Russo-Ukraine War: Drawing a Parallel with the Second World War and Cold War

: The paper drew parallels between the Russo- Ukraine war and the Second World War and Cold War. A contextual between these events and eras were described in the study. The similarities were pointed out, a conjecture between the eras was reviewed, and a comparison of NATO and Russia’s National Interests were studied side by side as it concerns the nations border states with Russia. The study relied on documentary data. The documentary data were sourced from government annual departmental reports, newspapers and correspondence. The secondary sources used were subjected to internal and external criticism for authentication, and then to textual and contextual analyses. The study found that the Russo- Ukraine war was a proxy war. The paper proved that a parallel between the events under study can indeed be drawn. A core contribution of this study is the correlation between the eras and the similarities of both periods The study proves that Russia has a Nuclear edge over NATO.


I. Introduction
According to the American historian Christopher Kelly, and British historian Stuart Laycock, the United States of America (USA) has invaded or fought in 84 countries of the 193 countries recognized by the United Nations and has been militarily involved with 191 of the 193 (The Vanguard Newspaper, 2022). A story in the Washington Post in March, 2016 not committing America's familiar atrocities said the US government tried to change other countries government 72 times during the 45 year long cold war, an average of more than one every year, earning itself the title of history's all-time meddler in Chief or the world's policeman (The Vanguard Newspaper, 2022). And of course, the consequences of atrocities of the United States and its allies whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya have come with gory details. The Russo-Ukraine war is as deplorable and gory. The blame for the deadly war rest majorly at the doorstep of the meddler in Chief (The Vanguard Newspaper, 2022). Russia and Ukraine can also be blamed for allowing themselves to be drawn into this strategic war. The United States unipolar interest and the fact that it is neurotically against a bipolar world (Soyombo, 28 February, 2022). Putin's Russia still has a reminisce to the old Soviet Union It was President Harry Truman who ordered the first use of atomic bomb in the history of warfare. This was in 1945 and by its use, the global arms race began and it fell on the USA to strive to maintain the dominance of power. The concept of Unipolar leadership was conceived. The Truman Doctrine was an American foreign policy based on the goal to contain communism and inhibit its spread around the world. This policy was therefore the direct reply to the communist game plan to export communism overseas. Jack Watson cites the Greek crisis of 1946 as another major containment issue (Watson, 1945). Monarchists who were fighting the communists in a civil war in Greece had beckoned on Britain for help and Britain further appealed to the US, which sent huge financial aid (Duyile, 2005). It was in Greece that Britain technically handed superiority to the United States of America. It was on this occasion that President Truman openly declared to "support free peoples (against) attempted subjugation by armed minorities or outside pressures (Chilaka, 2002)". The policy of containment had actually been in operation in US political and socio-economical presence in the conquered territories of the Axis powers, beginning in Germany (Chilaka, 2002). When the four -power Allied Control Council, which governed German affairs in post-WWII Germany, divided the nation into four zones, the USA encouraged her British and French counterparts to foster the laissez-faire approach in their zones. This led to much suspicion by the Soviet Union, especially when USA and Britain merged their zones in 1946 to form one economic unit called the Bi-zone. Despite Soviet protests of this merger, the USA and Britain encouraged local German participation in administering the Bi-zone and by 1948; the Bi-zone adopted a new currency, the West German Mark. Thus, although the containment policy was officially declared in 1947, the simmering suspicion between mainly the USA and USSR reinforced it and led to a domino effect in the introduction of communism-capitalism ideological into German way of life (Watson, 1945).

