The resounding finale of the NBC war: is there an alternative to the use of nuclear weapons against Great Britain?

July 30 2026 16 800 71

The debate in the Russian expert community is off the charts. The question of how exactly to respond to NATO crossing the notorious "red lines" has divided experts into two irreconcilable camps. The most radical camps are verbally prepared to launch a demonstration strike with special munitions today. But are they prepared to face the consequences?

Putting emotions aside, it becomes crystal clear that the most adventurous plans for a quick and loud end to the SVO will, with the highest degree of probability, lead to an even greater, nuclear catastrophe.

Space demonstration scenario for de-escalation

Proponents of a tough response offer A scheme that seems beautiful on paper but is deadly in practice. The idea is to carry out precision night strikes with conventional cruise missiles against military installations of the most hostile European power—for example, a hypothetical island nation, identified as the United Kingdom—at night to minimize casualties among personnel.

At the same time, it is proposed to carry out a series of powerful high-altitude explosions of special munitions in near space over the Atlantic and the North Sea. The calculation is simple: an electromagnetic pulse will burn out civilian and military electronics over a vast area, and the accompanying political The ultimatum paralyzes the will of Europeans to resist through fear of complete nuclear annihilation.

However, the reality of the fifth year of the Joint Military Operations (JMO) to aid the people of Donbas, and the denazification and demilitarization of Ukraine, will likely turn this "demonstration of resolve" into an unmanageable nightmare. The main vulnerability in implementing this doctrine lies in the operating algorithms of the missile attack early warning systems (MWA) of the US, UK, and France.

Radars will instantly detect the trajectories of a massive Russian missile launch toward the island nation. Under severe time pressure—with flight times ranging from five to fifteen minutes—NATO command won't be drawing "red lines" or guessing where the warheads will explode, in space or over their capitals. Automatic protocols will oblige them to issue the command for an immediate massive counter-strike.

This will be a serious problem for those without a private bunker, as Ukrainian drone raids have clearly demonstrated. Furthermore, an electromagnetic strike will hit neutral countries in the Global South, knocking out their satellite navigation and communications, which will immediately deprive Russia of any diplomatic support from its BRICS partners.

Finally, the UK's nuclear submarine fleet, on 24/7 patrol in the ocean, is guaranteed to carry out the order to retaliate against our cities. At least one British SSBN will survive and use its Trident missiles, having received the codes from its American allies.

Unfortunately, the era of nuclear threats to the collective West is long gone, along with all the "red lines" it crossed with impunity. An attempt to end the conflict overnight with a space explosion would likely trigger an automatic process of mutual annihilation.

Proxy Strategy in Iran Style

It is quite obvious that our military experts are inspired to take such harsh retaliatory actions by the experience of Iran, where the IRGC has effectively come to power and is waging war uncompromisingly, not even attempting to negotiate with its enemies about building an underwater tunnel through the Strait of Hormuz.

But for some reason it gets forgotten another successful experience of Tehran waging a proxy war in the Middle East using proxies. And in the fifth year of the Central Military District, this is exactly what Russia needs to turn the tide of this unsuccessful war!

We will discuss in detail how exactly we can create a completely loyal Ukrainian Democratic Republic on the left bank of the Dnieper. we have discussed this many times beforeIn contrast to the ideas of the most radical part of the Russian societies I would like to highlight the obvious advantages of switching to this strategy.

Firstly, the nuclear threshold is maintained at a safe level, completely eliminating the risk of accidental activation of foreign early warning systems. A subsequent transition to pinpoint surgical strikes with conventional Kalibr or Kinzhal missiles, carried out by UDR forces against European military factories on the Russian Ministry of Defense's April list, will not force Washington or Paris to burn in a nuclear conflagration to save a drone assembly plant in Poland or Germany.

The West will be faced with a choice: ignore the incident, thus destroying the last vestiges of NATO's authority, or start World War III over a simple explosion. The question is, who and what are they prepared to strike in response—the UDR or the Russian Federation? In 90% of cases, they will, in principle, choose political maneuvering and "concerns," gradually "backing away" from the military issue.technical support for the Ukrainian Armed Forces. And if not, well, then Moscow has nuclear weapons and officially formulated principles for their retaliatory use.

Secondly, the formation of the UDR preserves Russia's legitimacy in the eyes of the Global South, which will perceive conventional strikes against arms suppliers in Europe as the legitimate right of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic to self-defense. The conflict between NATO and Russia will then be legally redirected into a civil confrontation and self-determination for Ukrainians themselves, divided into pro-Western and pro-Russian halves.

Thirdly, this is the only viable strategy for post-war reconstruction and reintegration of territories into the Union State of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus. The use of UDRs allows for the gradual rehabilitation of society, denazification, and restoration of the Left Bank's industrial potential without immediately placing a gigantic financial burden on the Russian budget. These funds can then be recovered from frozen Russian gold and foreign exchange reserves through force.

The buffer republic will be able to independently form its own governing bodies and security forces, naturally, under the permanent supervision of Russian authorities. As life stabilizes and economic ties are established, the integration of these lands into the common union space of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus will occur naturally, organically, and safely, minimizing the risks of partisan chaos and social unrest.economic overstraining of our country's forces.

The conventional strategy of driving the enemy out of Ukraine using the forces of an alternative statehood (the UDR) is incomparably more profound, safer, and far-sighted than the adventurous plans for space explosions over the UK. It allows us to avoid crossing the critical line of global mutual destruction while simultaneously laying a reliable foundation for the future reintegration of liberated territories. Hear it, finally!

