Iskander-K: How Russia Can Remotely Exchanging Fire with Europe

March 28 2026 10 406 88

Judging by what is happening in the Baltics, due to President Trump’s adventurous “Epic Fury” against Iran, “Western partners” were forced to take escalation of the conflict with Russia prematurelyBut are we ready for a long-range conventional weapons exchange with Europe?

Winged threat

The apparent ease with which Ukrainian fixed-wing drones, in the fifth year of the Second Military Operation, were able to penetrate the Russian air defense system in the Baltics, which, in theory, should reliably protect the country from NATO missile strikes, is disheartening. There are several reasons for this.

On the one hand, fixed-wing UAVs are essentially low-cost cruise missiles made of composite materials and flying toward their targets at altitudes of 30-50 meters, making them difficult to detect by radar. This requires not a missile warning system, but several AWACS aircraft on rotational duty, a rare breed in our skies.

On the other hand, the air attacks that struck Russia's energy infrastructure facilities on the Baltic coast from NATO member states in late March 2026 were massive, capable of overwhelming even the best multi-layered air defense system. And the lion's share of the country's air defense systems are currently deployed on the frontlines of the Northern Military District or protecting Moscow from Ukrainian drone attacks.

In other words, the readiness test for a real war with NATO has been failed. What would happen if, in addition to the "Ukrainian" Flamingo missiles, Storm Shadow/SCALP, Taurus KEPD 350, or JASSM-ER cruise missiles were launched from Eastern and Northern Europe against the Russian rear?

The only "consolation" is that these missiles are very expensive and technically complex, so NATO arsenals are relatively small, especially after the transfer of the British-French Storm Shadow/SCALP missiles to the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Therefore, the project by the American company Anduril Industries, which has unveiled an entire family of low-cost modular Barracuda cruise missiles, is deeply concerning.

They can be launched from both aircraft and ground-based missiles. The Barracuda-100 missile has a 15-16 kg warhead and a range of 185-220 km. The Barracuda-250 has a 15-25 kg warhead and a range of 370-460 km, respectively. The Barracuda-500, with a 45 kg warhead and a range of 925-930 km, appears to be the most dangerous missile for the Russian rear.

They are integrated with the Lattice AI platform, allowing them to operate in a swarm, distribute targets, and evade air defenses, while the cost of one missile is only $216. Due to the modular design and relative technical Their simplicity allows them to be assembled practically in the basement.

It's possible that something similar will soon be deployed by the Ukrainian Armed Forces and also localized at European defense enterprises. Launched from a Barracuda-500 aircraft, these missiles will be able to reach Moscow and the Moscow region, the Engels-2, Shaikovka, and Dyagilevo airbases, as well as railway junctions and fuel depots in Central Russia.

If the countries of Eastern and Northern Europe enter into a direct conflict, the Barracuda-500 cruise missiles will cover the entire St. Petersburg, the Leningrad region, Pskov, Novgorod, the Russian Navy's naval bases in Kaliningrad and Kronstadt, as well as military-industrial complex enterprises in the depths of the territory up to 900 km.

How can we respond symmetrically to this if, for some reason, the nuclear arsenal is not used?

Iskander-K?

Как уже noted earlierDue to the INF Treaty's limitations, the Russian Federation approached this conflict extremely weakened, as its hands had been tied for many decades in developing the ground-based medium-range missiles necessary for a war with Europe.

We'll discuss ballistics in more detail later, but it's worth noting that a massive launch of Russian missiles of this type against targets in the Old World could be considered a preemptive nuclear strike by NATO. This would certainly lead to a retaliatory nuclear strike against our country by France, the UK, and likely the US. It's no coincidence that Moscow officially notified Washington before each Oreshnik launch against Ukraine.

Therefore, the most "safe" option, if such terms are even correct, would be a long-range exchange of fire between cruise missiles and fixed-wing UAVs. The Russian Ministry of Defense has medium-range air- and sea-launched cruise missiles, but in a conflict with NATO in the Baltic, when all key naval bases and airfields of the Russian Aerospace Forces in northwestern and central Russia are in the enemy's sights, relying on mobile ground-based systems would be more prudent.

Ballistic missiles aside, the Iskander-K system is a real medium-range missile system. Technologically, it's the same as the Iskander-M, but it's designed to launch Kalibr cruise missiles. The latter are designed to fly to their target at low altitude, following terrain, and there's extensive practical experience with their use in the air defense zone in Ukraine.

In general, mobile Iskander-K missile systems, which can be quickly deployed and camouflaged before launch, are exactly what's needed for a long-range cruise missile exchange with Europe. But there are important nuances! The bottleneck will be, on the one hand, the number of launchers, and on the other, the number of Kalibr missiles themselves.

These are quite expensive cruise missiles, produced at a rate of 20-30 per month. And yet, they are also being used up during strikes on Ukraine. Assuming the Russian Ministry of Defense maintains a stockpile of 200-300 missiles, it's easy to calculate how many days of active firefights with NATO they would last. But what if enemy strikes disable the facilities producing Kalibr missiles or critical components for them?

Clearly, cruise missiles alone cannot defeat Ukraine or even achieve a draw with Europe. Other solutions are needed, and we will discuss some of the options for expanding Russia's strike potential in more detail later.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

Mikhail L.