II. Review of Literature
Drawing a reference from the events of the aftermath of the Second World War; the United States (in the 21st Century) continues to use its NATO Allies as a deterrence to curb Russia whether in its excesses or otherwise. The other strategy of the Americans was to surround Russia's boundary with NATO members and force some kind of implosion within the Russia state. It aims at a Regime change within Russia. Its objective is to enthrone a democratic administration in Russia. A Russia that is democratic and capitalist. A Russia that is subtle to the leadership of America in the geo-politics of the world. A Russia which is forced to an ally posture as Japan became after the Second World War. For the American's the notion of 'balance of power' is an anathema to the American establishment (Soyombo, 28 February, 2022). A Russia that would not be appealing to the white supremacist groups in America as the American Democratic Party see these Pro-White associations as majorly supporting the Republican Party. Russia is unhappy with the American strategy of surrounding it with allies or NATO members and machinery of annihilation (Soyombo, 28 February, 2022). It is in the interest of Russia to pursue an appropriate and commensurate response hence the reason for the emergence of the Russo-Ukrainian war. As Germany saw its crushing defeat in the First World War as humiliation. The result, of course, was Hitler starting the Second World War. The West may not have imposed heavy financial costs on Russia after the collapse of USSR, but Putin who was at that time an officer in the KGB, saw firsthand, the humiliation that followed the collapse of his country, the triumphalism of the West and its relentless efforts since to crush whatever is left of Russia's pride and spirit.
Russia is skeptical of NATO's continued existence, in spite of the dissolution of the Russia's Warsaw Pact. NATO has been moving its machinery of force to Eastern Europe through NATO's enlargement through treaties, cunningly strategizing to encircle Russia with allies or NATO members. Russia, under Putin, continues to see itself as a superpower as the defacto successor to the Soviet Union. Russia still see other nations adjoined to it as USSR as its sphere of influence, more so a kind of its border extension. It is unfortunate that the Ukrainians who ought to enjoy the government of Volodymyr Zelensky; the West had escorted them into a proxy war.
The American tacit encouragement of Russia's neighbors and its perceived sphere of influence states to be part of NATO can be described as a new version of the Marshal plan and a parallel can also be drawn with the Second World War and its aftermath.

Drawing a Parallel with the Second World War and Cold War
Any discussion on the Second World War and Cold War will do well to begin recalling the famous indictment of the US military-industrial complex by no other than President Ike Eisenhower, himself a former Field General in the US Army who said just before leaving office in 1945 that "….. the conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry was something new in the American experience…." He urged that the US should "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist… We should take nothing for granted" (Watson, 1945) In this bird's eye view of the global status of the conflict of ideas and policies between the anti-liberalist and the liberalist economic divide, one can begin to see the American contribution to sustaining the phenomenon of the Cold War which lasted from 1945 to the 1990's prior also was the Second World War (Chilaka, 2002). The origins of the Cold War must be attributed to the unwonted zeal of Second World War Soviet leaders in concerted or disparate league with the People's Republic of China in their zeal to seek a realization of the Marxist-Leninist ideals of exporting communism to foreign lands (Duyile, 2005). This paper shall endeavor to draw a parallel between the Russo-Ukrainian war and the prior and aftermath of the Second World War. Suffice it to say that the Russo-Ukrainian war draws a parallel with events of the Second World War and the Cold War.
When the USA used the atomic bomb to erase Hiroshima on 6 th August 1945 and the second Japanese's city Nagasaki three days later, the efficiency of its use dawned on the major world powers as the weapon of the future (Roberts, 2007). More importantly, Jack Watson notes that USA refused to share the nuclear expertise with Russia, intending by this to send a warning to Russia of America's new found resolve to curb future aggressors (Watson, 1945). But knowing USSR's antecedents as a military power of no mean proportion, inevitable co-operation with the Allies to defeat a common enemy notwithstanding, there seemed to be no time lost in their (USSR) realization that they have not fought off Hitler only to come under Western domination. And with this realization, the USSR lost no time in searching for equality in nuclear weapons possession and capacity. Thus, she developed the atomic bomb in 1949, by which time the USA had gone on to higher things by producing the hydrogen bomb. The Soviets matched this capacity also by 1953, and by this time the rest of the world powers Britain, France and China excluding the Axis powers (which were under sanctions) had joined in the arms race in an undeclared war of supremacy in arms and ammunition dubbed the Cold