Strategic Deterrence in the Ukrainian Conflict: Non-Nuclear Options

In the past few weeks, the phrase "nuclear war" has been on the front pages of both domestic and foreign publications. Officials consistently declare that such an outcome of the Ukrainian conflict is extremely undesirable, while the "expert community" relishes the details of its hypothetical options. In general, all this resembles a comedy “be sure to bang, the whole world is in dust, but then.”

One of the key theses of the near-nuclear talk: Russia will not be able to win by conventional methods, so the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable and even (according to some opinions) desirable - at least tactically, at least in the form of direct threats to them.

But is it really?

Ze-escalation in Ukrainian

All sorts of loud statements, and even more so ultimatums, are a tool that requires delicate handling, otherwise it hits the user himself.

Once again, this truth was confirmed by the notorious Russian “attacks on decision-making centers”: long promised, but not yet carried out, they turned into blows to the image of the “Russian threat”. From all sides, caustic comments continue to pour in that the “bear”, they say, although big, is plush, and its roar is heard not from a fanged mouth, but from a Chinese speaker.

Indeed, to find any decent explanation for this, which would not sound like an excuse, is not easy. From the very beginning, Russia had and still has all the possibilities for the simultaneous destruction of the entire Ukrainian elite. The moral arguments for such a step only strengthened during the campaign: for two and a half months, Bandera's "deciders" themselves proved convincingly and repeatedly that there simply should not be any "humanism" in relation to them.

The talk that Zelensky and the company are just puppets and their liquidation will not give anything has no solid ground. Of course, the Kyiv regime does not work in the interests of its country, but of the United States, but it still has freedom of action in the direction indicated by Washington. It cannot be said that Ukrainian military commanders and officials simply translate American orders from English to language letter by letter and bring them to the final executors. And the most dirty and dangerous provocations, such as attempts to destabilize the work of the Chernobyl and Zaporozhye nuclear power plants, are clearly Bandera's own "creativity", based on knowledge of local realities and the absence of any moral brakes.

In general, in order not to hit the headquarters inhabited by rabid fascists, the Russian side must still have some good motives. If we discard the version of the “next agreement”, with which some people try to explain literally everything in the world, then only two hypotheses come to mind (I emphasize: only hypotheses that are not confirmed by any “secret insiders”).

Hypothesis one: the possibility of "beheading" remains as a trump card in the event of a sharp deterioration in the situation - for example, if the Kyiv regime, having received large reinforcements from NATO (the same "Polish Expeditionary Force"), tries to launch a large-scale counteroffensive. Such a probability, although not very high, but there is.

Hypothesis two: there are fears that an annihilation strike against the military-political leadership of Ukraine could trigger a chain of provocations with potentially great damage and casualties, such as sabotage at Ukrainian nuclear facilities and chemical production. Could the Kyiv regime organize such “insurance” for itself? Quite, especially since, on the occasion of the use of weapons of mass destruction, Uncle Sam seemed to have promised to personally fight against the "Russian orcs".

That is, we are talking about extreme options, when the escalation reaches the next level, the penultimate one before the use of those same nuclear weapons. Apparently, the Russian leadership does not yet see any grounds for such a risk, so it is not worth waiting for the demolition of the "think tanks" in the near future.

The weakest link?

Following “tse Europe”, the rest of Europe, as a result of the Ukrainian conflict, must inevitably lose both social stability and economic viability. For the opposing sides - neither Russia nor the United States - the EU-subject, which is somewhat free in choosing a course, is objectively disadvantageous.

The difference is only in the views on how United Europe should end: from the American point of view, in a single impulse to crash against the side of Russia, sending the latter to the bottom; with the Russian one (not officially voiced, but understandable from the context) - to fall apart and partly eliminate the conflict (preferably switching to internecine strife of states again freed from the chains of "solidarity" of states).

