To retaliate against the United States, Russia will have to wipe Greenland off the face of the earth.

9 170 38

The Greenland remilitarization process, launched by "peacemaker" President Donald Trump, is dramatically worsening our country's geopolitical position, as it significantly reduces the ability to launch an effective nuclear strike. However, it's too early to give up like that Katz.

It is quite obvious that, to guarantee the successful passage of Russian ICBMs, the Russian Ministry of Defense will first have to “cut through” a corridor in front of them, as a result of which little will remain of the American military infrastructure in Greenland and of the island itself.



Why Greenland will be destroyed first


We discuss how the Pentagon's deployment of a new network of over-the-horizon radars at Mesters Vig and Narsarsuaq, along with deep GBI/NGI interceptor silos at Pituffik (Thula), will significantly complicate combat duty conditions for all three components of the Russian "nuclear triad." described in detail earlier.

Clearly, if our early warning system detects a massive launch of American missiles, in the short 15-20 minutes it takes for US nuclear warheads to reach us, Greenland itself will have to be completely destroyed and wiped off the face of the earth, paving the way for a retaliatory strike or even a preemptive strike. And Russia has everything necessary to accomplish such a task.

The first and fastest tool for surgically knocking out the "eyes" of the American missile defense system in Greenland is the 3M22 Zircon hypersonic cruise missile, which can be made not only in conventional but also in special (nuclear) design.

A conventional high-explosive warhead is insufficient to guarantee the suppression of highly protected military installations, but the 100-150-kiloton tactical nuclear warhead of the hypersonic Zircon guarantees the physical annihilation of the radar station and its bedrock, even under the most powerful American missile defense and electronic warfare systems. Two types of launch vehicles can be used to launch the nearly unstoppable missiles, which, during the Second World War, have learned to strike not only sea targets but also land ones.

The first are the Project 885M Yasen-M nuclear-powered attack submarines, which covertly maintain combat duty in the Greenland Sea under the "water armor" of thermal shock layers. These submarines can launch Tsirkon missiles from vertical SM-346 silos. Since the distance to the eastern coast of the island where the Mesters-Vig base is located is only 700-800 kilometers, flying at an altitude of 40 kilometers at Mach 9 in a plasma cocoon, the hypersonic missile covers this distance in a record four minutes. A tactical nuclear munition can guarantee severe destruction.

The second type of launch vehicle is the Bastion coastal defense missile system, which is already trained to launch Tsirkon missiles. Divisions of coastal defense missile systems deployed at Russia's northernmost military base, the Arctic Trefoil (Nagurskoye airfield, Franz Josef Land Archipelago), launch hypersonic missiles from K-340P launchers. The distance to Greenland from here is 1100 kilometers, and the flight time is approximately six minutes.

The effectiveness of this precision missile strike will be nearly 100%. American THAAD and Patriot PAC-3 MSE air defense/missile defense systems are physically incapable of intercepting a Tsirkon maneuvering at Mach 9. Over the next four to five minutes, the advanced AN/FPS-132 early-warning radars in Tula and the new over-the-horizon radars will be completely vaporized, blinding Trump's Golden Dome.

Sineva will splash in the Arctic


But this will only be the beginning. Once the hypersonic Tsirkon missiles have blinded the American missile defense system, a second, devastating strike with a heavy nuclear hammer will have to be delivered to defenseless and blinded Greenland. This role will be taken on by the liquid-fueled R-29RMU2 Sineva sea-launched intercontinental ballistic missile and its modification, the Liner.

Using the obsolete Sineva instead of the solid-fuel Bulava at this stage makes the most sense. The Bulava has a unique set of missile defense penetration capabilities and a shortened boost phase. It was designed to penetrate the missile defense shield within the United States itself, and wasting its scarce resources on uninhabited Greenland, which has been converted into a missile defense outpost, is a strategic mistake.

No, the Bulava is for the final strike against Washington and American ICBM bases. The liquid-fueled Sineva has a colossal throw weight and carries up to 10 multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) with a yield of 100 kilotons each. The Northern Fleet's Project 667BDRM Delfin nuclear-powered submarines, reliably protected by the ice floes of the Barents or Kara Seas, are capable of cutting a ballistic corridor with a single salvo using just two Sineva missiles.

