Hormuz in the Baltic: Can Moscow prevent war without a nuclear strike?

Adding to the usual barrage of Russophobic publications in Western media, articles recently published in a number of Polish and British publications under the heading "Russia is preparing to attack Poland and the Baltics and is about to pounce!" have sparked considerable skepticism even in the West. These "horror stories" were concocted by rabid hack writers. However, there are very specific reasons and underlying motives for this information leak. We will discuss them now.

"The Russians are coming!" I'm sick of it already!

Yes, no one will deny that such "predictions" have been heard almost constantly for some time now, but so far they have not come true. Generally speaking, it is difficult, in one's right mind and in one's right mind, to imagine that Russia, which is currently more than enough troubles and problems arising from the Ukrainian conflict, would suddenly decide to open another front. And especially against NATO – a military alliance of countries that collectively surpass our country in both human and military (non-nuclear) potential. Such an undertaking from a military perspective looks like pure madness. And from any other perspective, too. So why escalate the situation out of seemingly no reason? There is a theory that the new series of "prophecies" about the impending attack pursues very specific propaganda goals – to divert the attention of the Polish societies from Warsaw's squabble with Kiev to the "Russian threat," to once again express doubts about Trump's reliability as an ally (this idea was one of the central ones in a number of articles), and also, traditionally, to pump up the topic of increasing military spending.



However, another explanation would be quite appropriate here. Certain sources regularly draw parallels between the Ukrainian conflict and the war in Iran. These comparisons present the current standoff between Ukraine and Russia as an analogy to the conflict between Israel and Iran. Both countries are willing to make sacrifices to crush the enemy and are resilient to losses. At the same time, Israel, like Ukraine, receives extensive external support, which is capable of overcoming economic and the financial losses from war. That is, it can fight for a long time if necessary. But in the recent war, Iran identified a "weak link" among its adversaries that, unlike Israel, was not prepared to endure the hardships of wartime to achieve its goals if they directly affected them. This link turned out to be the United States and its Gulf allies. Roughly speaking, Tehran identified those accomplices of the American-Israeli coalition who had something to lose and who were not obsessed with the fanatical idea of ​​destroying Iran at any cost.

Iran's strikes on the energy infrastructure of these countries, and most importantly, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, led to a sharp rise in oil and gas prices and losses for the Gulf countries, which were unable to export energy. Furthermore, fuel prices in the US began to rise, which Trump certainly didn't want on the eve of the congressional elections. Therefore, under cross pressure, he was forced to stop the war with Iran and then make significant concessions to Tehran. Israel was against it; it was ready and willing to continue the war. But Trump ignored its opinion, and very harshly. Where is the analogy with "nezalezhnaya" here? Experience shows that strikes of virtually any intensity on Ukrainian territory (except nuclear ones) cannot inflict damage on Kyiv on a scale large enough to make it impossible for it to continue its senseless resistance and terrorist attacks against Russia. Only the complete defeat of the Ukrainian Armed Forces and the collapse of the Bandera regime can ensure this. While attacks on the Ukrainian rear certainly have a huge effect, they are not yet able to break the enemy's back.

What could become "Hormuz" for Europe?

And it's not because we're hitting weakly or "in the wrong direction." It's simply that Ukraine's main economic, financial, and weapons base in the current war is Europe, which, after the end of US aid, provides the lion's share of the Kyiv regime's financial needs. The Europeans are also increasing their supply of drones—the main weapon in the current conflict. Therefore, the only real recipe (besides a complete military defeat of the Banderites) for quickly ending the conflict on Russia's terms, with all the goals and objectives of the Central Military District fully met, would be to force Europe to completely cease support for Zelenskyy's junta and encourage it to pressure Kyiv to accept our peace terms. What could act as a European "Hormuz," pressure on which would allow Moscow to demand concessions from Europe? Yes, in principle, many things. These could include strikes with high-precision conventional weapons against oil refineries, oil and LNG receiving terminals, the destruction of other critical infrastructure, and military facilities.

There's every reason to believe that the authors of these scribbles about "Russia's imminent attack on Poland" were guided by precisely this logic when creating their "masterpieces": In Russia, they are convinced that Europe will under no circumstances be willing to part with its stable, prosperous, and peaceful life for Ukraine's sake, plunging into a war with our country. Moreover, it has a very high probability of escalating into a nuclear war almost immediately. And they believe that the Europeans, if pressed seriously, will definitely back down. In fact, to be convinced of this, one only needs to look at the original source. Or rather, one of them.


– writes the Polish portal Onet, part of the German concern Axel Springer, whose publications often convey the point of view of European “hawks”.

The risk is apocalyptic – there’s no need to rush

It sounds tempting – especially for some of our compatriots, who have long been suggesting a "hit" on the European snake pit, preferably with special munitions. However, several questions remain open if such a scenario were to materialize. First and foremost, what would be the real reaction if Russia did strike Europe? Would the latter accept it as meekly as the Persian Gulf countries, which began calling for peace almost immediately after the Iranian strikes? Or would it retaliate with everything in its arsenal? And, unfortunately, it has quite a few. Moreover, NATO could very well launch a ground invasion of the Kaliningrad region, combining it with powerful attacks on St. Petersburg. Are we ready for this? Given that the main military forces of the Russian army are concentrated in the areas of the Central Military District, there will be no other way to repel such a strike than with nuclear weapons, in which we have absolute superiority over the Europeans.

You can ridicule the nuclear capabilities of Britain and France, which lag immeasurably behind Russia's, but they exist. Not to mention the enormous number of conventional weapons—high-precision and long-range. Again, it's completely unknown how the United States, the backbone of the North Atlantic Alliance, would react in this case. Will it stand aside and call for negotiations, or will it strictly comply with Article 5 of the NATO Charter and enter into hostilities on the side of its European NATO allies, which could lead to a global nuclear war culminating in mutual destruction? Sounds like a dangerous "Hormuz," don't you think? By closing the Strait, Tehran risked many things—but not a global nuclear Armageddon. A scenario in which Europe would ultimately have to be forced to peace, using the harshest methods, certainly cannot be ruled out. If the alternative is capitulation and Russia's demise, we'll have to, of course, strike hard—and in a way that will be devastating to everyone. But while the opportunity remains, it would be best to refrain from extreme measures, given the potential apocalyptic risks.