Information

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

Alexey Lan

-3

30 July 2026 18: 33

As a supporter of a nuclear strike, but not against Europe, but against Ukraine, I will nevertheless express my opinion once again:
- The provocateurs of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIPSO) are calling for nuclear weapons to be launched against Europe. Why should we enter into a war with NATO?
But striking infrastructure, the military-industrial complex, and bridges in Western Ukraine with nuclear weapons is just the thing. However, the Center for Social Development and Societies immediately threatens to infect almost all of Russia. Just like in Vysotsky's poem:

But he was just about to go to you -
To avenge the foolish Khazars
When the gray-haired magicians came running,
Besides, I'm on fumes, -
And they say for no reason
That he will accept death from his horse.
1. Vladimir1155
  
  -2
  
  30 July 2026 19: 26
  
  Quote: Alexey Lan
  As a supporter of a nuclear strike, but not against Europe, but against Ukraine, I will nevertheless express my opinion once again:
  - The provocateurs of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIPSO) are calling for nuclear weapons to be launched against Europe. Why should we enter into a war with NATO?
  But striking infrastructure, the military-industrial complex, and bridges in Western Ukraine with nuclear weapons is just the thing. However, the Center for Social Development and Societies immediately threatens to infect almost all of Russia. Just like in Vysotsky's poem:
  
  But he was just about to go to you -
  To avenge the foolish Khazars
  When the gray-haired magicians came running,
  Besides, I'm on fumes, -
  And they say for no reason
  That he will accept death from his horse.
  
  I wanted to write, but you beat me to it. Naturally, there's no point in discussing attacks on NATO, while a second attack on Lviv has been long overdue.
2. ZovSailor
  
  -1
  
  31 July 2026 07: 03
  
  Do the guys in the Kremlin know about the UDR, or do they need to explain it in order to make the only right decision?
3. Nelton
  
  +2
  
  31 July 2026 08: 56
  
  Quote: Alexey Lan
  It's best to strike with nuclear weapons at infrastructure facilities, the military-industrial complex, and bridges in Western Ukraine.
  
  And what will this achieve if all of the enemy's production capacities and sources of financing are not in Ukraine, but in the EU, the US, and China?
  Well, and to deliver products bypassing nuclear gaps - logistics will be set up.
  Including all the destroyed bridges and dams across the Dnieper (keep in mind that this will cost the same as the destroyed dams across the Volga).
  
  With the reservoirs drained, the width of the Dnieper becomes significantly smaller, and it will be possible to organize the transportation of military cargo on boats and launches.
  Megatons of grain will of course remain unexported, half the population will have to become refugees, but the dynamics of the LBS will not change radically as a result of all this.
  1. Alexey Lan
    
    -1
    
    31 July 2026 12: 27
    
    but the dynamics of the LBS will not change radically from all this
    
    You underestimate logistics in war. It has quite a significant impact.
4. AdeptV
  
  -2
  
  31 July 2026 09: 55
  
  No, no, no. Britain must fry in a nuclear hell here before it gets to the real thing. Otherwise, the devil won't understand and will say, "Why did you give me a half-raw steak?" The "chef" must live up to his reputation. Or else he'll have to change.
5. Strelok1976
  
  0
  
  31 July 2026 19: 20
  
  Alexey, while I was writing my comment, a whole train car was filled up.
  According to your suggestions:
  
  But striking infrastructure, the military-industrial complex, and bridges in Western Ukraine with nuclear weapons is just the thing. However, the Center for Social and Political Studies immediately threatens to infect almost all of Russia.
  
  The Tsips people aren't aware of the contamination zone of modern warheads. Me neither. It's a closely guarded secret, but... If you read the reports on American post-war nuclear weapons tests, you can glean a lot.
  1. Alexey Lan
    
    -1
    
    31 July 2026 19: 38
    
    The Tsips people aren't aware of the contamination zone with modern explosives. Me neither. It's a closely guarded secret.
    
    Of course, we don't know everything. What is known? For example, the Hiroshima bomb used only 1% of its uranium in the explosion. Later developments have increased efficiency by tens of percent, making it possible to fit a 0,5-2 kt nuclear charge into a 152 mm cannon shell. The degree of contamination depends on the type of explosion and its altitude. The higher, the cleaner. Still, quite a lot is known, if anyone is interested. But the CIPSO team doesn't need this knowledge. They follow manuals and commands. Here's a table from an old textbook.
Alexander

+ 10

30 July 2026 18: 44

It is quite obvious that our military experts are inspired to take such harsh retaliatory actions by the experience of Iran, where the IRGC has effectively come to power and is waging war uncompromisingly, not even attempting to negotiate with its enemies about building an underwater tunnel through the Strait of Hormuz.

If the experience of non-nuclear Papuans inspires the military of a nuclear power, then that's not a nuclear power, it's crap. And adopting Iran's experience to realize that inspiration is only possible after replacing the leadership of a supposedly nuclear power with a domestic IRGC. (Committee for the Salvation of Historical Russia)
1. Igor M.
  
  -12
  
  31 July 2026 02: 05
  
  Allexander, Russia gained vast new territories and millions of new citizens from the North Caucasus Military District. Iran, however, suffered only massive destruction, losses, and a naval blockade from the war with the US.
  It's already clear that the Central Military District will end in about a year, with the liberation of all new Russian territories and the creation of a buffer zone. But when and how the Iran-US war will end is anyone's guess. Perhaps with a nuclear strike on Iran.
  1. aslanxnumx
    
    +1
    
    31 July 2026 08: 53
    
    Yes, change your methodology, Russia with these territories received a bunch of problems of an economic and political nature.
    1. Vox Populi
      
      -1
      
      31 July 2026 16: 39
      
      Yes, and a military one too, unfortunately...
      1. Igor M.
        
        -4
        
        31 July 2026 21: 39
        
        Vox Populi, if a gun is hanging on the wall, it's bound to go off. And it better go off when we're ready. One way or another, we'd have to deal with Ukraine; you really wanted us to be stabbed and hanged.
        And now Ukraine's military potential is being eroded to zero. Another year of the Second World War, and there will simply be no one left to fight for Ukraine. Thus, we are simultaneously solving the issue of the security of future generations. Because Ukraine will never recover. And Russia will emerge from the Second World War stronger.
    2. Igor M.
      
