into a global nuclear conflict, engulfing the entire world in devastation.
“The environmental impact would be catastrophic, with nuclear winter scenarios reducing sunlight, disrupting agricultural systems and causing global food shortages.’’
The academic posited that, for Nigeria, the repercussions would be devastating, even though it was far from the immediate conflict zone.
Ezirim said that the current war had already disrupted global supply chains, causing sharp increases in energy and food prices.
“A nuclear escalation would exacerbate these challenges, plunging Nigeria deeper into economic hardship.
“As a country reliant on imports of essential commodities like wheat and fuel, supply shortages and skyrocketing prices would increase food insecurity and inflation, disproportionately affecting the poor and vulnerable.
“Also, the collapse of global trade networks would hinder Nigeria’s ability to export oil and other resources, reducing government revenues and weakening its economy.
“The potential for political instability would rise as socioeconomic conditions worsen; Nigeria’s already strained health system would struggle to cope with indirect effects, such as potential radiation contamination in imported goods or long-term environmental changes affecting agricultural productivity,’’ he said.
The professor submitted that a nuclear attack on Ukraine would not remain a localised disaster as its ramifications would ripple across the globe, destabilising economies, societies and governments.
He said that, for Nigeria, the compounded effects of disrupted trade, economic decline and social instability would deepen existing vulnerabilities, making the need for global peace and nuclear non-proliferation more urgent than ever.
The don said that the incoming U.S. President, Donald Trump, must take proactive steps to fulfill his promise of ending the war by initiating a win-win peace deal.
“This entails crafting a diplomatic solution that addresses both Ukraine’s sovereignty and security concerns while respecting Russia’s strategic interests.
“The U.S. and its NATO allies must exercise restraint and avoid crossing Russia’s declared red lines; these red lines, though contentious, are pivotal to maintaining a balance of power and could prevent further escalation.
“It is worth considering that the U.S. and NATO would expect similar respect for their red lines if roles were reversed,’’ he said.
Ezirim said that another critical approach to avoiding nuclear escalation was to bolster Ukraine’s defensive capabilities, potentially including the provision of nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent against Russia.
Sharing similar sentiments, Prof. Saleh Dauda, Department of International Relations, University of Abuja, said it was common knowledge that there would never be a clear winner in a nuclear war.
According to him, there is mutual destruction if any country decides to use it and there can also be retaliation.
“The threat is real; Putin said that if the sovereignty of Russia is threatened, he would not mind using nuclear weapon.
“But, he also understands it is a war where there can be decisive winner; so, the threat is real but the probability of using nuclear weapons in the 21st century.
“I think it is very remote considering the fact that more nations now have nuclear weapons.
“The incoming President of the U.S. has promised that immediately he is sworn in, he will pursue a diplomatic option to make sure that the war is brought to an end’’, he said.
“According to him, the only country likely to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia is the U.S. under the leadership of Trump.
“He has also stated clearly that the kind of assistance that was given to Ukraine under President Joe Biden would not continue.
So, one would think that if there is any opportunity for Ukraine to make concessions for the war to end, Ukraine will do that.
“Also, Russia, to save its face as super power whose power seems to dwindling, needs to make concessions,’’ he said.
Notable world figures have also weighed in on the nuclear threat and debate. They seem to tone down the rhetoric.
As reported by Reuters, EU Foreign Policy Chief, Josep Borrell, said it was not the first time Russia threatened with nuclear escalation, which is completely irresponsible.
“Russia has subscribed to the principle that a nuclear war cannot be won, and so it must never be fought,” Borrell said.
More so, French Foreign Minister, Jean-Noel Barrot, downplayed the threat.
“President Putin’s decision to lower the threshold for a nuclear strike is rhetoric; we are not intimidated,” Reuters quoted Barrot as saying.
British Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, reacted to the Russian nuclear threat at the G20 summit of the world’s largest economies in Brazil.
“There is irresponsible rhetoric coming from Russia and that’s not going to deter our support for Ukraine,” Starmer said.
What’s more, the global super power, U.S. also played down the nuclear threat.
The U.S. National Security Council, in a statement, said it had observed “no changes to Russia’s nuclear posture.”
Observers hold that the nuclear rhetoric and posturing might have far-reaching implications and must be toned down.
They posit that such threats could create a situation where nations feel compelled to acquire nuclear capabilities; thereby, engendering a new nuclear arms race. (NANFeatures)