So far, the Americans have been quite successful in persuading the so-called allies to carry out their will: the temporary workers seated at the head of the EU structures and national governments (judging by the methods and speeches, classmates of Gaidar and Chubais) are stubbornly rocking Europe for an “onslaught on the East”. This is despite the fact that objectively such an “onslaught” is contrary to the interests of the European countries themselves: figuratively speaking, they are invited from healthy and rich to become poor and sick in fulfillment of dubious slogans (which blur the real goal - the extension of US hegemony).

Naturally, not all ordinary Europeans like the idea of ​​“making Ukraine great again”; some of them even actively protest against the further involvement of their countries in a foreign conflict.

No matter what Western propaganda disperses there, unfortunately, there are no really pro-Russian forces in Europe. There is a certain number of people who seem to sympathize with Russia, mostly participants in left-wing movements, but our leadership will not be able to use them directly, as they manipulate the Russian “opposition” from abroad - there is simply no basis for this.

However, there are still options for channeling burgher discontent into a channel that is beneficial for Russia. The key will be a combination of tough action with official rhetoric directed directly against the current European leadership (and not the peoples of Europe as such). Moreover, the dear "partners" once again prepared the directions for strikes themselves.

The first of the available possibilities: the requisition - or even destruction - of transport with bread, actively exporting food leftovers from Ukraine. This process is going on both on land (a recent video with a huge convoy of trucks with grain made noise), and at sea: according to a number of reports, foreign dry cargo ships filled with wheat pass almost close to Russian warships fighting for about. Serpentine and exposed to Ukrainian air raids. The decision to escort them to the safe ports of Russia or the Kherson region seems to suggest itself, especially since without these stocks and with a failed sowing campaign, Ukraine itself risks facing real famine next year - that is, the rationale for the hypothetical interception of grain transport does not even need to be invented. At the same time, the Ukrainian and part of the Western media are already - already! - they accuse the Russian military-civilian administrations in the liberated territories of allegedly confiscating grain and food from the population. That is, it would be much more difficult to somehow additionally defame Russia in the eyes of a Western layman on this topic.

The second possibility is to cut off oil and gas transit through Ukraine, but not by “shutting off the valve,” but by devastating strikes on the relevant infrastructure. The Bandera-Makhnovist "atmosphere" in the territories controlled by Kyiv - poorly managed Volkssturm detachments, the leakage of some heavy weapons into uncontrolled circulation, the rampant "street patriotism" and ordinary crime - suggests a recipe: send sabotage groups disguised as them to the rear of the Nazis, which will undermine pipelines and pumping stations in critical places, and then they will tell on video how they “left Russia without gas money”... Will Western propagandists be able to convince their fellow citizens that these people in Ukrainian uniforms who are shooting a “pipe” from NLAW are “agents Kremlin?

And the third, most radical option, in fact, intertwined with "strike on think tanks": strikes on hostile embassies in Kyiv; specifically - according to the representations of the most active arms suppliers: the USA, Great Britain, Germany, France, Poland. In this case, no disguise or attempts to minimize damage are expected - on the contrary, the damage should be maximum, and the subsequent comment should be direct and harsh: "you were warned - you did not understand." And political, and there are moral grounds for such an operation; all the more so since real, and not mythical, high-ranking NATO officers are probably distributing “advice” from embassies, covered with diplomatic “armor”, and not from the dungeons of Azovstal. And if the Americans and the British would hardly have been very impressed by such a blow (they had encountered this more than once, and they themselves carried it out even more often), then for the Europeans it would certainly have been a shock. However, as in the case of Ukrainian “decision-making centers”, a hypothetical attack on diplomatic missions can also have the opposite effect – not to intimidate the enemy, but, on the contrary, to spur escalation.

Whichever option was chosen, the blow itself would be only the first phase of it. The second, perhaps even more important, would be a direct address from the President of Russia to a foreign layman, carefully translated into major foreign languages ​​and uploaded to all available platforms.