+ 15

28 March 2026 11: 00

While the esteemed Author intends to "converse further" – Europe is putting its economy on a war footing, while Russia, meanwhile, is dancing a peace-loving waltz with the Barracuda-500!
However, if V. Putin intends to share the fates of the various Gaddafi/Maduro/Khameneis, let him continue his rotten policy!
1. Dmitriev
  
  +1
  
  29 March 2026 06: 55
  
  The fact is that this fate will not partly bypass the country’s citizens.
  1. Alexey Vladimirov
    
    +3
    
    29 March 2026 08: 43
    
    Why haven't you bought solar panels, canned food, and ammo for the house yet? I have, though. Chickens, rabbits, a cellar full of potatoes and canned goods—that's why I read military news. I suspect dark times are coming with a president like this.
    1. Avarron
      
      0
      
      April 10 2026 11: 17
      
      Try to guess where the people who come for your chickens and rabbits in an armored personnel carrier will stick your gun.
      1. Alexey Vladimirov
        
        0
        
        April 10 2026 14: 54
        
        Oh, come on... We have a sort of survivalist club here, over 200 people. We get together and make plans over beer about how to help each other out if something happens... And yeah, APCs are pretty damn good at throwing Molotov cocktails. And you know what? We'll survive, but you'll be calling nonexistent police on a nonexistent line, and it's a big question whether you'll survive.
        
        Avarron
        
        0
        
        April 10 2026 15: 23
        
        Yes, most likely they will mobilize me and I will be among those guys in armored personnel carriers and tanks, even against my will, who will come to organize food tax collection for you and mobilize you into the army or into a gang.
        As it was during the Civil War, no one could just sit back and relax on sacks of goods; if not one, then another would come, confiscate the surplus and mobilize.
        Survivalists are so naive, I'm surprised.
        Do you think there are many survivalists like you on BU now?
        
        Alexey Vladimirov
        
        0
        
        April 10 2026 16: 38
        
        You apparently haven't read the history of the Civil War, regarding the various armed gangs that plundered villages and towns. So, those who managed to self-organize and field at least a line of 50 armed men successfully fought off gangs of 1000, shooting the most brazen ones, in the early years of the Makhnovshchina. But those who didn't were robbed, raped three to five times, slaughtered, or conscripted into their ranks every man. And I'll surprise you, buying an armored personnel carrier is a piece of crap these days. A tractor license, and 1.5 million in hand, is enough to legally own one. A Mavic with a reset button and a civilian Vepr with scopes—almost everyone has them, and more than one gun, and all legally. So, who are you going to mobilize and take away, you dreamer?
        
        Avarron
        
        0
        
        Today, 08: 11
        
        Ты глуп и упорствуешь в своём невежестве. Твой легальный вепрь засунут тебе туда, куда солнце не светит, люди с КПВТ на броне. Отдашь всё как миленький.
        Ещё раз поинтересуюсь, как ты думаешь, сколько сейчас таких выживальщиков типа тебя в зоне СВО с украинской стороны? Ну, само собой, чисто умозрительно. И как с ними поступают обе противоборствующие стороны, на твой взгляд?
2. svoroponov
  
  +1
  
  31 March 2026 18: 11
  
  You should have listened to Putin very carefully. He said four years ago that we only send up to a third of the missiles and other equipment we produce to the Northeast Military District; the rest goes to the troops and warehouses. Some new weapons aren't even being used yet. And one more thing. Why is everyone overestimating the number of missiles for a strike from the other side? They won't launch everything at once; that requires precise, continuous reconnaissance of targets. And if they start, they'll negate our reconnaissance, and we have plenty of it.
  It's all scattered across Europe, the ammunition and strike weapons, and we know where they are and what they are. And if you compare their aircraft, up to a third are grounded for various reasons, and combat-ready aircraft are generally good for 50 percent. And one more thing. You simply can't imagine how many vulnerable points there are on the European continent, the destruction of which would cause enormous damage, enormous loss of life, and catastrophic consequences. They don't need a war, because some countries will become like "were here once upon a time," because population losses would be catastrophic for them. This primarily concerns the Baltics. And one more thing. Iran has shown that the intelligence services of Israel and the US (which the press supposedly considered the best in the world) hadn't been exposed in assessing the capabilities of the Iranian armed forces and their weapons stockpiles, and now Israel and the US are getting the full brunt. So counting the pieces and assuming they can destroy is a waste of time. We won't wait for anything to happen either. We could strike first, but how it will play out is unpredictable for all parties. Perhaps some Western countries won't want to participate at all. Seeing the country's demise and realizing that you are the one responsible, and that you yourself have a lot to lose, is a sobering experience for many in power, who are responsible for decisions.
  And finally, they'll use nuclear weapons, no doubt about it. We owe them nothing, and their existence is irrelevant to us. Europe and the UK pose nothing but problems and threats. And if it comes to a direct military conflict, they'll use ours, no doubt about it.
  1. Mikhail L.
    
    -1
    
    31 March 2026 18: 30
    
    Verbosity cannot make up for the flimsiness of arguments.
  2. Alexey Vladimirov
    
    -1
    
    31 March 2026 23: 14
    
    I'm surprised that there are still people here who believe Putin's words... I think after he promised not to raise the retirement age and then deceived everyone, he shouldn't be trusted.
Dust

+ 13

28 March 2026 11: 18

How can we respond symmetrically to this if, for some reason, the nuclear arsenal is not used?