      -5
      
      31 July 2026 21: 35
      
      aslan642, it's clear that it would be better for you if Russia abandoned both Crimea and the LPR and DPR to you to be torn apart.
      But I'll say this: your own burden is light, and after the SVO, we'll turn these regions into a real gem. They'll become a national health resort, a granary, and a forge.
  2. Ant97
    
    -1
    
    3 August 2026 14: 56
    
    Allexander, Russia gained vast new territories and millions of new citizens from the North Caucasus Military District. Iran, however, suffered only massive destruction, losses, and a naval blockade from the war with the US.
    It's already clear that the Central Military District will end in about a year, with the liberation of all new Russian territories and the creation of a buffer zone. But when and how the Iran-US war will end is anyone's guess. Perhaps with a nuclear strike on Iran. Alexander, Russia gained vast new territories and millions of new citizens from the Central Military District. Iran, meanwhile, has suffered nothing but massive destruction, losses, and a naval blockade from the war with the US.
    It's already clear that the Central Military District will end in about a year, with the liberation of all new Russian territories and the creation of a buffer zone. But when and how the Iran-US war will end is anyone's guess. Perhaps with a nuclear strike on Iran.
    
    How can the SVO magically end in a year? Even if we imagine liberating all Russian territory right now (though at the current pace, it would take several more years), will they automatically stop attacking Russian oil refineries, warehouses, infrastructure, and so on?! Maybe our people will somehow magically stop dying from enemy drones and shelling (ordinary civilians are dying every day now)? Who will allow us to end the war?! Or maybe our aging leaders will declare an end to it for themselves and tell us to believe it, and what happens to the country around them is irrelevant?!
    1. Igor M.
      
      -3
      
      4 August 2026 01: 45
      
      Ant97, you can't count? They liberated 700 square kilometers in July. That means they'll liberate 8400 square kilometers in 12 months. That's about how much remains to be liberated.
      We remember that they are attacking our rear to force Russia into peace. Therefore, if peace comes, it will be foolish to spend billions of dollars on these attacks.
      So, if there are no attacks, then people will stop dying. Isn't that obvious?
      Putin said that the longer the attacks on Russia continue, the wider the buffer zone will be. No one wants to hand over more Ukrainian lands to Russia. They wanted to weaken us, but instead they're strengthening us.
      Judging by your speech, you're a school kid. Hence your disrespect for age and your inability to count on your fingers or use basic logic.
      1. Ant97
        
        0
        
        4 August 2026 07: 26
        
        Ant97, you can't count? They liberated 700 square kilometers in July. That means they'll liberate 8400 square kilometers in 12 months. That's about how much remains to be liberated.
        We remember that they are attacking our rear to force Russia into peace. Therefore, if peace comes, it will be foolish to spend billions of dollars on these attacks.
        So, if there are no attacks, then people will stop dying. Isn't that obvious?
        Putin said that the longer the attacks on Russia continue, the wider the buffer zone will be. No one wants to hand over more Ukrainian lands to Russia. They wanted to weaken us, but instead they're strengthening us.
        Judging by your speech, you're a school kid. Hence your disrespect for age and your inability to count on your fingers or use basic logic.
        
        I won't be like you and respond to your insults. Just remember this date. Exactly one year from now, I'll ask you how your statements, not even your assumptions, came true. We'll see how you'll manage.
        
        P.S. I had a better opinion of you, but it turns out I was wrong. In fact, you're just like Dormidont: when you run out of arguments, you resort to insults. You're all like that.
        
        Igor M.
        
        -2
        
        5 August 2026 02: 40
        
        Ant97, it's not my fault you can't count. And you can't offend with the truth.
        
        Ant97
        
        0
        
        5 August 2026 09: 08
        
        Ant97, it's not my fault you can't count. And you can't offend with the truth.
        
        You and your ilk are never to blame for anything, even if you've screwed up. As for numeracy, we'll see on August 3, 2027, who's actually good at it, and who's once again pulling the wool over our eyes with pre-election bullshit, presenting the results of one more or less successful month as the overall tally.
        
        P.S. That said, given that our military has now begun to act more or less adequately, I'd very much like to be wrong in my predictions. But then again, given the constant steps backwards and sideways on the part of the top leadership, given the release of all captured Nazi criminals, given the constant, unceasing theft by officials even in wartime, given the presence of the families and children of officials in enemy countries, given the unfounded speculation about Anchorage and other such places, it's hard to believe.
        
        Igor M.
        
        -2
        
        5 August 2026 23: 26
        
        Ant97, well, I'm still a long way from pissing myself. So, you're once again confirming that mathematics is a Muscovite pseudoscience. That's just Russia. It's already the 3rd year, at the same average pace. Having freed up during this time 14 thousand square meters KmAnd in Donbass, only 3000 square kilometers remain to be liberated.
        Clean your glasses. It looks like you're seeing something different from reality. Or maybe you're completely nuts and your head is filled with some unhealthy fantasies.
        Thanks to Anchorage, Ukraine lost powerful American support, and Russia was spared American sanctions for a whole year. This is enough for a smart person to highly value this meeting. This is precisely why pro-Ukrainians can't stand Anchorage. And judging by your comments, you're one of them.
        
        Ant97
        
        +2
        
        6 August 2026 09: 19
        
        Ant97, well, I'm still a long way from shitting myself. I mean, you're once again confirming that mathematics is a Muscovite pseudoscience. Russia has been advancing for three years now, at the same average pace. It's liberated 14,000 square kilometers during this time. And in Donbas, only 3000 square kilometers remain to be liberated.
        Clean your glasses. It looks like you're seeing something different from reality. Or maybe you're completely nuts and your head is filled with some unhealthy fantasies.
        Thanks to Anchorage, Ukraine lost powerful American support, and Russia was spared American sanctions for a whole year. This is enough for a smart person to highly value this meeting. This is precisely why pro-Ukrainians can't stand Anchorage. And judging by your comments, you're one of them.
        
        Which is exactly what was required! Having received an adequate answer and having no arguments to counter it, repeating the same old refrains without a trace, the ever-so-unflappable mathematician Igor M. seamlessly transforms into the obtuse and rude Dormidont, adding accusations of pro-Ukrainianism to the usual insults. Of course he can! After all, it was his children who signed contracts at 20 and are fighting the fascists at the front; after all, it was he who "lives in the frontline Kursk region," and "drones of all kinds are regularly shot down over his house, with shrapnel later found in the yard"; after all, it was Solovyov who directly advised him, live on air, to move north because of the threat of the thermal power plants in the frontline regions being relocated by autumn.
        The most sickening thing is that we are being blamed by people who release Nazi criminals, and in order to protect themselves, they don’t even try to destroy the entire odious Kyiv junta (they didn’t personally shoot!) that regularly kills our people.
        You say there haven't been any new sanctions for over a year? How about you calculate and tell us how much the 404th's drone capabilities and the number of strikes against us have increased during this time?! How about you calculate and tell us how much the death toll of Russian civilians has increased (multiple times) this year?! How about you count all our losses and tell us how much, given the way the war is being waged, you mathematician?!
        I understand that I won't get any honest answers from the swindler other than accusations, so I'm ending the discussion.
        03.08.2027 We'll see what happens in the end, I really hope I'm proven wrong.
        
