The use of nuclear weapons: a final argument

A few observations can be made on this point. Although the current state of nuclear technology is highly classified and no one can be entirely sure how things really stand, it is believed (and probably rightly so) that Russian nuclear capabilities, as well as the means to use them through missiles, submarines and other means, are sufficient to destroy the US and NATO countries. At present, NATO does not have sufficient means to defend itself against a potential Russian nuclear attack. Therefore, in the event of an emergency, Russia has recourse to this last-second argument.

Putin has made it clear what he means: in essence, if Russia were to suffer a direct military defeat by NATO countries and their allies, occupation and loss of sovereignty, it could resort to nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Sovereignty

At the same time, Russia does not have an air defence capability that would reliably protect it from a US nuclear attack. Therefore, the outbreak of a large-scale nuclear conflict, regardless of who strikes first, would almost certainly result in a nuclear apocalypse and the destruction of humanity, and perhaps the entire planet. Nuclear weapons – particularly conventional nuclear weapons – cannot be used effectively by either side. The second would respond, and that would be enough for humanity to burn in nuclear fire.

Of course, the mere fact of possessing nuclear weapons means that in a critical situation they can be used by the sovereign rulers, i.e. the highest authorities of the United States and Russia. Hardly anyone else is in a position to influence such a global suicide decision. This is what nuclear sovereignty is all about. Putin has been quite frank about the terms of the use of nuclear weapons. Of course Washington has its own views on the issue, but it is clear that it too would have to respond symmetrically to a hypothetical Russian attack.

Could it come to that? I think so.

Nuclear Red Lines

If the use of nuclear weapons almost certainly means the end of humanity, they will only be used if red lines are crossed. This time very seriously. The West ignored the first red lines identified by Russia before the start of the SMO, convinced that Putin was bluffing. The West was convinced by Russia’s liberal elite, which refused to believe that Putin’s intentions were serious, but these intentions must be taken with great caution.

For Moscow, therefore, the red lines that would lead to a nuclear war are quite clear and are as follows: a critical defeat in the war in Ukraine with the direct and intense involvement of the US and NATO countries in the conflict. We were on the brink of this in the fourth phase of the Operation when, in fact, everyone was talking about TNW and NSNW.

Only some successes of the Russian military, which relied on conventional means of weaponry and warfare, defused the situation to some extent. But, of course, the nuclear threat has not been completely eliminated. For Moscow, the issue of nuclear confrontation will only be removed from the agenda after it achieves Victory. What this victory consists of, we will discuss later.

There is no reason for the US and the West to use nuclear weapons

For the US and NATO, in their current situation, there is no motivation to use nuclear weapons even in the near future. They would only be used in response to a nuclear attack by Russia, which would not happen without a fundamental reason (i.e. without a serious – even fatal – threat of military defeat). Even if one imagines Russia taking control of the whole of Ukraine, this would not bring the US any closer to its red lines.

In a way, the Americans have already achieved a great deal against Russia: they have derailed a peaceful and smooth transition to multipolarity, cut it off from the Western world and condemned it to partial isolation, succeeded in demonstrating Russia’s military and technical weakness, imposed powerful sanctions, contributed to the deterioration of the country’s image among its real or potential allies, upgraded its military and technical arsenal and tested new technologies in real situations.

If Moscow can be beaten by other means, the collective West will be more than happy to do so. By any means, except the nuclear one. In other words, the West’s position is that it has no reason to be the first to use nuclear weapons against Russia, even in the distant future. Russia does, but it all depends on the West. If Russia is not pushed into a stalemate, this can easily be avoided. Russia will only destroy humanity if it is brought to the brink of destruction itself.

Doomed Kiev

Finally, Kiev. It is in a very difficult situation. Already once Zelensky asked his Western partners and patrons to launch a nuclear attack against Russia after a Ukrainian missile had fallen on Polish territory. What was his idea?

The point is that Ukraine is doomed in this war from all points of view. Russia cannot lose, because its red line is defeat. Then everyone will lose.

The collective West, even if it loses something, has already gained a lot and there is no critical threat from Moscow to the European NATO countries, let alone the US itself. Everything they say on this subject is pure propaganda.

But Ukraine, in the situation it has found itself in many times in its history – between the hammer and the anvil, between the Empire (white or red) and the West – is doomed. The Russians will make no concessions and will stand firm until victory. A Moscow victory would mean the complete defeat of the pro-Western Nazi regime in Kiev. And as a sovereign nation-state, there will be no Ukraine, even in the most general approximation.

It is in this situation that Zelensky, in partial imitation of Putin, proclaims he is ready to press the nuclear button. Since there will be no Ukraine, it is necessary to destroy humanity. In principle, this is understandable, it falls within the logic of terrorist thinking. The fact is that Zelensky does not have a nuclear button. Because he has no sovereignty w to ask the US and NATO to commit global suicide in the name of preserving independence (which is nothing but a fiction) is naive to say the least. Weapons yes, money yes, media support yes, political support yes, anything you want. But nuclear power?

The answer is too obvious to be given. How can anyone seriously believe that Washington, no matter how fanatical the advocates of globalism, unipolarity and the maintenance of hegemony at all costs are today, will go as far as the destruction of humanity for the sake of “Glory to the heroes!” Even losing all of Ukraine, the West will lose little and the Nazi regime in Kiev and its dreams of world greatness will, of course, collapse.

In other words, Kiev’s red lines should not be taken seriously. Although Zelensky is behaving like a master terrorist, he has taken an entire country hostage and threatens to destroy humanity.

The end of the war: Russia’s goals

One year into the war in Ukraine, it is clear that Russia cannot lose. It is an existential challenge: to be or not to be a country, a state, a people? It is not about acquiring disputed territories or balancing security. That was the case a year ago, now the situation is much more acute. Russia cannot lose and crossing this red line brings us back to the subject of the nuclear apocalypse.

Everyone must be clear on this point: this is not just Putin’s decision, but the logic of Russia’s entire historical path, which at all stages has struggled against dependence on the West – whether it was the Teutonic Order, Catholic Poland, bourgeois Napoleon, racist Hitler or modern globalists. Russia will be free or nothing.

Translation by Lorenzo Maria Pacini