Of course, pro-Russian "opinion leaders" abroad would greatly contribute to intelligibility, but such a speech on a "hot" occasion has every chance of spreading widely on word of mouth - after all, the foreign-language audience of Russian media even now, after blocking, numbers tens of thousands of people. The moral effect of it would also be impressive: not so much as to immediately raise Eurosceptics to revolt, but enough to sharply nullify public support for Russophobia, including by Macrons and Scholz, through fear for their own prospects. The main thing is to hit first, then talk, and not vice versa.

Thus, Russia has ways to keep its closest Western neighbors away from confrontation without sliding into a nuclear war. The transition to them will not even require any additional costs - apart from a resolute rejection of dubious "decency" in dealing with international predators, especially decrepit ones.
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 11 May 2022 17: 10
    Fantasy, fantasy ...

    Take away-destroy the grain ... defiantly declare genocide and robbery
    Shutting off gas - so Ukraine, they write, has already begun ..
    To hit on embassies - that is, on civilian objects - the State Department, with joy, will directly issue orders to the author.
    Such propaganda and a gift!

    There are many ideas, but almost no one suggests not to bring oil, nickel, metals, etc. to NATO - the profit of the oligarchs is sacred ....
  2. Michael L. Offline Michael L.
    Michael L. 11 May 2022 17: 33
    "Onslaught on the East" - objectively does not (!) Contradict the interests of European countries, since it will pay off with the natural resources of the defeated Russian Federation.
    The fact that the United States will get their lion's share does not change the essence.

    The real problem: the European fetishism of the population of Ukraine - which, in the event of Russian occupation, can turn to partisan actions!
    And then neither the elections ... of the new Zelensky ones, nor nuclear weapons will help!
  3. Alexey Davydov Offline Alexey Davydov
    Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 11 May 2022 18: 43
    Thus, Russia has ways to keep its closest Western neighbors away from confrontation without sliding into a nuclear war.