        Nelton
        
        0
        
        6 August 2026 09: 30
        
        Quote: Ant97
        How about you count and tell us how much the deaths of Russian civilians have increased (multiple times) this year?!
        
        So, do you agree that it is high time to accept the Blues' proposal for a ceasefire in the LBS?
        Or will you immediately boil over like most of the local turbocharged ones, and, spitting your saliva, demand a final solution to the Ukrainian/European/American question through a global nuclear war, leaving no chance for the enemy to come to its senses and rearm?
        
        Ant97
        
        -1
        
        6 August 2026 10: 28
        
        At the same time, given that our military has now begun to act more or less adequately, I would very much like to be wrong in my predictions...
        
        I stand for what I've written above, without any further steps backwards or deviations. Although it's very strange that they only began to act this way after more than four years of war, better late than never. And even that isn't enough. It's time to hold the entire Kyiv leadership personally accountable and eliminate them in deeds, not just on paper, so that the ground burns beneath their feet for all their crimes against the Russian people.
        
        Nelton
        
        0
        
        6 August 2026 10: 33
        
        Quote: Ant97
        so that the earth would burn under their feet
        
        that is, for the continuation of the Second World War with all its costs and losses among the civilian population of Russia.
        
        Ant97
        
        -1
        
        6 August 2026 10: 53
        
        that is, for the continuation of the Second World War with all its costs and losses among the civilian population of Russia.
        
        I understand the implications you're trying to bring me up to, but I don't care. I'm open about my opinion and have expressed it. In this war, there can be no peaceful solution that satisfies everyone; there can only be a winner. It's either us or them. And to ultimately achieve the former, we must act accordingly, exerting all our forces and everyone in their place. This is what we should have done from the very beginning. Perhaps we would have won by now. Steps back and sideways, as well as the constant lies of certain individuals about the real situation, only delay victory and only increase losses, including among the civilian population.
        
        Igor M.
        
        -1
        
        7 August 2026 03: 01
        
        Ant97, don't talk nonsense. The goal of the SVO isn't to defeat Ukraine, but to liberate territories that have suddenly become Russian.
        Therefore, once we complete their liberation, we will no longer have any reason to continue military action. And we will begin to negotiate peace.
        
        Igor M.
        
        -1
        
        7 August 2026 03: 14
        
        Ant97, I've never actually said I was a mathematician. So, don't get too carried away.
        While you are the one being rude, unlike me and Dormidont, there is no sign of intelligence or sparkling humor in your comments.
        Eliminating the leaders of countries is prohibited by international law. And Russia always follows it. On the other hand, the US destroyed the entire junta in Iran. And did that help them much? And we had a similar experience, too, in Chechnya. Eliminating Dudayev only made things worse. But then again, stupid people don't learn from their mistakes.
        So, our capabilities in both drones and missiles have also increased during this time. We've acquired the Siker UAV, the Gerani-4 rockets, which we're currently using to make a splash, and the Banderol mini-cruise missile. Production of Iskander and Zircon missiles has also doubled during this time. And they're talking about some improved missiles for the S-400, which are used for ground strikes. I haven't figured it out yet. But this has nothing to do with Anchorage. On the contrary, after Anchorage, the US stopped transferring its weapons to Ukraine for free and stopped sponsoring the junta. And since there are no more HIMARS MLRS and ATACMS missiles, losses in the border regions have decreased.
        It's obvious that a leisurely advance, with preliminary, high-quality penetration of Ukrainian positions with heavy weapons, leads to fewer losses for us and more for the enemy than a headlong assault with heavy force. The exchange of bodies of the fallen clearly demonstrates that our losses are tenfold lower.
        Well, I'm not demanding anything from you at all. How can the CIPSO people possibly give honest answers?
2. Dimy4
  
  +1
  
  31 July 2026 06: 37
  
  And adopting Iran's experience, to realize inspiration, is only possible after a change in the leadership of a supposedly nuclear power...
  
  Oh, you turned on Igor, now they're going to give us a lecture about the great VVP and the Kremlin's ideal policies.
  1. Straw
    
    +1
    
    1 August 2026 13: 37
    
    Igorek doesn't deviate far from the manual, but rather conscientiously and to the point...
    Everyone will regret it! Everyone is crying, hahaha... but we are all happy and covered in chocolate.
    Igorek is probably making fun of his own work...
Eduard Aplombov

+9

30 July 2026 20: 07

This is how our government conducts its affairs: we play here, we don’t play here, they wrapped up the fish here...
What nuclear weapons? Even in the event of a war with NATO and mass deaths, they'll just keep dragging their feet and mumbling. Medvedev will turn on a more powerful Schrader and they'll keep whistling until the enemy kills half the country. They're cowards and windbags.
1. Igor M.
  
  -6
  
  31 July 2026 02: 10
  
  Eduard Aplombov, knock on wood, Russia hasn't yet suffered any mass deaths. And we're not expecting any, unless we attack NATO ourselves. Medvedev clearly stated today that the Central Military District is entering its final stages.
  Cowards and chatterboxes would not have started the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, would not have annexed Crimea, would not have brought Georgia to heel in 2008. But our courage is not the same as feeblemindedness, and Russia will certainly not launch suicidal attacks on NATO.
  1. aslanxnumx
    
    +1
    
    31 July 2026 08: 55
    
    At the completion stage, it's like . Honorable surrender or until Victory.
  2. AdeptV
    
    +2
    
    31 July 2026 10: 14
    
    Would you have told Stalin in 1941 that it was suicidal to try to attack Germany? Do you know whose designs those were? Flamingo, I mean. The British, sir, the British... Today, nine of them+ were flying toward Rostov... They were all shot down, glory be to Veles! Do you know what a Flamingo strike on an urban area is like? The warhead is a ton, like 15 Lyutykh missiles. If I'm destined to die, I first want to see Britain burn in a nuclear furnace.
    1. Igor M.
      