War (Duyile, 2005).Added to the military factor, the heavy US influence in the Breton Woods financial institutions formed in 1944 and the GATT instrument of 1947 was said to have sharpened Soviet fears and resentment about US dominance.Although the Soviet Union and its satellites refused to participate in the Marshall Plan; Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Great Britain, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and Turkey reacted favorably to the scheme (Roberts, 2007). Although only Turkey and Greece were to receive aid, he deliberately offered the 'free peoples' of the world America leadership to resist, with American support, "attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures" (Krieger, Nelli, & Jantzen, 1994). The innate decision in the Marshall Plan by the critics of America then, was the new imperialism. This imperial order was to be led by the Americans unlike the previous that was led by the Northern Europeans. When the Europeans set up an organization for European Economic Cooperation to handle the Marshall Plan, the Russians replied by organizing their own half of Europe in COMECON, a council for Mutual Economic Assistance, which was window dressing for the soviet integration of the command economics of the East. The Russians would not participate in the Marshall Plan, nor did allow their satellite states to do same. Although the satellite states, such as Czechoslovakia regretted this action. The communist coup in February 1948, in Czechoslovakia dashed every hope of reverting its decision (Chilaka, 2002). Another sign of Russian intransigence was an old pre-war propaganda device, the Comintern (revived as the Cominform), was invoked to denounce what Russia termed as America's predatory and expansionist course, to establish a unipolar imperialist outlook to the geo-politics of states (Chilaka, 2002). It is in this context, that NATO's encouragement, or enticement of previous "perceived" satellite states of Russia to be a member of its Military Alliance was read wrongly or rightly as an expansionist agenda of America which would hurt Russia in the future.
With the coming to power of Mikhail S. Gorbachev in USSR in 1986, and his avowed pursuit of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring), the death knell of the cold war was sounded. Although the economy was in shambles, it was only Mr. Gorbachev who proved able to stand against the Kremlin Generals and order an end to the communist drift. In fact, in August 1991, hard line Generals of the Soviet Army executed a coup d'état against the Gorbachev regime, shelling the Parliament building when the lawmakers were in session but the putsch failed. The military hurdle cleared for good, the presidents of 11 former Soviet republics signed documents formally creating a Commonwealth of Independent States, to succeed the USSR; Russia was reposed with keeping the nuclear stockpile that made the USSR a superpower. Eighty ministries and departments of the former communist giant were liquidated in November 1991, and then the former component states began self-determination mostly along the free world path. A Herald Tribune report in 1992 sums up the last stage of the Cold War champion, USSR. Writing under the headline; "The Russian Deal; Warheads for Dollars", Thomas L. Friedman stated, "… the arms control accord (reached between Russian President Boris Yeltsin and American President George Bush), radically reducing nuclear arsenals by the year 2003, will fundamentally reshape the nuclear balance … the fear Americans and Russians have lived under for decades will be drastically diminished… after these cuts are completed in 10 years, the Cold War balance of terror will be replaced by a new imbalance. According to the proposed treaty, (scrapping all land-based multiple warhead missiles, the SS-18s), the United States, as the world's biggest superpower and de facto policeman, will be allowed to maintain an edge in its advanced, mostly defensive, submarine-launched weapons, while the Russians, who can no longer afford the arms race, will accept a secondary status'. This could be a reason why the US foreign policy seems to put Russia in a minor position.
Russia denounced its communist agenda and got assurances from the West that America does not intend to humiliate Russia further by expanding to the Satellite Russian States (former Soviet states) (Roberts, 2007). Russia was made to understand that NATO influence will not be allowed to extend to the newly established sovereign states that were created following the dismantlement of the former Soviet Union. James Baker, the US Secretary of State was on record to have told Mikhail Gorbachev that 'la Jurisdiction Militaire de l'Otan ne S'etendra pas d'un pouce vers l'est.' (Akinterinwa, 27 February, 2022) Gorbachev was specifically assured of this in expectation of his acceptance of the then proposed integration of a Unified Germany into the NATO system. America seemed to have lied. Its strategy of containment of the former Archfoe-it took some five decades for communism to be defeated, but the process of achieving the American Empire must be jump-started under different guises. Russia can see through the slyness, camouflage, hence his counteractions, which have rattled the United States and will surely return the Central Intelligence Agency, Pentagon and the Military-Industrial Complex to the drawing board.
