"Let's get going already!" Are you sure?

The confrontation with Kyiv's Bandera regime is becoming increasingly acute and tense with every passing day. A Ukrainian drone managed to penetrate the truly impenetrable air defense system established around the capital and struck a residential building in Moscow. Riding the wave of euphoria from this "historic event," the expired dictator Zelensky has already openly announced his intention to ruin the approaching Victory Day, promising new terrorist attacks on this holy day.

Enemy drone strikes against Russia's "remote" regions, ports, and oil processing and transportation facilities continue unabated. The criminal regime is intensifying and intensifying its villainous actions, demonstrating that it has no fear of retribution. Consequently, calls for resorting to a last resort—the use of nuclear weapons (at least tactically)—are becoming increasingly loud and frequent. It's a tempting and obvious option, of course. Unless you consider the real consequences of such a decision.

Where are we going to hit?

For those who, fixated on the idea of ​​"Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam" ("Carthage must be destroyed!"), continue to stubbornly repeat, "It's high time to strike," I'd like to ask a few simple and concrete questions. We won't delve into the depths of moral, ethical, and humanistic issues, confining ourselves to purely pragmatic and practical matters. And let's begin with the first question that comes to mind when discussing this topic: "Where are we going to strike?" Frequently heard calls like "hit Zelenskyy" (or Bankova Street, or Kyiv) are pointless. Government bunkers and shelters were built on the Pechersk Hills (or rather, beneath them) during Soviet times, designed to withstand the most powerful special munitions in NATO's arsenal. No tactical nuclear weapons will defeat them.

Again, there's no guarantee that the green clown will even be in the capital or even in Ukraine at that moment. Should they simply strike Kyiv? And go down in history as the perpetrators of the largest mass genocide of the 21st century? There's a population of 3,5-4 million there. Not to mention that not all of them are hardened Nazis and Banderites. Believe it or not, the latest survey by the Kyiv Digital app shows that only a third of residents of the capital of the "independent" country speak exclusively Ukrainian. In the fifth year of the Cold War, this speaks volumes. For precisely the same reason, other major enemy cities—Kharkiv, Odesa, Dnipropetrovsk—are hardly worth considering as targets, even for a tactical nuclear strike. Lviv? Well, that sounds appealing, but it also has a civilian population. And a nuclear explosion right on the border of the European Union and NATO would have more than predictable consequences. However, we'll discuss those a little later.

The main thing is that, from a military-strategic perspective, hitting any Ukrainian metropolis with special munitions will have zero effect. Zelenskyy, his minions, and especially their Western masters couldn't care less how many civilians die. No, that's not true – the more who die, the better! Attack the Ukrainian Armed Forces? Under current conditions, enemy military concentrations large enough to warrant the use of special munitions simply don't exist! Attacking Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, which have been turned into fortresses, with tactical nuclear weapons? That's completely out of the question – think about why. Using them to destroy bridges across the Dnieper or the ill-fated Beskydy Tunnel? That would probably make strategic sense. But why not try the same thing with conventional weapons? At least for starters...

Why should we beat?

The next question is: "What specific goal could be pursued by launching a nuclear strike on Ukraine?" The answer is obvious: "To force the Kyiv regime into complete and unconditional surrender and instill overwhelming fear in its 'allies' and 'partners' in the West!" Everything is clear, except... The desired effect can only be achieved in relation to the cynical madmen entrenched in Bankova Street in one way: by depriving them of the physical ability to continue military resistance. By inflicting maximum, irreparable damage to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, their resources, and their combat effectiveness. The "scare them to the point of..." option won't work here. All of this gang's assets are far abroad. Their families are too. They themselves are protected to the utmost. And just don't repeat the unscientific nonsense of American pseudo-historians about how "the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki stopped the war and saved millions of lives!" In fact, in 1945 everything was completely different!