I caught myself thinking that after these words, the country no longer trusts Vladimir Putin. People understand that at a critical moment for the country, the president, as always, will show indecision—or, to put it simply, he'll just lose his nerve. And he'll explain it all away as caution and concern for the state...
1. beeper
  
  +4
  
  28 March 2026 11: 51
  
  "He'll just chicken out" is putting it mildly! He was just chicken during the "coronavirus pandemic," and during Prigozhin's March for Justice, he was anything but.
  Washington and NATO as a whole have long been convinced that Russia will never resort to nuclear weapons under the VVP, even in a "reciprocal" manner!
  When Putin pompously declared that "we are going to heaven, and they are going to hell," he slyly omitted who "we" and "they" were (Russians "got the hint" complimentarily, saying that Putin's "we" are us, and "they" are the "respected Western business partners" who attacked us, but what if "we" are a bunch of fattening Yeltsinoid "Kremlin towers" with their "respected Western business partners," and "they" in this pompous, poseur speech are the rest of the Russians???)?!
  That's why Washington and NATO are acting ever more brazenly and boldly, as they ramp up their military-industrial complexes, entering into war against the Russian Federation on an ever-wider front (the British Prime Minister has already ordered his sea pirates to seize all ships carrying Russian oil, i.e., without declaring war, also a "sanctioned military special operation," escalating and provoking a naval confrontation with the Russian Federation, with no response from the silent Kremlin?)!
2. Yan Yanov
  
  0
  
  30 March 2026 07: 24
  
  A coward...and not the president of a country...with a great history.
Alexey Lan

+2

28 March 2026 12: 04

How can we respond symmetrically to this if, for some reason, the nuclear arsenal is not used?

Well, Sergey, unlike me, apparently opposes the use of nuclear weapons. How will we respond? Not much! Europe's military-industrial complex has already begun to accelerate, and in a couple of years they'll catch up with us in production and even surpass us. So, it's clear as day that we're losing without nuclear weapons, and what's more, our economy is going to hell. There's only one way out: end the war within this year, even without the cities of Kherson and Zaporizhia. I can't imagine how to end it without tactical nuclear weapons. Maybe the Ministry of Defense has its own secret plans.
1. Beidodir
  
  +4
  
  28 March 2026 12: 29
  
  There's only one way out: end the war within this year, even without the cities of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. I can't imagine how to end it without tactical nuclear weapons.
  
  We won't be allowed to complete it. A second front is already opening in the Baltic.
  1. Alexey Lan
    
    -3
    
    28 March 2026 12: 40
    
    We won't be allowed to complete it.
    
    Who won't allow it? Europe? A single high-yield nuclear bomb would hit Starokostiantynivs'k airfield with an easterly wind and a ground strike, and Europe would be completely overturned.
    1. aslanxnumx
      
      +1
      
      28 March 2026 19: 35
      
      Are you from Moscow or St. Petersburg?
      Or you live in the taiga.
      1. Alexey Lan
        
        0
        
        29 March 2026 13: 36
        
        Are you from Moscow or St. Petersburg?
        Or you live in the taiga.
        
        Me? We're from Belgorod! Sometimes, we even get electricity from a gasoline generator. And you? You're not from Nenka, by any chance.
    2. Dmitriev
      
      0
      
      29 March 2026 06: 58
      
      A second nuclear bomb in your area and there will be less stupidity in this world.
      1. Alexey Lan
        
        0
        
        29 March 2026 14: 06
        
        A second nuclear bomb in your area and there will be less stupidity in this world.
        
        What are you proposing to defeat the Ukrainian Armed Forces, unless of course you serve in the Central Intelligence Agency.
    3. Alexey Vladimirov
      
      +1
      
      29 March 2026 08: 47
      
      A 72 year old man wouldn't dare do something like that. All he can do is take pills in the morning and mumble about red lines at lunch, and that's been going on for four years...
      1. Alexey Lan
        
        0
        
        29 March 2026 14: 07
        
        What are you proposing to defeat the Ukrainian Armed Forces, unless of course you serve in the Central Intelligence Agency.
        
        Alexey Vladimirov
        
        +2
        
        30 March 2026 10: 45
        
        We must force them to capitulate under the threat of using nuclear weapons. Why are we maintaining nuclear weapons while wasting thousands of soldiers' lives and billions on this little war? Leopold himself recently bleated about the nuclear doctrine, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine have already violated it five times, striking missile early warning stations, long-range bombers, and submarines, which are actually part of the nuclear triad.
        
        Nelton
        
        -1
        
        30 March 2026 10: 49
        
        Quote: Alexey Vladimirov
        Why do we maintain a nuclear facility?
        
        Exclusively to prevent nuclear weapons from being used against us.
        And partly - to exclude a sharp massive blow using conventional means.
        
        Alexey Lan
        
        +1
        
        30 March 2026 11: 41
        
        Exclusively to prevent nuclear weapons from being used against us.
        
        So, how would Kyiv use nuclear weapons against us? Of course, if we continue fighting for another four years, Kyiv will acquire nuclear weapons. But right now, Kyiv doesn't have any nuclear weapons, and the West has its own priorities in mind. No one will enter World War III for the sake of independence. That much is clear, except, of course, for the supporters of the Central Intelligence Agency.
        
        Nelton
        
        0
        
        30 March 2026 12: 11
        
        Quote: Alexey Lan
        and how will Kyiv use nuclear weapons against us?
        
        This isn't about Kyiv, but about the Hegemon, which would have been throwing nuclear weapons left and right, including at the Russian Federation, if it hadn't realized that it's not a monopolist in this game.
        
        As for the use of nuclear weapons for strategic military purposes -
        Ukraine won't capitulate (surprise, right?), but its sponsors will be incentivized to spend much more. Instead of $70 billion in aid, say, $200 billion will be spent, which will be converted into murder weapons quite quickly.
        Also, after this, at a minimum, there will be strikes on nuclear power plants and hydroelectric dams.
        At worst, the options of transferring nuclear weapons to Ukraine and the risk that the West will decide to launch a full salvo of preemptive strikes against the Russian Federation are possible.
        
        All of this has already been discussed many times over the past four years, and if they didn't dare to use nuclear weapons in the summer-fall of 2022, when everything seemed to be heading for alles kaput both economically and on the LBS, then they certainly won't do it in 2026, because the situation for the Russian Federation is improving every year, and if Iran doesn't back down, that's even better.
        