The United States claim that Ukraine is a sovereign state and is free to choose a path that pleases it by being part of NATO. The Americans also claim that satellite states bordering Russia (including Ukraine) are lovers of free speech, laissez faire economy, liberty and democracy hence their choice to be part of NATO. This same freedom was expressed by Cuba in 1962, when it permitted the USSR to place missiles on its soil. It was ironic that the USA, which exerted so much pressure around the Soviet backyard in Indo-China, lost a prime location like neighboring Cuba to Soviet influence. When Fidel Castro overthrew the Batista dictatorship in Cuba in 1956, he publicly declared allegiance to Marxism-Leninism, and made association with communist states. In 1962, an American spy-plane spotted Russian missiles being moved into position on the Island, which has contiguous waters with the USA. President Kennedy demanded their removal and imposed a blockade of Cuba to prevent further landings. Soviet President Kruschev in turn demanded the withdrawal of American missiles from Turkey to seal a bargain. After days of tension the Soviet Union withdrew the missiles (Chilaka, 2002). The Cuban missile crisis was the tensest moment of the cold war when the two superpowers came closest to open military confrontation. But after its resolution, the superpowers installed a new telephone link called the "Hot Line" to forestall future emergencies as both superpowers then realized the imperative of mutual deterrence from war (Duyile, 2005).
However, this same concept has been denied to Russia. Russia counteractions in Georgia and later Ukraine must be viewed in the context of a geopolitical understanding of Russia retort to the United States maneuvers in some countries close to its borders. The Russian belligerence can also be deemed strategic and military. Russia's control of Ukraine's naval facilities has always been important for Russia's power to counter NATO's incursion into its sphere of influence. Putin could seek to reconquer the former Soviet Republics to satisfy an autocratic hunger for the Soviet day's power tussle. The West may not have imposed heavy financial costs on Russia after the collapse of USSR, but Putin who was at that time an officer in the KGB, saw firsthand, the humiliation that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union (The Vanguard Newspaper, 2022). Putin, reminisce on the old soviet era and would wish to have that era back. Putin insists that after the Soviet Union broke up into fifteen states, there was agreement between President Mikhail Gorbachev and the West that NATO will not expand East (The Vanguard Newspaper, 2022). NATO has denied the existence of such an agreement, but has barely hidden its subversive encouragement in bringing three countries under the former Soviet Union into its fold, virtually encircling Russia. For Putin, the invasion of Ukraine is his last stand, his push, after Crimea, for Russia's Modern-day Danzig (The Vanguard Newspaper, 2022). Both the West and Russia were not reducing their stockpiles amidst the groundswell of suspicion of a chancy first Nuclear -strike during the rigor of any real threat. This notion helped to fuel the continuance of the cold war.
Russia as at May, 2021 has the highest number of nuclear weapons with 6,257 warheads; according to the Stockholm Peace Institute, Putin had 6,255 warheads as of January 2021 (Wikipaedia, 2021). The United States is placed second with 5,550 warheads meaning that Russia had 207 warheads more than the United States (Akinterinwa, 27 February, 2022). China is placed third with only 350 warheads and France in the fourth place with 290 warheads. With United Kingdom's 225, Pakistan 165, India's 160, Israel's 90 and North Korea 45, the total warheads deployed, stockpiled, retired, or awaiting disarmament, the world is playing host to a total of 13,000 warheads (Wikipaedia, 2021). The NATO Alliance Group will naturally include the United Kingdom and France into the alliance can also be added Israel. The position of India and Pakistan may be defined by non-alignment policy (Akinterinwa, 27 February, 2022). Consequently, the total warheads of the United States, France and the United Kingdom will be 5,550 plus 225 (UK) plus France 270 amounting to 5,065 which is still less than what Russia possesses (Akinterinwa, 27 February, 2022). Even when Israel's 90 warheads are added, the total warheads will be 6,155 and still less than Russia's 6,257 warheads (Akinterinwa, 27 February, 2022). People Republic of China is currently supporting Russia and can be rightly expected to lend nuclear support in the event of need. This means that the addition of China's 350 warheads will further increase the number of warheads available to Russia to 6,607 warheads. In terms of Nuclear Warhead, Russia has an advantage over NATO, the critical issue is that the United States and the other NATO countries are not readily available to fight side by side with the Ukrainians whereas Russian troops are directly engaged in the battle and the war (Akinterinwa, 27 February, 2022). The Russian Military is far weaker, when it is a conventional war. This paper is written three months onto the war and it is clear to the researcher that Russia is inferior to NATO in conventional warfare. However, Russia has damaged and depleted the Ukrainian forces. The chess game of the war has changed numerously because the Russians lines of communications are poor.
