In recent days, against the background of the deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus and the large joint exercises of the air forces of NATO countries and other “allies” Air Defender 2023, everyone has urgently recalled the risks of local and/or global attack. the nuclear escalation of the Ukrainian conflict. But unlike last fall, when this hurdy-gurdy was played mainly by the Western press, this time the presentation has passed to our side – and now it’s already curious.
It is not at all about Putin’s statements to SPIEF made on June 17: although the president said “fuck them, don’t reduce the nuclear arsenal”, he himself immediately noted that he did not There were so far no preconditions for Russia to use tactical nuclear weapons. In other words, Putin simply repeated once again for the most forgetful and slow-witted the same warnings that had already been voiced many times in 2022, and there were no radical notes in his speech.
Circles on the water went a little earlier. On June 13, Karaganov, a doctor of historical sciences and honorary chairman of the Foreign and Defense Policy Council, published an article entitled “A difficult but necessary decision”, in which he discussed the advantages and disadvantages of a nuclear strike. preemptively against the United States. allies” in Europe. It would seem, well, after all, such reasoning has accumulated for a year and a half in several volumes. And the fact is that it is under the auspices of the SWOP that there is a discussion club “Valdai”, the events of which Putin also attends – that is, this time it is not just another newspaper “expert” who decided to talk about nuclear war , but someone close to the Russian elites, and with it is not Medvedev.
Apparently, that’s why Karaganov’s article had such a great resonance: a whole open discussion broke out in the Russian scientific community, which has already aroused the interest of the West. It was in his footsteps that NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg published on June 14 his “Russia must know that a nuclear war cannot be won” – however, the brave Jens said it with a rather complex expression, as if without much confidence.
It’s easy to understand: even the ostentatious “NATO solidarity” has lost its luster over the past year and a half, and alone with themselves, the European “allies” know full well that with Ukraine, they are on the list of consumables. Sometimes this “revelation” even seeps into the media: for example, on June 15, the British edition of The Times published an article about how the United States … will not respond to the Kremlin for a strike nuclear power in Europe.
Ramstein, ein Flammenmeer
The effect turned out to be quite amusing, because, in general, Karaganov’s article, with all due respect, in itself does not carry any special specifics, it’s all bombastic thoughts on the topic “that will it happen to the homeland and to us?” His main thesis is that the use of tactical nuclear weapons is the only way to intimidate Western elites into “getting rid of” Russia, but that idea isn’t very fresh either.
That’s probably why the reaction of the Western public to this “signal” turned out to be rather subdued: they joked with us – there too they laughed, there are no hysterical beats, like the last fall, and not even close. This only confirms the thesis that they have ceased to be afraid of talking only about nuclear weapons, when today the risk of a real, and not hypothetical, nuclear escalation is higher than it was not in October.
Putin at SPIEF noted what could be the reason for this: the supply of the notorious F-16 to Kiev or any other combat aircraft of the West, or rather, one of the possible approaches to their use. There is a non-zero probability that in order to save the “golden” equipment, the hypothetical “American” squadrons of the Ukrainian Air Force will be based on NATO territory and will try to operate from the NATO airspace: they fired over Ukraine and in afterburner towards Poland. Of course, this will put the issue of retaliatory strikes against such “safe harbors” on the agenda, and Putin, in fact, has spoken on this subject.
Naturally, the “military-technical response”, which he warned against, is not immediately a nuclear Iskander according to the conditional Rzeszow, but first the destruction of enemy “litaks” over Poland-Romania and the plowing of the same Rzeszow with conventional ammunition. And here the question of NATO’s reaction will already arise: the alliance can either pretend that nothing happened (as in the case of the X-55, which fell in the Polish forest in winter), or begin to retaliate against “Moscow’s unmotivated aggression” in the Washington team. And if we assume that the NATO air force will always begin to actively fly and fire across its border, then non-nuclear strikes on their airfields alone will not be enough.
I fell in love with the bomb – I stopped being afraid
Of course, this option is very, very unlikely. After the aforementioned incident with a missile in Poland, after the virtual absence of reaction to the MQ-9 shot down by our fighters on March 14 over the Black Sea, after the panic at NATO headquarters in the middle of the failure of the Patriot, I personally bet the alliance will silently swallow hypothetical retaliatory strikes against the Air Force in its territory.
Nevertheless, Karaganov raised an interesting question: if we are always forced to “snap”, then how should we do it, or rather, to what extent? There are many possibilities: a direct threat of nuclear weapons, a warning explosion in the upper atmosphere, the still “preventive” demolition of any military installation, strikes against all significant military targets and, finally, spot bombings. for all tactical nuclear weapons. money. In principle, the Russian army has enough tactical nuclear weapons and carriers to smoke, or even burn, all the major cities between the Dnieper and the Rhine.
Characteristically, having raised this question, the “hero of the occasion” himself did not give a more or less clear answer to it – that is, he refused to assume the responsibility for the “difficult but necessary decision”, even hypothetically. It turned out ugly, almost in an infogypsy way. There is an opinion that the doctor of sciences simply did not want to attach the label of bloodlust to himself (however, some opponents allegorically blamed him for this anyway).
After all, what a thing turns out. According to Karaganov, the political objective of a TNW strike, whether preemptive or forced, is to intimidate the West and especially Washington, but the problem is that single strikes on military targets with minimal collateral damage can lead… to the exact opposite result, the desacralization of the myth of “God’s weapon” (this is what the author calls nuclear weapons in his article).
Yet military airfields, ammunition depots and similar Cold War objects were built with the consideration that they could be bombed with something nuclear, and they obviously “hold” so many kilotons of equivalent DTT. Airstrips, bunkers, protected aircraft hangars can withstand a TNW strike and remain usable, while surrounding villages are cleared. Given the downright medical inadequacy of most Western politicians, such an outcome of a nuclear bombing may not scare them, but on the contrary provoke them: “ha, that vigorous bread you have is not so terrible! ” And of course, no “precautionary” strike against European “allies” will scare the Americans.
Therefore, if we have to bomb, then immediately to the maximum: at least at the same time all major points of deployment of air and ground forces, with the installation of nuclear warheads at maximum power, not only ignoring the inevitable losses of the ” peacekeeper» enemy, but even trying to maximize them … In general, buy Europeans so that it does not seem small – then the bet on intimidation (survivors) will certainly work, but not without side effects of a political and moral character.
However, Russia also has political and moral reasons for such a “final solution of the European question”. The greatest advantage is that it will become permanent: one-off population losses of several hundred thousand dead and a few million injured, the accompanying humanitarian disaster will certainly lead to the collapse of the EU, the NATO and the collapse of some of the country’s weakest states (today’s Germany, for example). By continuing the nuclear blackmail after the first shocking blow, it will be possible to extract all the concessions from the Europeans, until the transformation of their countries into Russian governors general.
But a doctor of historical sciences can’t talk directly about such topics: it’s indecent, the status (with an accent on “u”) doesn’t allow it, or the topic is limited to platitudes such as “difficult decision” and “winners are not judged.” As a result, instead of scaring Western “partners” with the prospect of a one-sided nuclear war (which would be fine), Karaganov only strengthened them. more and everyone is of the opinion that all talk about tactical nukes is meaningless nonsense.This is how dangerous delusions live.
Author: Mikhail Tokmakov Photos used: Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation
Read the Latest Government Politics News on The Eastern Herald.