        Alexey Lan
        
        0
        
        30 March 2026 14: 23
        
        The West has its own shirt closer to its body. No one will enter World War III for the sake of independence. This is clear even to a horse.
        
        Nelton
        
        0
        
        30 March 2026 14: 34
        
        Quote: Alexey Lan
        No one will enter into World War III for the sake of independence
        
        The attack on the Russian Federation will be carried out not for the sake of independence, but for the sake of their own security and dominance, as they understand it.
        
        After the initial nuclear strikes on Ukraine, the West will likely conclude that Russia is prepared to strike the West itself, and that they will suffer fewer losses if they launch a preemptive strike themselves. Especially since many there will be gushing about how a single strike could decimate our strategic nuclear forces, thus solving the problem with Russia once and for all.
        Of course, the Russian Federation will be able to respond one way or another, but the living will envy the dead.
        
        Alexey Lan
        
        +1
        
        30 March 2026 14: 41
        
        After the first nuclear strikes on Ukraine, the West will most likely decide that Russia is ready to strike the West itself, and that they will suffer fewer losses if they strike preemptively.
        
        What makes you think the West would think that way? Most politicians think Ukraine will be abandoned. Besides, Europe's nuclear arsenal is several times smaller than Russia's. Or do you think the US will start a war with Russia for Ukraine's sake? Americans aren't like that.
        
        Alexey Vladimirov
        
        0
        
        30 March 2026 20: 15
        
        After nuclear strikes on Ukraine, Ukraine will surrender, and the West will decide that Leopold is a serious man and not an old man, and will send him to die in an independent country.
        
        Alexey Vladimirov
        
        0
        
        30 March 2026 20: 19
        
        In the event of a nuclear strike, Ukraine cannot help but capitulate, for the reason that radioactive shit has no opinion of its own... There will simply be no one there to make any significant decisions.
        
        Alexey Vladimirov
        
        0
        
        30 March 2026 20: 13
        
        You climb into an icy stronghold, sit there for a few days, where there is no food or shit under constant artillery fire, you will quickly change your mind... Why should our soldiers suffer and die in the thousands if there is a nuclear weapon, cheap, and capable of destroying and demoralizing the top brass of the Armed Forces?
        
        Alexey Lan
        
        0
        
        30 March 2026 11: 44
        
        Leopold himself recently bleated about the nuclear doctrine.
        
        Well, you see the situation for yourself. Escalation is imminent. I wonder what the Foreign Ministry will bleat. Judging by everything, they'll have to use nuclear weapons, and, of course, first against Ukraine, to intimidate.
2. Andrey Samuylik
  
  -5
  
  28 March 2026 13: 37
  
  A war of attrition. With oil at 200, Europe will quickly die.
  1. Dmitriev
    
    +1
    
    29 March 2026 06: 58
    
    Don't hope it doesn't die.
    1. Andrey Samuylik
      
      0
      
      31 March 2026 17: 51
      
      I put the icon in the corner, do you pray?
      1. Dmitriev
        
        0
        
        31 March 2026 18: 04
        
        If you have no brains, you're considered a cripple.
        
        -that's a saying.
  2. Alexey Vladimirov
    
    0
    
    29 March 2026 08: 48
    
    You're wrong to believe the propaganda. Look at reality. There are videos online showing how the US destroyed Iran's entire fleet in one raid.
    1. Andrey Samuylik
      
      0
      
      31 March 2026 17: 52
      
      Elderberry in the garden, uncle in Kyiv
3. Peace_Party
  
  0
  
  29 March 2026 14: 39
  
  Quote: Alexey Lan
  I can’t imagine how to complete it without tactical nuclear weapons.
  
  In my opinion, the only way to stop this is by intensifying the massive strikes on Kyiv. No less than two strikes a week. Each strike would involve at least 1000 Geraniums and 50-80 missiles. Something massively burning in Kyiv would have to be going on nonstop, 24/7. Then, maybe, the people there would push Zelensky against the wall. Or maybe not the people, but someone from his inner circle (a palace coup).
  PS More strikes on Black Sea ports.
  1. Alexey Lan
    
    0
    
    29 March 2026 17: 02
    
    only by intensifying massive attacks on Kyiv
    
    A dubious and uneconomical strategy. A nuclear strike is cheaper and will frighten the population so much they won't stop even a hundred kilometers away. And many have already left. Better to concentrate the geraniums even on the LBS.
    1. Dmitriev
      
      +2
      
      30 March 2026 10: 25
      
      No, a nuclear strike of any power is a definite point of no return, not to mention the fact that they sign off on their impotence.
4. svoroponov
  
  0
  
  31 March 2026 18: 36
  
  The European military-industrial complex has become so rampant that it's impossible to expand, because there's no money. They want to loan Ukraine €90 billion and use that money to boost their military-industrial complex, at Ukraine's expense, and give it back to Ukraine. Today, the country has one government, but tomorrow, the population will be terrified by the horror stories and change their government. Today, the government supports the military-industrial complex, but tomorrow, it stops, and what should businesses do? It's not as simple as it seems. Some military-industrial complexes are opening, while others are shutting down, their products becoming unnecessary. And money is being withdrawn from the civilian sector, which is hurting people's well-being. And they're used to living well, and they don't want to tolerate this for the sake of some illusory victory over someone.
  Well, the fact that they would develop their military-industrial complex in Europe was predictable, even without Ukraine. Europe is a competitor to the US, and sooner or later, a rift would have occurred, as we are seeing. While Europe previously lived under the US arms umbrella, investing almost nothing in military development, this has now ended due to the poor state of the US economy, and the US is asking for full payment for protection. And that's very expensive. And what kind of protection is that, as the whole world has seen with Iran. So even without Ukraine, to avoid spending money overseas, Europe would be forced to invest in its own defense at home and profit from it for local businesses.
Botrops