Ukraine must be regretting its decision to transfer to Russia thousands of former Soviet Nuclear Warheads, as well as hundreds of intercontinental ballistic missiles and bombers, left on Ukraine territory after the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 (Wikipaedia, 2021). Ukraine never had an independent nuclear weapons, arsenal, or control over these weapons, but agreed to remove former Soviet weapons stationed on its territory. In 1992 Ukraine signed the Lisbon Protocol and it joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state in 1994. The transfer of all nuclear material took some time, but by 2001, all nuclear weapons had been transferred to Russia to be dismantled and all launch silos decommissioned (Akinterinwa, 27 February, 2022).
Bringing the Second World War into the context. The Second World War began as a European struggle and like it became a combination of wars. The Second World War realistically was termed "total war". What began the war can be traced to the German demand for a revisit to the treaty of Versailles. Antagonist to the German contention however felt that Germany had not been destroyed in 1918 in that treaty would have a later consequence. They believe that so long that the German geography, population and industrial power is intact, therefore it was believed that a united Germany must dominate central Europe and overshadow France (Krieger, Nelli, & Jantzen, 1994). This could also be NATO view of Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Even though the Soviet Union had collapsed, NATO was kept by the United States to make sure a resurrection of the Soviet Union may never come to past. A NATO strategy was to make sure that the satellite states are kept as NATO members rather than on the side of Russia. Joining NATO, practicing democracy were all the enticing factors by the United States of America and its allies. The continued detachment of the Satellites from Russia is paramount as a NATO strategy. NATO interest is to adopt this satellite states as allies or members. Russia interest is to continue to see the satellite states as appendages.
The Germans prior to the Second World War had saw the Treaty of Lucarno as a great land mark that depict once more its equality with its fellow Europeans (Duyile, 2005). The Allies saw the Treaty as Germany acceptance to give her consent to the Versailles territorial settlement. In the case of the Ukraine-Russia war; Russia was made to understand that NATO influence will not be allowed to extend to the newly established sovereign states that were created following the dismantlement of the former Soviet Union. Jame Baker, the former United States Secretary of State is on record to have told Mikhail Gorbarchev that 'la jurisdiction militaire de l'Otan ne S'etendra pas d'un pouce vers l'est? (Akinterinwa, 27 February, 2022) Gorbarchev was specifically assured of this in expectation of his acceptance of the then proposed integration of a unified Germany into the NATO system. It is clear that NATO has negated this gentle man arrangement.

IV. Conclusion
The diplomatic questions of the Russo-Ukraine war includes: the right of selfpreservation of the warring parties; secession of Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine; political sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine as guaranteed by the 1994 Budapest Memorandum; controversy over Ukraine's membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization; imposition by the European Union (EU) and sanctions that only serve as a catalyst in the deepening of the misunderstanding; conflicting positions of the United Nations Security Councils Permanent member on the imbroglio; threats to use nuclear weapons and most importantly, the new dimensions of the struggle against unconstitutional change of government in International Relations (Akinterinwa, 27 February, 2022).
In context to the Second World War, the diplomatic questions then were not so similar but a parallel could be drawn. Questions that were raised then, includes: The rearmament of Germany negating the Versailles treaty; German troops re-entering the 'demilitarized' zone of the Rhineland from which they had been excluded by the Treaty of Versailles; German aggression and seizure of Austria, Czechoslovakia; the dream of a United Germany, as not all Germans lives in Germany but other sovereignty; and the German conquer of Poland.