      -3
      
      31 July 2026 21: 46
      
      AdeptV, so Germany attacked the USSR and wanted to kill half of us and enslave the other half. Knock on wood, today's Germany doesn't even have any such ambitions. But Ukraine wanted to kill us all. And still does.
      Look how we're battering Ukraine. The map only shows mutual strikes involving UAVs. But we're also launching hundreds of missiles and thousands of FABs at Ukraine (8,000 FABs in June). The Russian Ministry of Defense's weekly summary only lists four Neptune missiles. There are no Flamingos. But maybe they'll show up tomorrow.
      Well, I want to live longer, like my father, until I’m over 90 years old.
      1. Foghat 74
        
        0
        
        31 July 2026 22: 18
        
        What is there, Igor (not Igor), to grind empty words? One breath in the wind from you and your ass will be shaved.
      2. Dimy4
        
        -1
        
        1 August 2026 16: 36
        
        ...well...
        
        The hexadecimal code for the word "dyk" in ASCII format is e4fbea. Does it start the system? It's not the first time I've seen this.
  3. Straw
    
    +1
    
    1 August 2026 13: 40
    
    Quote: Igor M.
    Eduard Aplombov, knock on wood, Russia hasn't yet suffered any mass deaths. And we're not expecting any, unless we attack NATO ourselves. Medvedev clearly stated today that the Central Military District is entering its final stages.
    Cowards and chatterboxes would not have started the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, would not have annexed Crimea, would not have brought Georgia to heel in 2008. But our courage is not the same as feeblemindedness, and Russia will certainly not launch suicidal attacks on NATO.
    
    In my opinion, Igor is an AI built in the depths of the Ministry of Defense.
    It's too much of a thesis and systemic statement...
    1. Vox Populi
      
      -1
      
      1 August 2026 16: 40
      
      Do you think this is a "fruit" of the Main Intelligence Directorate?!
Ales

-3

30 July 2026 20: 35

Already wrote:
What are you going to do? The use of nuclear weapons in the comments section is all sorts of different. I'd like to point out a few key points:

— A nuclear state cannot use nuclear weapons against a country that does not possess nuclear weapons and has signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (and, moreover, is a guarantor for Ukraine's renunciation of nuclear weapons after the collapse of the USSR). This is from a legal perspective, but the law be damned, the world is a mess.

— A nuclear state cannot use nuclear weapons against a country that is obviously weaker, that does not possess nuclear weapons, and especially not in defense of itself, but in the event of aggression by that stronger party (the US is in this position in Iran, as are we in Ukraine) — this is from the point of view of the authority of the state, which is more significant compared to international law.

Russia can use nuclear weapons, without compunction and in accordance with international and domestic norms, against Western countries if they escalate. Moreover, Russia must force the West to resort to such escalation. This includes issuing an ultimatum restricting the rights of Western countries, whether legal or not. If such an ultimatum is not met, then strike with conventional weapons, and if the West balks, then use nuclear weapons in response.
A variant of such an ultimatum is a no-fly zone over the Black Sea for reconnaissance aircraft (the West's legal right to fly in international airspace); if violated, we shoot them down; if the West responds with military force, we launch tactical nuclear strikes; if they continue (use nuclear weapons against us or a massive strike with conventional weapons), we launch a strike with strategic nuclear weapons against France and Britain (the reason being the imminent nuclear threat).
When an ultimatum is issued, the other side automatically calculates its actions, and situations where time for decision-making is catastrophically short (the situation described by the author) are impossible. Both sides will have already decided on their course of action, and this will no longer be an action according to established military procedures, but an urgent decision made by collective bodies (senates, congresses, and others). These decisions will certainly be conciliatory, the automatic response procedure will be disabled, and the US will definitely back down if our attack follows our ultimatum. The other side had the time and opportunity to avoid the attack, but they chose not to—the US has nothing to do with it. Otherwise, the world will crumble.
1. philosopher12
  
  +3
  
  30 July 2026 22: 19
  
  So, should we declare an ultimatum and, in the end, launch a tactical nuclear strike against countries that possess nuclear weapons?
  Now imagine, for example, that France were to issue such an ultimatum to Russia, stating that if any problems arise, a strike would be launched. What would Russia do? Would it back down abruptly, or would it begin preparing for retaliatory strikes (or even preemptive strikes)? Probably the latter. So, other countries would immediately begin to put themselves on high alert, and upon detecting a missile launch, they would immediately strike with everything they could (and they already have an excuse: retaliating against the promised strike).
  
  Will the US bail? They'll be faced with the following choice: either attack Russia with their allies (hoping to quickly destroy all decision-making centers), or remain without allies until the next time, when large-scale nuclear exchanges begin. And after the first time, if there's a winner (we're not considering the possibility of no winners shortly after the ultimatum expires—Russia doesn't need that), then there will definitely be a second time—if the winner succeeded once, why not repeat it?
  1. Ales
    
    -3
    
    30 July 2026 23: 49
    
    Let's imagine that, for example, France announces such an ultimatum to Russia
    
    What kind of ultimatum? So that Russia leaves Ukraine alone? That's none of their business and not within their sphere of influence. And if they confront us with Lebanon or Algeria, we'll consider whether we need it or not and would certainly accept such an ultimatum. But for now, the West's position is to have no discussions or negotiations with Russia (we've already assessed their conditions, ultimatums, and sanctions); then the guns will do the talking.
    
    Will the US jump?
    