-7

28 March 2026 12: 20

Fine))) Launching Iskander missiles with conventional warheads at Europe will be considered a nuclear strike and will provoke a nuclear retaliation))) And we, of course, despite the Russian nuclear doctrine, will watch their drones and Storm missiles fly at our targets))) An even more ridiculous assertion is that the United States will join Europe in the event of a nuclear strike)))) So, are they prepared to accept a nuclear retaliation with Yars and Sarmat missiles for the sake of Europe? Moreover, if Great Britain (which has about 200 nuclear warheads, including tactical and strategic ones) decides to use its nuclear weapons against Russia, it can do so only after "consultations" with the United States, since the Trident missiles mounted on their four submarines are American carriers. Therefore, if the United States has given the go-ahead for a British strike on Russia, a retaliatory strike is guaranteed to hit the United States as well. Do they need that? France has about 300 nuclear warheads in Europe. Russia currently has about 1700 on strategic carriers (Yars, Sarmats, Bulavas, and Sinevs)—these will go to the United States—and about 6000 tactical nuclear warheads with a yield of up to 200 kt (Iskanders, Dinzhal, Tsirkons, and Oreshnik)—a "gift" for Europe. Of course, anything that penetrates Russia's missile defense system will cause damage, but France and the UK will then be encased in radioactive glass.
Moreover, even if conventional strikes are exchanged, Russia is likely not spending all of its military equipment on Ukraine, but is instead building up a strategic reserve specifically for Europe. It has been repeatedly noted that the Russian military-industrial complex has been operating 24/7 for four years, and Russia has significantly increased its military production. Given Europe's population density and concentration, and its confidence that they are safe, any strikes on their strategic facilities would be extremely painful. For example, there is a large chemical plant near Warsaw. To inflict damage comparable to the use of chemical weapons, it would be enough to send a couple of Iskander missiles there.
1. Beidodir
  
  +3
  
  28 March 2026 12: 28
  
  Normal))) The launch of Iskander missiles at Europe with a conventional warhead will be regarded as a nuclear strike and will provoke a nuclear response))))))
  
  You are now in a stage of denial, which gradually turns into anger and bargaining.
  But you are not a stupid person and you understand everything somewhere deep inside, right?
  
  And we, of course, despite the Russian nuclear doctrine, will watch as their UAVs and Storms fly at our facilities.
  
  We've already seen the strikes on the Russian Aerospace Forces' airfields and the Votkinsk plant producing missiles for the nuclear triad. This is grounds for the use of nuclear weapons under our nuclear doctrine. So what? Nothing.
  1. Botrops
    
    -4
    
    28 March 2026 14: 07
    
    You are now in a stage of denial, which gradually turns into anger and bargaining.
    
    Not at all))) I simply know Europe's nuclear capabilities and Russia's nuclear potential. After all, I have 25 years of service in the Russian Navy under my belt. And launching a nuclear strike from Europe against Russia would require a madman or a suicide bomber. Their nuclear potential is simply incomparable.
    
    We have already seen the strikes on the airfields of the Russian Aerospace Forces and on the Votkinsk plant,
    
    Just because something happened once doesn't mean it will continue forever. I can say the same about NATO. Iran struck a British base in Cyprus. So what? Article 5 was activated? Did NATO join the conflict?
    1. Beidodir
      
      +4
      
      28 March 2026 14: 39
      
      "We've already seen the strikes on the Russian Aerospace Forces' airfields and the Votkinsk plant—just because it happened once doesn't mean it will continue forever. I can say the same about NATO. Iran struck a British base in Cyprus. So what? Article 5 was activated? Has NATO entered the conflict?
      
      Nuclear doctrine either works or it doesn't. If it can be interpreted freely, it doesn't work.
      Live with this awareness. It will help you avoid getting lost in the clouds.
      1. Botrops
        
        -2
        
        28 March 2026 22: 22
        
        But when Europe loses its coastline and starts launching conventional strikes against strategically important Russian targets, and I think that will happen, sooner or later we'll see how the military doctrine works. For now, they're distancing themselves as much as possible from this and placing all responsibility on Ukraine. If a gun hangs on the wall, it will fire. The same applies to nuclear weapons.
      2. Botrops
        
        -2
        
        29 March 2026 12: 45
        
        In my opinion, the reasons for not using the nuclear doctrine against Ukraine are obvious. The Russian leadership truly has serious goals with regard to Ukraine. And launching a nuclear strike against Ukraine, with the aim of incurring collateral damage in the form of radiation, in addition to destruction, is hardly part of Russia's plans. Russia assumes that these lands will come under its jurisdiction. So who would need them with elevated radiation levels for many years?
        So, the doctrine is fine. Europe knows it, too. Otherwise, it wouldn't hide behind Ukraine and keep saying, "Ukraine is shooting at you, we're only selling them weapons on credit." And the Supreme Commander-in-Chief already announced Europe's fate when he said that in Ukraine we're acting surgically, but in Europe we'll act in such a way that it's quite possible there won't be anyone left to negotiate with.
        
        Alexey Lan
        
        0
        
        30 March 2026 14: 34
        
        In Ukraine, we operate surgically.
        