The parallels that could be drawn from both events are the quest for both Russia and Germany to expand under the guise of protecting either Germanic or Russo phone ethnic group. Over bearing effect of other powers to demean them. In the case of Germany, the Versailles Treaty was the culprit and for Russia's aggression on Ukraine, it was NATO enticement of former Soviet states to join NATO. While some may ask that such comparisons may not have appeared if Ukraine had committed itself to the choice of a Nuclear State. If Russia would have invaded Ukraine if it still had Soviet Nuclear weapons stationed on its territory, there is little historical evidence that the owning of a Nuclear Weapon will deter Russia, when many other variables are considered, including the prohibition of the use of force under the UN charter. Even beyond this, it is not clear that Ukraine would have been able to take control of former Soviet Nuclear weapons, technically or Politically.
The Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is seen by Russia to be anti-Russia and who should therefore not be allowed to lead Ukraine (Akinterinwa, 27 February, 2022). His emergence to power was considered by the Kremlin as a Western conspiracy. President Putin accused the Ukrainian government of carrying out genocides against four million Russo phones in Ukraine (Akinterinwa, 27 February, 2022). The Russo-Ukraine imbroglio is not simply a problem between Russia and Ukraine as two sovereign states, but particularly an issue between the proponents of democracy under which the right of self-determination is being claimed, on the one hand, and the proponents of the right of secession in Ukraine, on the other. The United States and its allies, Britain and France have their veto powers potentially to be used in favor of the Ukrainian government, while Russia and China are pitching their tents behind the opposition and secessionist regions of Donetsk and Luhansk (Akinterinwa, 27 February, 2022).
Putin deserves all the condemnation that now comes his way for the violence being inflicted on the people of Ukraine but his belligerence can also be deemed strategic and military. Control of Ukraine's naval facilities has always been important for Russia's power to counter NATO's incursion into its sphere of influences. White House Press Secretary, Jen Psaki has said 'Russia has never been under threat from Ukraine' (Wikipaedia, 2021). This is all a pattern from Putin and we are going to stand up to it. We have the ability to defend ourselves, but we also need to call out what we are seeing here from President Putin, she added'.
'Honorable Peace' and not 'Humiliation Peace' is the way out of this war. Honorable Peace is 'make Putin feel he has won so Ukraine can live in Peace' (British Broadcasting Corporation, 2022). Humiliation Peace is supporting Ukraine with the necessary ammunitions to go it alone or NATO coming to the war to defeat Russia conventionally. Both options may be considered wishful. Russia would be satisfied with the Donbass Region and a land corridor that links the Crimea with the Russian main land. Anything other than this will make Russia feel humiliated and the Versailles scenario may be replayed. An implosion of Russia or a Regime change (another option available to NATO) may also start a civil war within Russia as the events in Germany during the Weimar Republic.
In retrospect, lets flashback to 1919 when the Social Democrats won in Germany (Warner, Marten, & Muir, 1965). Their majority had long since abandoned the revolutionary notions of earlier years and saw their mission as securing an orderly transition from the old to the new form of state. Private ownership of industry and agriculture remained untouched. The mostly anti republican civil servants and judges were sacked without exception. The imperial officer corps retained command of the Armed Forces. Attempts by radical leftists to drive the revolution in a Socialist direction were quelled militarily. In the National Assembly which was elected in January 1919, and which convened at Weimar and drew up a new Reich constitution, three unconditional republican parties-Social Democrats, German Democratic Party and the Catholic Centre-had the majority. But through the 1920s the parliamentary parties and popular forces, which were more or less hostile to a democratic state, went from strength to strength. The Weimar Republic was a "republic without republicans". The 1920s brought to fore economic misery caused mostly by the oppressive terms of the "Peace of Versailles" which Germany had to sign in 1919, and it bred deep skepticism towards the republic. Growing domestic instability was the result of Germany's signing of the Versailles treaty (Krieger, Nelli, & Jantzen, 1994). The foreign policy of Gustav Stresemann regained political equality for defeated Germany through the Pact of Locarno (1925) and the accession to the League of Nations (1926) (Warner, Marten, & Muir, 1965). After the death of the Reich President, the Social Democrat Friedrich Ebert, the former Field Marshall Hindenburg was elected head of state in 1925 as the candidate of the Right wing. Although abiding strictly by the constitution, he never developed a personal commitment to the republican state. The ultimate collapse of the Weimar Republic began with the world economic crisis in 1929 (Warner, Marten, & Muir, 1965). Left-and rightwing radicalism exploited unemployment and the general deprivation to their ends. No more majorities capable of government could be found in the Reichstag, the cabinet being dependent on the support of the constitutionally very strong Reich President.