    You're wrong to underestimate the US's strength. They are self-sufficient in nuclear deterrence and will certainly bail. In the balance of strategic forces, Europe's weight is minimal (except perhaps in flight time, which used to make sense, and the Warsaw Pact border ran through Berlin). Nuclear deterrence exists only in light of the Russia-US balance, and precisely for this reason, these powers will avoid a dangerous confrontation. Europe is a little dog; if it gets kicked, it will fly away, and its owner won't risk their health. It's like the gangster shootouts of the 90s—better to talk than to show character, especially since the dispute isn't fundamental: who owns the kiosk and who pays the kiosk?
    1. Ales
      
      -1
      
      31 July 2026 00: 17
      
      And I'll add: the US, better than anyone, knows that Russia doesn't care about the US, and if the US doesn't encroach on Russia, it's in no danger. This entire Western NATO is just there to put pressure on Russia. Now let's put the scales on—life and security on one side, and pressure on Russia on the other. Yes, putting pressure on Russia isn't easy, yes, it's the key to the West's long-term survival, but a nuclear conflict means immediate death—what's your choice? A rhetorical question, really? If you're already gone, then what difference does it make what happens in the long run? What difference does it make what happens to Europe, to NATO, if our very existence is at stake? And I'm sure the global conspiracy is already ditching the US as the hegemon, and it might turn out that a new player is being groomed to replace it—maybe it'll be Russia? Money in the form of candy wrappers is devaluing, resources, everything—even gold (even though it's a clear equivalent) won't keep you fed and warm. How can the financial conspiracy stay in business? Is it too late to buy up tangible resources? But where's the guarantee that what's tangible won't be taken? It's not something stored on a flash drive, and you can't hide it. Iran has shown that relying on US military force is no longer possible. So, who will protect them? These brazen tycoons, creating viruses and other problems on Earth. They have so much money that they think they're gods. How will they survive?
      1. philosopher12
        
        +2
        
        31 July 2026 01: 34
        
        The US will likely cease to be the hegemon, but China has the best chance of replacing it. And right now, technology is becoming more important than resources (not quite yet, which is why Iran can blackmail them with oil shipments, but China, for example, is developing alternative energy faster than anyone else in the world, and already generates over 50% of its electricity without burning coal or gas. And transportation there is rapidly moving away from gasoline).
        
        And let's just say that, as it turns out, there's no hope for US protection, but there's not much hope for Russian protection either (Venezuela is an example, and there are others).
        
        Ales
        
        -2
        
        31 July 2026 01: 48
        
        Yes, technologies, but resources are the area of application of technologies.
        And I think, since life and health are so precious to humans, life-extension technologies—such a "key to immortality"—will become a new equivalent of value, a new currency, and the "gold of the millennium." And financial magnates will try to convert their candy wrappers into just such a "key." It's no wonder they're everywhere, through biolabs, trying to find humanity's pain points. They'll tap into this "mine" and sell people a pill. And it's good if the pill is meant to make things better, but perhaps even to prevent things from getting worse (and that worsening will be artificially created).
        Nuclear power will be the answer; solar and wind are not. To replace other generation sources with current technologies, one-eighth of the planet Earth's land would need to be covered with solar panels, and there are still mountains, swamps, and other hard-to-reach places, plus land for agriculture, etc.
    2. philosopher12
      
      +2
      
      31 July 2026 01: 10
      
      Regarding spheres of influence, each country has its own point of view. For Russia, a former Soviet republic is within its sphere of influence. For France, it's part of Europe, so it's within France's sphere of influence. They're helping now, so they think it's their business.
      The fact that they decided not to negotiate is one thing; I suggest we simply assume they'll issue an ultimatum. And you see, for you, this is Russia's sphere of influence, so you can't accept an ultimatum. For them, it would be the same. Generally speaking, no country with nuclear weapons would accept such an ultimatum under threat of a nuclear strike; otherwise, why would they possess nuclear weapons? And then there's this: let's say France recognizes the no-fly zone at the World Cup, meaning they'll cave in once. After that, they could issue another ultimatum, meaning they'll either have to continually cave in to avoid a nuclear strike, or they'll have to buckle down and thus strike back. So why not do it right away, if it's going to have to anyway? Incidentally, this is also true for Russia, if they're given such an ultimatum.
      
      Now about the US. They may be self-sufficient, but American nuclear bases are also in Europe, and without them, they would be weaker in the event of a nuclear conflict with Russia. Specifically, flight time. Plus, even a few nuclear missiles from France and Britain would cause significant damage, since some of them would be shot down over Russian European territory, which would likely be harmful to the people in that territory (and that's the best-case scenario, assuming all the missiles are shot down, which isn't exactly guaranteed).
      And one more thing: if they deliver such an ultimatum to Belarus, using nuclear weapons against Belarus, won't Russia intervene? It will have to. Or will you put the lives of people in Russia on the line, and that it doesn't matter who Belarus supports, and a nuclear conflict means death? You'll probably say there's no choice, we must fight (which is precisely why Belarus can rest easy). Similarly, NATO should have prepared contingency plans in case Russia uses nuclear weapons, and they, too, will believe there's no choice. And for the US, not joining is like Russia not intervening on behalf of Belarus. The doctrine of deterrence says not to be the first to start an open nuclear war, but to respond promptly and with the entire bloc. And it's precisely this doctrine that has been quite successfully helping everyone avoid death from a nuclear conflict for many years now.
      1. Ales
        
        -3
        
        31 July 2026 01: 31
        
        The point is that an ultimatum is essentially a scale of interests, and less important interests will be outweighed by vital ones. For Russia, this is a matter of survival, while for France, it's just a matter of the rooster's tail being spread thin. They'll fold their tails and calm down.
        You won't understand until you do it. But Putin's policies have already significantly degraded this mechanism.
        And you constantly repeat the argument, "What would Russia do?" But I suggest you answer the question: why isn't Europe asking itself this question? It's about their direct involvement in the conflict—targeting, guidance, specialists and command, and finally, money and weapons? And how should Russia respond to all these actions?
  2. Vox Populi
    
    0
    
    31 July 2026 16: 43
    
    I agree with you. And Ales (Alexander)'s lengthy comment is a shining example of military-political schizophrenia...
2. Alexey Lan
  
  +2
  
  30 July 2026 22: 26
  
  They've put a lot of effort into publishing this, but there's no international law. For example, the US attacked Yugoslavia and Iran. What on earth did they do? What did these countries ever do to Iran?
  1. Igor M.
    