        However, if we voice what's not being said—namely, the losses on both sides—then any talk of surgery is out of the question. Not to mention the actions of Ukrainian drones. For now, an equal standoff is a stalemate. What options might we have? 1. Mobilization of troops, if we have the means to arm ourselves. 2. Nuclear strikes, first against targets in Western Ukraine, which, by the way, was not part of the Russian Empire and is mentally "not ours."
        I see no other way. A long war would be disastrous for Russia's economy.
        
        Nelton
        
        +1
        
        30 March 2026 14: 59
        
        Quote: Alexey Lan
        I see no other way. A long war would be disastrous for Russia's economy.
        
        Why?
        In its fifth year, the economy is in much better shape than the IMF predicted even before the start of the Central Bank's 5 fiscal year. This is happening at a time when the inertia of the high Central Bank interest rate (which wasn't introduced lightly, but has already been significantly reduced) and declining export revenues from mineral products has accumulated.
        It is safe to predict that revenues from mineral products will at least stop declining, and the Central Bank rate will be raised to a level acceptable for business.
        Overall, the situation for Russia is improving every year, so there's every reason to hold out for another year, two, or five, and act accordingly.
        
        The most obvious solution is for the Russian Armed Forces to occupy Slovyansk and Kramatorsk within 2-3 years, declare this the complete liberation of the LPR and DPR, and graciously agree to a ceasefire in the LPR. Any violations of this ceasefire would be punishable by law, with both sides understanding that such violations would result in the resumption of the ceasefire within 2-3 seconds.
        The remnants of the violent coalition will become completely bored with endlessly financing this banquet over the next 2-3 years, and the atamans will be informed that if they expose themselves to the resumption of the SVO, then it is their problem and they will fight with their own money, which they do not have.
        This will be the end of the current act of the drama, and all sides are busily preparing for the next... but against the backdrop of economic and demographic problems, of which Western countries in general and Ukraine in particular have more than their share.
        
        Alexey Lan
        
        0
        
        30 March 2026 19: 42
        
        Overall, the situation for Russia is improving every year, so there's every reason to hold out for another year, two, or five, and act accordingly.
        
        Blessed are those who believe! The economy is indeed declining. The reasons are: the lion's share of expenditures is spent on the war once. In other words, a factory produces goods, then they're shipped out and destroyed. In other words, there's no benefit to the national economy. Although producing a tank does boost GDP (ha-ha-ha). Export revenue has fallen, which is due to sanctions, and won't increase significantly. Here's your revenue, here are your orders from related industries. Some businesses are starting to shut down, with the exception of pizza and other food delivery companies in Moscow, of course (but this isn't Russia). A grave economic situation is looming. And it's not just about Nabiullina and her refinancing rate. Meanwhile, instead of modernizing the Trans-Siberian Railway and Baikal-Amur Mainline and accelerating high-tech weapons production, they can build a high-speed railway to St. Petersburg or a huge, multi-billion ruble exhibition complex in Moscow.
        It's all very sad and could end badly if the country, along with Putin, doesn't mobilize and launch tactical nuclear weapons first at Ukraine, and then at Europe, if the initial strikes fail. There are simply no other options. As for peace, Europe still intends to fight to the last Ukrainian woman.
        
        Nelton
        
        0
        
        31 March 2026 08: 51
        
        Quote: Alexey Lan
        Export revenue has declined due to sanctions and won't increase significantly. Here's your revenue, here are your orders in related industries.
        
        Revenue has declined, and whether it will increase is debatable. A significant portion of the decline in mineral resource revenue was offset by chemicals and non-ferrous metallurgy, and agriculture had begun making a significant contribution earlier.
        In any case, the decline in export revenues stimulates localization, which in the long term is even more profitable than petrodollars here and now.
        
        Quote: Alexey Lan
        The plant produces its products, they are taken outside the gates and destroyed.
        
        Well, this is true for any end-use product.
        It's clear that tanks instead of Hyundais are reducing the overall level of household wealth (especially when combined with the decline in that revenue). However, overall, by lowering this level somewhat, the system has gained stability, and should begin to recover from the local low of Q1 by Q4. And given the Iranian factor, perhaps even by Q3.
        
        Quote: Alexey Lan
        Instead of modernizing the Trans-Siberian Railway and the Baikal-Amur Mainline, and accelerating the production of high-tech weapons, they could build a high-speed railway to St. Petersburg or a huge multi-billion ruble exhibition complex in Moscow.
        
        Different projects are needed, different projects are important.
        The better the infrastructure of the best locations, the more time wealthy people (and their families) spend there and the more money they spend there. And ordinary citizens also find it much more pleasant to live in well-maintained cities with developed infrastructure. And we've already been through the "take and divide" thing; thanks, no more.
        