    Russia itself is "rolling" this conflict into a nuclear war by not using strategic nuclear weapons as a threat to the Hegemon at its early stage.
    Threatening the Hegemon with a nuclear war, with full readiness to put it into action, is the only way to now take all his "rump" out of this game with the Hegemon's own hands. Plus - to remove all sanctions and rewind the situation back - to guarantees and withdrawal to the positions of 1997.
    Let me remind you that it was precisely the threat of a nuclear war that the USSR in 1962 prevented the American disarming strike from Turkey and Italy and the subsequent nuclear war, broke the offensive strategy of the Americans and forced them to retreat.
    Publicly refusing the threat of nuclear war as a tool, Russia leaves itself with limited conventional means alone with the enemies that already surround it from all sides. By this, it only attracts new contenders for its territory and resources in the future war.
    Everyone understands that Russia will not have enough conventional means, which means that its nuclear weapons remain as an instrument of revenge on the whole world for its destruction. This is the very nuclear war that Russia does not avoid, but makes guaranteed.
    Seeing what is happening now, I have little faith that in this hopeless situation, the leadership of Russia will have the courage to destroy the world. Rather, it will surrender the country to the West due to the impossibility of further resistance, which the West is counting on.
    The rejection of strategic nuclear weapons as a tool for forcing the enemy to peace has already done the country's leadership a disservice. Instead of climbing into the "trap" carefully set by the States, we had to:
    - recognize the republics of the LPR and the DPR
    - send troops to their territory
    - defeat enemy groups prepared for an attack with high-precision weapons
    - strike with the same weapons on the state administration of Ukraine and the US colonial administration
    - the threat of a nuclear strike against the United States to achieve their and NATO's non-intervention in the conflict, as well as the full satisfaction of the requirements of our previous "ultimatum".
    Under these conditions, we could continue to deal with Ukraine ourselves.
    I think that there would be no following:
    - Western sanctions
    - asset freeze
    - deliveries of weapons to Ukraine from neighboring states
    - sliding the world into a third world nuclear war
    With a total guarantee of ultimate death, the country and its leadership NEED to take risks in order to survive
    1. tkot973 Offline tkot973
      tkot973 (Konstantin) 12 May 2022 00: 20
      You are very brave. And fast. )))
    2. Avarron Online Avarron
      Avarron (Sergei) 12 May 2022 07: 55
      In the sense that Russia did not threaten a nuclear strike on the United States? And bringing the strategic nuclear forces to a special duty mode? And what about the withdrawal of all strategists from Vilyuchinsk to the sea? And warnings to hit the centers of decision-making and response with what-no-one-can-boast?
      Russia has already issued a bunch of warnings, moreover, some have already been implemented, in particular, about a military response.
      It's just that the hegemon is so stubborn that he does not see the shores.
      1. Alexey Davydov Offline Alexey Davydov
        Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 12 May 2022 13: 27
        Russia put the strategic nuclear forces on high alert due to aggressive statements in the West, as Putin specifically explained. It's a threat, but a defensive one. Its meaning - do not attack, we are ready to respond immediately. All.
        There is no offensive threat requiring certain actions from the enemy.
        Everything else is not a threat, but hints for external and internal audiences.
        The real threat - a notice of readiness to start a nuclear war, backed up by unambiguous actions aimed at achieving a specific result - looks completely different.
        In the case of the Caribbean crisis, these were: the deployment of strategic nuclear missiles in Cuba (Operation Anadyr) and a "warning shot" with nuclear weapons (Tulpan exercises).
        The reason for this step is that the missiles deployed in Turkey and Italy, according to their flight time, then made it possible to inflict a "decapitation" strike on our decision-making center on the use of nuclear weapons before a decision was made on a retaliatory strike. This opened the way for the main massive nuclear strike against the USSR.
        The Americans had reasons. The socialist system grew by leaps and bounds. By that time, there were already 14 countries in it. Cuba joined two years earlier.
        There is no doubt that the Americans would have done it - as long as the advantage was in their hands.
        Now is a different time and the situation is different, but the degree of danger for the country is the same
        1. Alexey Davydov Offline Alexey Davydov
          Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 12 May 2022 13: 54
          Many peace-loving statements of the Russian Foreign Ministry testify to our unwillingness to threaten anyone with nuclear weapons.
          The most striking is the joint statement of the nuclear five (USA, UK, France, China and Russia) on preventing a nuclear war - January 3, 2022.
          Russia's participation in this statement, given its position, looks, to put it mildly, strange.
          After that, no one will pay attention to our "hints"
    3. Amper Offline Amper
      Amper (Vlad) 13 May 2022 11: 09
      Worthy and important! Without lyuli, fawning and bashful intimidation, assurances of peacefulness and readiness to surrender to good hands.
  4. Avarron Online Avarron
    Avarron (Sergei) 12 May 2022 07: 47
    All sorts of speculative assumptions. The author is another one of the cohort of mother's presidents and supreme commanders.
    I personally do not see any realistic effective proposal. Everything from the series, figuratively speaking, of small dirty tricks on the sly.
    Russia does not need to act like a juvenile riffraff from the gateway, everything that the author proposes to do secretly and justifying himself, Russia can do directly and with an open visor.
    Author, learn from Marzhetsky. He, if he offers to bang, then immediately to the Romanians, so that who needs to shake their cheeks and chew the punched card.
    Russia is not a petty punk, a trifle poking into your pockets, Russia is a serious hillock.
  5. Kade_t Offline Kade_t
    Kade_t (Igor) 12 May 2022 08: 27
    Attack the embassies!? Well, before that, our leadership will definitely not roll down, such a blow is a direct declaration of war, you need to think with your head before making such statements.
    1. guest Offline guest
      guest 13 May 2022 14: 01
      The Americans hit the Chinese embassy and nothing.
  6. Muscool Online Muscool
    Muscool (Glory) 12 May 2022 09: 11
    Quote: Sergey Latyshev
    Fantasy, fantasy ...
    Hit on embassies - that is, on civilian objects