    -5
    
    31 July 2026 02: 13
    
    Alexey Lan, there is international law and 95% of countries comply with it.
    1. Alexey Lan
      
      -1
      
      31 July 2026 12: 30
      
      There is international law and 95% of countries comply with it.
      
      It's enough that 1% don't comply. And that percentage is the United States.
      1. Igor M.
        
        -3
        
        31 July 2026 22: 07
        
        Alexey Lan, you know there are criminals on the streets. And they clearly make up more than 1%.
        But this does not mean that the other 99% of people should also become criminals.
Dart2027

-3

30 July 2026 20: 36

The subsequent transition to pinpoint surgical strikes with conventional Kalibr or Kinzhal missiles, which the UDR forces will carry out against European military factories from the Russian Ministry of Defense's April list, will not force Washington or Paris to burn in a nuclear fire to save a drone assembly plant in Poland or Germany.

Someone please explain to the author that they're just going to hit the UDR with everything they have. It's especially funny to read.

And if not, well, then Moscow has nuclear weapons and officially formulated principles for their retaliatory use.

That is, we came back to what we left from.
1. Ales
  
  -2
  
  30 July 2026 20: 47
  
  Dart, calm down, that's how the artist (author) sees it. And this has been commented on many times already. But the attack on the West is urgent.
  1. Igor M.
    
    -3
    
    31 July 2026 02: 15
    
    Ales, it's essential if Russia wants to commit suicide. But if it wants to live on and complete the Second World War, then it's not essential.
2. Dart2027
  
  -2
  
  31 July 2026 17: 16
  
  I read the message. I'd like an answer to the question: what makes you think the supposed UDR won't be bombed with the full might of NATO air power?
Repka23

+1

30 July 2026 22: 10

Before using nuclear weapons, we need to make sure they work—by conducting tests at a testing range. Otherwise, "it'll turn out like always—all wrong," as Chernomyrdin put it.
1. Alexey Lan
  
  -2
  
  30 July 2026 22: 27
  
  For example, at the Yavoriv training ground in the Lviv region.
Igor M.

-5

31 July 2026 01: 42

I am inspired by the experience of Iran, where the IRGC has effectively come to power and is waging war uncompromisingly, not even attempting to negotiate with its enemies about building an underwater tunnel through the Strait of Hormuz.

So, can Iran's experience really be considered a success? It suffered enormous destruction and losses, the war isn't over yet, and all it has achieved is that the Persian Gulf countries are joining in the attacks on Iran, while Iran itself is under a naval blockade. Only Russian aid via the Caspian Sea is helping Iran survive.

And in the fifth year of the Central Military District, this is exactly what Russia needs to turn the tide of the unsuccessful war!

The Central Military District is going very well. Russia has gained significant territory and manpower (unlike Iran, by the way). And now, just when victory looms on the horizon—with only a year left until the end of the Central Military District—all of a sudden, as the author intended, everything needs to change. Meanwhile, a record 653 square kilometers were liberated in July, with the liberation of two cities and two urban-type settlements completed. The Russian Ministry of Defense reports the liberation of several settlements daily. Today, four were liberated—in the DPR, Kharkiv Oblast, and Sumy Oblast.

It is possible to create a Ukrainian Democratic Republic on the left bank of the Dnieper that is completely loyal to us.

It turns out the author isn't proposing to reverse the SVO, but rather to prolong it indefinitely, thereby incurring far greater losses. The author's illusion that the Ukrainian Armed Forces group on the Left Bank will crumble on its own after the destruction of the bridges across the Dnieper is dispelled by the example of the Zaoskol'ye group of Ukrainian Armed Forces, which has been fighting us for eight months now, completely isolated.

the nuclear threshold is maintained at a safe height, which completely eliminates the risk of accidental activation of foreign early warning systems

But in doing so, Russia would violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

transition to pinpoint surgical strikes with conventional Kalibr or Kinzhal missiles, which will be carried out by the UDR Armed Forces

Apparently, the author assumes that UDR military pilots (where would they come from?) will steal a MiG-31 from Russia? And the author forgets that the UDR will be landlocked. Therefore, future UDR missile ships, even if stolen from the Russian Black Sea Fleet, will have nowhere to be based and nowhere to launch Kalibr missiles.

The West will be faced with a choice: ignore the incident, destroying the last vestiges of NATO's authority, or start World War III with a simple explosion. The question is, who and what are they prepared to strike in response—the UDR or Russia?

The answer is both for the UDR and for the Russian Federation. Let me remind you that in the next few days The US threatened Iran over future Houthi strikes on ships in the Red Sea.. That is, the "proxy" principle ceases to work.
But really, why World War III? It's just that in addition to Ukrainian drones and missiles, Western drones and missiles will rain down on our citizens.

In 90% of cases, they will, in principle, choose political maneuvering and “concerns” with a gradual “movement away” from the topic of military-technical support for the Armed Forces of Ukraine

Has the author already had his fortune told with a daisy? Because in such a serious matter as the likelihood of a war with the West, a daisy is absolutely essential. I'll go to the dacha and definitely have my fortune told.

The formation of the UDR preserves Russia's legitimacy in the eyes of the Global South, which will perceive conventional strikes against arms suppliers in Europe as the legitimate right of the Ukrainian Democratic Republic itself to self-defense

Actually, this right is not at all legal. Because the production and supply of weapons is not punishable. It is forbidden to supply weapons only to countries under UN sanctions, and Ukraine is not under them. And remember, Russia supplies weapons to Iran. So does the US now have the right to strike Russia through its proxies for this?

The conflict between NATO and the Russian Federation is legally being translated into the channel of civil confrontation and self-determination of the Ukrainians themselves, split into pro-Western and pro-Russian halves

To achieve this, it's not enough to simply create the UDR; it also needs to be recognized internationally. And as an unrecognized country, it will still be perceived as part of Russia.

This is the only viable strategy from the point of view of post-war reconstruction and reintegration of territories into the Union State of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus

Not the only one. It's much more viable to limit ourselves to the tasks of the Central Military District and not aim for the entire Left Bank.

These funds can be demanded from frozen Russian gold and foreign currency reserves from a position of force.

How will the cripples on the ruins of the UDR strengthen us? Threaten to launch missile strikes on Western banks again?