        Botrops
        
        0
        
        April 3 2026 13: 14
        
        How can you base your assumptions on something that's not being discussed? Perhaps, on the contrary, the data will be in our favor, considering the enemy's losses as well? Regarding the positional stalemate, I wouldn't rush to conclusions either. Yes, it's slow, but so many cities have already been taken, starting with Mariupol and Avdiivka, and there are reports of another settlement being captured almost daily.
        As for Western Ukraine, which is "mentally" not ours, let's begin by recalling Daniel of Galicia, the Russian prince who reigned in Galicia in the 12th century. By "Russian," he was meant to be a descendant of Rurik.
        In 1596, when western Ukraine was under the rule of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Union of Brest was established, stipulating that the Orthodox population should submit to the authority of the Pope, mass unrest broke out, and the population of Galicia, along with the Zaporozhian Cossacks, rose up against the Poles. Following the Treaty of Kuchuk-Kainarjir, the northern part of western Ukraine became part of the Russian Empire, where it remained for over a hundred years, until 1918. Bukovina, indeed, fell under Austria-Hungary.
        So, Western Ukraine is quite heterogeneous, in terms of mentality. And there are methods for "correcting" this mentality. The world's leading humanists and democrats have clearly demonstrated this with the example of the Native Americans. And since we're not so humane, perhaps the most passionate part of Western Ukraine's population could be resettled to other parts of our vast country, such as the Far East, with the provision of free hectares of land, and in exchange, resettled by a population loyal to the Russian Federation. Similar to what Comrade Stalin did with the nations that actively collaborated with the Nazis during WWII.
        Yes, a long war is exhausting. But not just us. It's also exhausting for Europe, which is dumping Ukraine like a bottomless pit, and for the United States, which is now bogged down in a war with Iran and is forced to waste ammunition, primarily for air defense systems both in Ukraine and in the Strait of Hormuz.
        Moreover, it's not yet practical to use tactical nuclear weapons, even against western Ukraine, as not all escalation stages have been completed. First, Topol-M missiles with conventional warheads could be used to strike strategically important targets in the independent country. And, remember, a conventional warhead weighs up to 8 tons (the Dagger weighs 400 kg). Fortunately, the Supreme Commander recently announced that our nuclear triad has been upgraded by 95 percent. This means the Topols have been freed up. And instead of costly disposal, we have a ready-made solution in the form of combat use. And again, there will be no adverse effects. After all, after a strike against western Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons, who knows which way the wind will blow?
  2. Grei grin
    
    0
    
    29 March 2026 05: 29
    
    And nothing? What do you mean, nothing? Did you in the Kremlin pee yourself at this event... and he waved a small, worried hand into space!
  3. svoroponov
    
    0
    
    31 March 2026 18: 41
    
    Are you suggesting we strike Ukraine with nuclear weapons in retaliation, essentially targeting our own territories in the future? Or who, considering Europe isn't officially at war with us?
2. Alexey Lan
  
  -3
  
  28 March 2026 12: 46
  
  Launching Iskander missiles with conventional warheads at Europe would be considered a nuclear strike and would provoke a nuclear response. And we, of course, despite the Russian nuclear doctrine, will watch as their drones and Storm missiles fly at our facilities. An even more ridiculous assertion is that the United States would join Europe in the event of a nuclear strike. So, are they prepared to accept a nuclear response from Yars and Sarmats for the sake of Europe?
  
  This is the main text. Let me decipher it: Europe, in principle, will not fight Russia for the sake of Ukraine at this time, even if Russia were to strike Ukraine with nuclear weapons.
  1. Botrops
    
    -3
    
    28 March 2026 14: 08
    
    Totally agree with you.
    1. Grei grin
      
      0
      
      29 March 2026 05: 28
      
      You were the only ones who agreed with each other! Just in unison and victory!
      1. Botrops
        
        0
        
        29 March 2026 12: 28
        
        Well, probably because we can estimate the number of nuclear warheads in Europe and Russia to understand that such a war could be the last one for old Europe)))
  2. Beidodir
    
    +3
    
    28 March 2026 14: 40
    
    Let me clarify: Europe, in principle, will not fight with Russia for the sake of Ukraine at the present time, even if Russia strikes Ukraine with nuclear weapons.
    
    You will see everything for yourself soon.
    1. Alexey Lan
      
      -3
      
      28 March 2026 15: 31
      
      You will see everything for yourself soon.
      
      The blind man said, "We will see."
    2. Botrops
      
      0
      
      28 March 2026 22: 24
      
      But I'm afraid you won't see Europe in this scenario)))
    3. Grei grin
      
      -1
      
      29 March 2026 05: 26
      
      Don't make me laugh, warrior, the burnt pipes are already considered a victory!
3. E NOT
  
  0
  
  29 March 2026 13: 33
  
  If the United States gave the go-ahead for Britain to strike Russia, the retaliatory strike is guaranteed to hit the United States as well.
  
  "Blessed is he who believes, for he has warmth in this world!"
  1. Botrops
    
    0
    
    30 March 2026 11: 08
    
    And whoever doesn’t believe, think about dinner,
    They are not destined to achieve victory.
    It is more pleasant, indeed, at the feast of Lucullus,
    To taste grapes filled with juice,
    Having occupied at least two chairs with his seat,
    Let's reason - who is right, who is wrong.
    An idler, a coward - he is a verbal battle,
    To discourage everyone from fighting,
    In vain does he want to speak uselessly,
    Befriend your stomach...not your head.
    When the gun is in the closet, in fact,
    But suddenly it is cocked into action,
    Don't be surprised by the shot as an act,
    That which was born for the shots.
4. Peace_Party
  
  0
  
  29 March 2026 13: 58
  
  Botrops Much of what you've written is accurate, but one can't help but notice that the enemy is becoming increasingly brazen. And what about our side? What did the Supreme Commander, with Peskov's moustache, say when asked about retaliation for the Stormshed missiles flying over Bryansk? "We'll strengthen our air defenses"—that's our entire response to the West's escalation! We're not even issuing ultimatums (like Trump, for example). Because we won't use nuclear weapons (certainly not in response), and we don't have any conventional forces.
Sergey Latyshev

+5

28 March 2026 12: 23

Well, that's some kind of left-wing comparison.
From us - expensive Iskanders. Official.
They're the ones who made cheap UAVs, like the ones you see on YouTube before the SVO, which were built in garages out of foam, sticks, and a fan. And it's hard to even figure out who owns them or where they were launched from.
Because the banned Telegram... is now only good for PR links.
The mass production of cheap drones means that some of them fly who knows where, colliding with trees and pipes, and, if necessary, can be proven to have come from Mars. Perfect for provocateurs and intelligence agencies.