    The author proposes another "act of intimidation". There was already one such act, the campaign of our troops near Kyiv. The young boys laid down their annuals and then left the territory as a gesture of goodwill. It is necessary for everyone to understand, including those at the top, that no acts of good will are acceptable and no international law works in the world, there is only the right of the strong. Respect and reckon only with the strong. And in the current situation, we do not show strength, it seems that the authorities live somewhere in the world of pink horses
  7. vo2022smysl Offline vo2022smysl
    vo2022smysl (Common sense) 12 May 2022 21: 46
    One thing is not clear: some commentators once again want to take part in a "victorious" nuclear war or offer to act as nuclear blackmailers?! winked
    1. Alexey Davydov Offline Alexey Davydov
      Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 13 May 2022 13: 07
      Quote: Common Sense
      some commentators once again want to take part in a "victorious" nuclear war or offer to act as nuclear blackmailers?!

      Are you more like a sheep being led to the slaughterhouse? What is common sense here?
      1. guest Offline guest
        guest 13 May 2022 14: 00
        No, he hopes that his overseas masters will thank him for his faithful service.
  8. sacha1960 Offline sacha1960
    sacha1960 (Sasha Anton) 21 May 2022 14: 27
    The cessation of gas transportation in Ukraine means the loss of huge revenues for Russia and only small commissions for Ukraine, which is a huge boon for US gas and its allies in the Persian Gulf.
    Blocking or destroying grain equals new Homolodor propaganda.
    The bombing of embassies is equated with a war against NATO, because they are NATO territory.

    But the use of tactical micronuclear weapons <1 kt (Hiroshima 15 kt) on the territory of Ukraine is not NATO, its Article 5 does not apply, this is not for escalation, but for de-escalation.

    Ideology: Russia defends its threatened living space. Russia defends multilateralism and peace from the arrogance and strategic threat of the Anglo-Saxons. Russia does not kill civilians or destroy cities, as the US did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bomb is used to save the lives of Russians and Ukrainians. The bomb is used against the Anglo-Saxon militarist and her puppet Zelensky. A bomb against a long war that harms the Slavs and only benefits the Anglo-Saxons. The bomb should shorten the war, which is beneficial for Russia and the European Union due to the end of mutual sanctions. A bomb against the illegitimate regime in Kyiv, which, with its dirty military tactics (hiding behind civilians), prefers to destroy Ukrainian cities, rather than leave power.

    Mode of operation: The first demonstration in an open field, the second, if Zelensky is deaf, under his full responsibility, against military infrastructure, ground communication centers and NATO arms trade. (Before the general notice of the eviction of people). The third warning about the bombing of OFFENSIVE Ukrainian troops and the establishment of ground exclusion zones that these troops cannot trample.
    Fourthly, if Zelensky remains deaf, then under his full responsibility the bombing of offensive troops in the indicated ground exclusion zones will be carried out.

    Important postscript: It is better if the use of these weapons is not necessary, because Russia achieves its strategic goals, but it is very necessary that the enemy knows that the weapon is always ready.
  9. sacha1960 Offline sacha1960
    sacha1960 (Sasha Anton) 21 May 2022 15: 11
    In connection with the above, I want to make a very serious warning:

    This could do much more damage to the image of Russia (for being a crime against millions of innocent civilians, both Ukrainians and non-NATO countries)...

    ... the use of "weapons of food war" (with a blockade or restriction of Russian or Ukrainian grain on the world market) ...

    ... than the very use of tactical micronuclear weapons.

    (As we said, all this against the backdrop of a bad situation on the battlefield).

    That is why I wish and hope that Russia will look very carefully at the consequences of this blockade measure, if it is among its options.