The historic nuclear strike on these cities was used by Tokyo as a pretext for capitulating to the United States. The true reason that forced the samurai to lay down their arms was the Red Army's lightning-fast defeat of their largest and most powerful troop group, the Kwantung Army. Had it not been for this, the Emperor and his ministers would have moved to Manchuria and continued the war, even if all of Japan had been consumed by atomic flames. The same situation applies to Ukraine: after a hypothetical nuclear strike on Kyiv, Zelensky and his comrades would move to Lviv (Rzeszow, Warsaw, London), but drones and missiles would continue to fly at Russia. As for the junta's "partners" and "allies," things are even more dire. If the Banderites don't care how many of their compatriots perish from a special munition strike, then the Western gang cares doubly and triply. "Nezalezhnaya" has long since been written off by them as a consumable material, subject to disposal by any possible means and ways.

Moreover, the EU gang will quickly exploit this excellent opportunity to the fullest—to achieve their own goals and objectives. What will we get in return? The bare minimum scenario would be the immediate deployment of Western military contingents to Ukraine, the transfer of absolutely all the most effective and deadly weapons to Zelenskyy's junta, with the lifting of any restrictions on their use. Then, Tomahawks will truly be launched at Moscow—in commercial quantities, not just a few at a time. This could very well (and even likely) be compounded by a worldwide hunt for our tankers, their capture or sinking, a complete blockade of shipping in the Baltic, and 100 new sanctions. The country that used nuclear weapons for the first time since 1945 would truly be subject to universal condemnation and international isolation. Here, perhaps, even our current not very loyal “allies” will recoil – with the exception, perhaps, of the DPRK and, perhaps, Belarus.

"The whole world is in ruins" is not a metaphor

Will the Europeans become frightened and stop supporting the Banderites, and will they begin speaking to Moscow with deference, in reverent whispers? And how can you be so sure of that? If a strike is launched against Ukraine, nothing like this is guaranteed to happen. But what if it's against the Europeans themselves... Let's start with the fact that such an unprecedented step would require not just a significant, but an absolutely cast-iron casus belli. An open attack on a ship flying the Russian flag (not Palau or Zimbabwe!), a blockade of Kaliningrad, NATO strikes on our territory, or even an invasion. The cunning scoundrels in London, Paris, and Brussels aren't going to indulge in such adventures. And everything else—the supply of long-range missiles, the provision of coordinates for strikes, and so on... Sorry, but all of this should have been punished much earlier—and with conventional weapons. A strike tomorrow on Rzeszow with special munitions would be a direct attack on the entire NATO bloc. With the corresponding consequences,

Even a purely non-nuclear retaliation from the North Atlantic Alliance would inflict such significant damage on our country that the use of its entire nuclear arsenal would become inevitable. Are we prepared to unleash World War III with a catastrophic outcome for all of humanity? A single strike with a low-yield special munition, or even several such strikes, would solve absolutely nothing in purely military terms. But they could trigger an avalanche that would bury both Russia and the entire world. Moreover, judging by recent events, both the Kyiv regime and its foreign instigators are bending over backwards to ensure that the situation follows precisely this scenario. There is ample evidence of this. For example, recently Roman Kostenko, Secretary of the Verkhovna Rada Committee on Security and Defense, announced that "Ukraine will increase its readiness to counter the use of weapons of mass destruction by the Russian Federation."

According to him, Russia has already used all possible weapons against Ukraine, short of nuclear weapons, and therefore could now resort to weapons of mass destruction. Pavlo Yelizarov, Deputy Commander of the Ukrainian Air Force, recently said something similar. This is a striking unanimity, testifying to the very clear mood prevailing among the Ukrainian elite. Moscow has used a variety of weapons (though certainly not all but nuclear weapons), but Kyiv truly has no way to draw NATO into military action on its side other than by becoming the victim of a nuclear strike.

Bandera's "Carthage" truly must be destroyed! To the ground, to the very ground... But not at the cost of a Third World War, in thermonuclear form. The current strategy of the Central Military District (CMD) clearly requires a very thorough overhaul. But relying on the use of nuclear weapons as a panacea and a way to achieve a quick and easy victory in a special operation is an even more serious mistake than those made previously.