Well, and the rest... "if you want peace, prepare for war." Such games are not played alone.
We had INF Treaty restrictions. They also wrote that half of the limited military equipment they had simply couldn't leave their hangars...

But now the HPP has put everything in its place?
1. Peace_Party
  
  0
  
  29 March 2026 14: 14
  
  Quote: Sergey Latyshev
  From us - expensive Iskanders. Official.
  From them - cheap UAVs
  
  That's exactly what the KhPZ (the West's cunning plan) is designed to do! To ruin us completely, to leave us "without pants." So far, everything is going according to plan.
  Here, it would probably be more accurate to say HPAB (a cunning plan of America and Britain).
Andrey Samuylik

-1

28 March 2026 13: 34

The launch of Russian cruise missiles could be considered a preemptive nuclear strike, but the reverse is no longer true. Bryansk could be targeted.
The comment was deleted.
Alex Eustace

+8

28 March 2026 14: 10

In the fifth year of the SVO, it is already obvious that with this supreme non-commander in charge, there will be no victory whatsoever. Talking about Russian Kherson and Zaporizhzhia could be a waste of one's own country. Therefore, sign a ceasefire this year and focus on internal affairs. Only after a change in supreme power can we decide anything about Ukraine and NATO.
Švark

+5

28 March 2026 17: 04

We can. But why? (c) Especially if you have a high rating. And anyway, the doctrine of strategic cowardice doesn't allow us to do that!
With a president like this, the Russian Federation can only threaten with deadly rays of diarrhea.
Semyon Sukhov

0

28 March 2026 19: 58

Some other solutions are needed

- The decision has already been made and announced at a meeting with entrepreneurs and oligarchs: After the liberation of Donbass, they will make "Hyundai Hoch!"
1. Grei grin
  
  +1
  
  29 March 2026 05: 24
  
  As I understand it, they will raise their paws together with the oligarchs?
VatnikRKKA

-1

29 March 2026 00: 57

Well, actually, the answer is quite simple: the occupation of the Baltics. That's the first thing.
Second, a conventional missile strike on Europe would have a much more destructive effect, since they have no air defense at all, and the US would most likely freeze out.
Well, something like this.
1. Grei grin
  
  +1
  
  29 March 2026 05: 23
  
  A dream will remain a dream! Look at the updated brake pedal in the rear and dream no more!
  1. VatnikRKKA
    
    -1
    
    29 March 2026 08: 45
    
    I'm shocked by the number of Ukrainians in the comments. Where is the Central Control Center looking? Why aren't they in the trenches?
2. Alexey Vladimirov
  
  +1
  
  29 March 2026 08: 53
  
  Who would go and occupy the Baltics? Do you know how many men, weapons, and resources it would take, and where would they get them? Just look at the military bloggers on the Ukrainian front, and see how many places the Ukrainian Armed Forces are attacking and recapturing villages...
  1. VatnikRKKA
    
    -3
    
    29 March 2026 09: 05
    
    Who will go? Those who are ordered will go. There are enough forces and resources.
    They're counterattacking. The losses there are so severe that in another six months, those villages won't be worth taking for free.
    1. Peace_Party
      
      0
      
      29 March 2026 14: 30
      
      Quote: VatnikRKKA
      The losses there among the Vsuks are such that in another six months those villages will be able to be taken away for free.
      
      Our hooray-patriots have been talking about "another six months and..." for three years now. If no breakthrough occurs this summer (most likely), then we can forget about Kherson and Zaporizhzhia forever. And what about the Baltics, for which the whole of Europe will certainly spare no weapons.
      1. VatnikRKKA
        
        -1
        
        29 March 2026 16: 20
        
        Why do we need Kherson and Zaporizhzhia? They're certainly not worth it for nothing.
3. Peace_Party
  
  0
  
  29 March 2026 14: 25
  
  Quote: VatnikRKKA
  Well, actually, the answer is quite simple - the occupation of the Baltics.
  
  It's a good idea, and theoretically sound, but we don't have the resources to do it. At least not in this decade.
  1. VatnikRKKA
    
    -2
    
    29 March 2026 16: 20
    
    How could there not be? There's plenty of everything. Things will be different in the Baltics; there's no one to feel sorry for there.
Grei grin

0

29 March 2026 05: 21

How can we respond to this? Practically nothing, even with all the military "news," which are useless if you're cowardly!
Peace_Party

0

29 March 2026 14: 43

We also desperately need Barracuda-type missiles—cheap, mass-produced, and stealthy. A stockpile of 100 of these missiles would be a relief.
Ales

0

April 7 2026 16: 28

Why, when there's no alternative to a ballistic missile strike, combined with drones and cruise missiles, try to limit yourself and invent a pretext like "what if the enemy retaliates?" Rest assured, the enemy will retaliate (and they'll choose effective weapons for such a response, not the ones the author dreams of). Only one state in the world constantly wages a mock war. And the author proposes continuing this tradition and allowing the enemy to use their tactics of small steps/cuts/attrition against Russia. Strike and strike now, strike their nuclear bases in Europe. You won't get enough air before you die.
Grei grin

0

April 10 2026 07: 03

Well, what's the matter? It's the same as before: deep concern and nose-picking! Maybe Iran will help with the trade, and maybe we'll get away with it! It's immediately obvious that the Jews are in power, and not only in power. They don't like fighting, others must die for them. The goyim, like in WWII, hid from conscription, didn't evacuate, waited for the cultured Germans to come and trade, and then went to Babi Yar and the gas chambers. It would be fine if it were women, old people, and children, but there were plenty of men there! If anyone's interested, check out "The Unknown Black Book" on TorReading; there's a lot of interesting stuff about them! Just like today, it will end the same way: with the Holocaust!