From 1930, the up to then insignificant National Socialist movement of Adolf Hitler which fused extreme anti-democratic tendencies and a ranging anti-Semitism with pseudorevolutionary propaganda gained strength in leaps and bounds and by 1932 had become the strongest party. On January 30, 1933, Hitler became Reich Chancellor (Roberts, 2007). Apart from members of his own party his cabinet included politicians of the right and non-partisan specialist ministers, so that it was hoped that sole rule by the National Socialists could be prevented (Duyile, 2005). Hitler soon rid himself of his allies. An enabling Act, approved by all the middle-class parties, gave him practically limitless power. He banned all parties but his own. The trade unions were smashed, basic rights virtually removed and press freedom abolished. The regime exercised ruthless terror and violence against anyone who stood in its way. Thousands disappeared without trial in hastily constructed concentration camps. Parliamentary institutions at all levels were abolished or made powerless. The "Fuhrer" (Leader) principle advanced everywhere. When Hindenburg died in 1934, Hitler united in his person the offices of president and chancellor. By this he gained control as commander in chief of the armed forces, which up to then have still had a certain inner life of theirs.
Russia today, if NATO successfully dethrones the present regime some kind of Weimar Republics scenario may be replayed as in Germany of the 1920s. A civil war scenario in Russia would do the world no good. The numerous Nuclear arsenals may get into wrong hands. The NATO interest of making Russia democratic will disseminate the nation. A regime change strategy as planned from the pentagon could implode a Civil War in Russia. A civil war will allow those Nuclear Arsenals in the hands of Terrorist. Russia has no history of Democracy and Americas wish of democracy for Russia is a paradox as in the Weimar era in Germany. Russia has no genuine democrats hence a democracy without democrats. Diplomatically, Ukraine should cede Eastern Ukraine to Russia and Russia should allow Ukraine to be part of European Community at Brussels. This is the Honorable Peace, a way through this war. The paper postulates the practical application of the identified policies of the two opposing blocs, which lead to the proxy war between Russia and NATO and the pawn in this crisis is Ukraine. Although it shall be said that the war between Russia and NATO was originally a battle of ideology; and to some writers an extension of the Cold War -one thing that remains indelible in thewriters' mind is that despite the fact that communism failed in the USSR, Russia still reminisce this era of bipolarity. The United States of America is fixated towards a Unipolar leadership of the world. Although Ukraine as at October, 2022 claims victory by reverting the earlier conquest of Russia. Analyst may quickly point out that a World War had not emerged, while postulate on something which had not happened. As at October, 2022, the semblance of a World War is appearing. Most of Europe plus the United States are currently technically at war with Russia. Russia seems to be supported by Nations like North Korea, China, Iran and Belarus. Russia and its supporters can be compared as the Axis Powers of Italy, Japan and Germany in the Second World War. The difference is the 21st Century 'Axis' powers has Nuclear Capabilities. The United States and Europe are already in a proxy war. The massive deployment of weapons to Ukraine can only escalate the war. The question is can a Nuclear power defeat another Nuclear Power that may be crazy enough to deploy it. It can only mean catastrophic end to humanity. The Americans have for long denied pariah nations this capability. Russia was pushed into this war because of Americas internal politics. The democratic party unfriendly disposition to Russia also encouraged this war in a minor way. A Third World War is at hand but still in its minor state. Although this war has the tendencies to escalate a major war. However, as it is, don't be cajoled that it has not come close to a world war. Only time will tell!!!