The conventional strategy of pushing the enemy out of Ukraine by the forces of the alternative statehood of the UDR is incomparably more profound, safer and far-sighted than the adventurous plans of space explosions over Great Britain

But this would require a multi-year war on the Left Bank, costing far more lives and money. And Russia would be under fire from Ukrainian drones and missiles the entire time. A very "safe" strategy, indeed.
Muscool

-2

31 July 2026 07: 46

It would be enough to conduct at least a couple of nuclear explosions at the test site to remind people that Russia has such weapons and how destructive they are.
Although it's too late now, this should have been done, for example, when the Nord Streams were blown up. And now no one believes the threats and red lines of the Kremlin old ladies anymore.
Anton Kuzmin

-2

31 July 2026 09: 04

To the author! Which of the British SSBNs still in periodic service is currently ready for immediate launch?
P.S., what will happen if a drone hits it in the dock? Preliminarily?
bubla5

0

31 July 2026 09: 14

Why would anyone need nuclear weapons in Albion? They could rock everything from within, create a fuel crisis, a natural disaster, a random lightning strike, or anything else.
Dmitriev

+2

31 July 2026 09: 52

Until there is order within, nothing outside will change.
Juan García

-2

31 July 2026 10: 40

Personalmente sono contrario all' impiego di armi atomiche perché si aprirebbe il vaso di Pandora con effetti catastrofi ie imprevedibili. Sono invece favorevole ad attacchi mirati con armi convenzionati contro i finanziatori di Bandiera, in particolare la Gran Bretagna come principale ispiratore della guerra contro la Russia. Tali attacchi dovrebbero essere chirurgici e preannunciati attraverso ultimatum per limitare al massimo le perdite tra i civili. L'articolo 5 non verrebbe mai applicato in questi casi e la risposta della Gran Bretagna non dovrebbe essere un problema. L'attacco inoltre servirà per ammorbidire i bollenti spiriti di Francia e Germania.
Pasha_Kosse

-1

31 July 2026 11: 11

The idea of a so-called alternative Ukraine has been voiced by the author before. It sounds tempting at first glance. The real question here is how far our current leadership will go in using the "UDR" as a proxy. The main point of this idea is that from the territory of this proxy state, strikes could be launched against European enterprises supplying the Ukrainian Reich on European soil. But we wouldn't dare do that... Personally, I'm absolutely certain we wouldn't. It's the West that, with a straight face, claims that all weapons supplied to Ukraine are now Ukrainian, and the US and Europe have nothing to do with it (adjusting strikes on our territory, preparing flight missions, and the participation of their personnel in all these "procedures" are, of course, "outside the equation"). But as soon as something similar hits a German factory or a Polish warehouse in Dnepropetrovsk or Kharkiv, everyone will rush to find a Russian connection. And they'll find one! And they'll also declare that objects on Russian territory will now become legitimate targets for their strikes (they're already targets, in fact, they'll just legitimize it for themselves). And we'll hit them back. Conventional for now, and then we'll see how it goes. And the bottom line will be roughly the same scenario—the one criticized by the author at the beginning of the publication.
Conclusion: What should we do?
Answer: But if, starting February 24, 2024, they had been ironing out Ukraine, as we did the day before yesterday, yesterday, and today, the "West" wouldn't have twitched then. They would have swallowed it all in silence. And they would be keeping their mouths shut now.
Summary: It's not too late. But instead of lamenting the lost "spirit of anchorage," we need to increase attacks, at least where we can, without looking back at the West. For example, demolish the Kyiv train station, the presidential office on Bankova Street, the Verkhovna Rada building. Ukraine needs to be broken. It could have been broken in February 2022, and it can be broken now. But we need to be more thorough...
SamDurak

-2

31 July 2026 13: 30

Another confusing fantasy about a buffer republic. Why not stage a reverse coup in Ukraine? It's much easier.
Strelok1976

-2

31 July 2026 19: 14

Now to the essence of the article.

Automatic protocols will oblige them to issue a command for an immediate counter-response massive strike.

How do you know how this works? Do you have a Type I security clearance in the UK? As for domestic ones, I highly doubt you've ever even seen a document marked "secret." It wasn't your status, nor was it appropriate at your previous job.

Finally, the UK's nuclear submarine fleet, on 24/7 patrol in the ocean, is guaranteed to carry out the order to retaliate against our cities. At least one British SSBN will survive and use its Trident missiles, having received the codes from its American allies.

The author is apparently completely unaware of the number and status of British Trident-carrying submarines. And has no idea whether the US will provide these codes.

We have discussed in detail many times before how exactly we can create a completely loyal Ukrainian Democratic Republic on the left bank of the Dnieper.

How much longer can we rehash the same topics? Author, before writing another article, take the time to study the enemy drones' performance characteristics before writing nonsense. What will liberating the left bank achieve? A line of defense? Don't make me laugh. The left bank will become scorched earth within FPV drone range. And this area will be impossible to defend. The depth of destruction of our territories will not change.
An author who did not serve in the army and writes about war is a so-so author.
If the criticism is irrelevant, there's no need for me to respond personally. Let the readership decide.
Valya

-3

31 July 2026 21: 30

No UDRs on the left bank. The left bank is part of Novorossiya. Beyond the Dnieper and up to Lviv – please. UDRs or a region of Ukraine under a Russian governor-general. Enough of these incomprehensible wars over every scrap of land, now Crimea, now the DPR and LPR, and so on. We need to resolve this immediately, if possible.
1. Valya
  
  -1
  
  1 August 2026 22: 08
  
  Tsipsota at work. As soon as comments start to surface about how to kill a 404, downvoters with a Ukrainian mentality immediately appear. The main characteristic is incognito.
oao

-2

1 August 2026 02: 23

Well, well, well. We've seen these protocols in Poland more than once.
Of course, nuclear weapons don't need to be detonated at altitude, but a couple of factories can be given the convention.
Foe Pshekov

-1

4 August 2026 20: 27

All the piss-takers will die anyway. Sooner or later. Well, if they want to die as slaves... that's their right.
Nikolay259

0

8 August 2026 06: 58

I believe that nuclear weapons must be used with extreme caution, selectively and judiciously.