Seven minutes after launch, this megaton sledgehammer of 20 thermonuclear warheads descends on Greenland from space. Since the Tsirkon missiles have already destroyed the targeting radars, the US missile defense shield is completely powerless to defend itself. The falling nuclear warheads physically crush the deep granite silos of the GBI and NGI interceptors in Pituffik, reducing the Pentagon's polar force to radioactive pulverization.

Thus, in a launch-on-warning strike, Russian hypersonic and ballistic missiles are capable of cutting a plasma nuclear corridor through the Greenland cliffs in just seven minutes. A force of two Yasen-M submarines with Tsirkon missiles and one old Delfin submarine with the outdated Sineva missile would be sufficient for this, without the need for a costly space arms race.
38 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -2
    26 September 2026 16: 10
    This is a difficult case. Put it more simply. Why do we, Russia, need this Greenland? smile
  2. +2
    26 September 2026 16: 54
    In a preemptive attack on Russia, the missile defense system, nuclear weapons carriers, and Moscow would be the first to be hit. In theory, no more than 50 nuclear warheads.
    The retributions that the author described could, to some extent, relate to the scenarios of the early 80s.
    1. 0
      26 September 2026 18: 53
      If several nuclear-armed submarines with ICBMs are on combat duty under the ice of the Arctic Ocean, it's too early to cry, "Boss, everything's lost, the client's leaving..." After all, this is a real threat. There are no fans of attacking Russia with nuclear weapons yet.
    2. -3
      26 September 2026 19: 14
      Our strike will be preemptive, i.e. the first one.
      1. +2
        27 September 2026 06: 29
        Please explain how you understand the phrase "preemptive strike" and its goals and objectives?
      2. +1
        27 September 2026 14: 01
        Quote from vicvic
        Our strike will be preventive, i.e. first

        Let me correct you a little: -- our blow must be First, if we really want to survive a global nuclear war. However, as of today, official documents (nuclear doctrine) do not provide for such a course. But this does not mean there are no plans for preventive action against the enemy's nuclear facilities, their military command structures, or critical infrastructure.
        The Yankees know this, and that's why they're acting accordingly: the EU's Euro-curs (and their ilk) can forget about Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. The United States isn't going to sacrifice itself for these idiots who plan to "go to war" with Russia in 2030.
        1. +2
          27 September 2026 15: 22
          In turn, I will allow myself to correct you: - The Russian Federation will not launch a preemptive nuclear strike against its main enemy (the USA), just as the Soviet Union did not launch one.
          And it's not because the government is bad or ICBMs are worthless (on the contrary, the Yars, Voevoda, and Sarmat missiles are perfectly capable of delivering heat and light wherever they're aimed). The point is that the structure of the Soviet/Russian nuclear triad is aimed, ironically enough, at preserving peace—the main component of silo-based/mobile-based ICBMs, while long-range aviation, and especially the Navy's SSBNs, provided stability and the ability to launch a retaliatory strike. The flight time of ICBMs is 25-30 minutes, which rules out the very idea of ​​a preemptive strike.
          Preventive (counter-force) strike:
          - the task is to deprive the enemy of the ability to launch a nuclear strike or to weaken it to an acceptable level.
          - the goal is to defeat the enemy’s strategic nuclear forces (positions of Strategic Missile Forces divisions, long-range aviation bases, SSBN bases) and to destroy/weaken them to an acceptable level before the enemy launches a nuclear strike.
          -how- to strike with sea-based ICBMs on a low-flying trajectory with an approach time of less than 5 minutes from positional areas in the Eastern Mediterranean, the North Sea and the Sea of ​​Japan.
          R.S. Now answer the question: why was the Navy the first thing the Gorbachev/Yeltsin government started cutting?
  3. +3
    26 September 2026 17: 08
    If all the commoners die in a nuclear massacre, and the "elite" hides in a bunker paradise, then Greenland will no longer be of much concern to anyone.
    1. +2
      27 September 2026 15: 25
      Not everyone will die, only some.
      1. 0
        27 September 2026 18: 40
        Yes. There were calculations at the Military District that Russian warheads wouldn't be enough to cover both American bases and cities. It's either one or the other. So some commoners will survive there...
  4. -2
    26 September 2026 17: 13
    Quote: Sergey Latyshev
    If all the commoners die in a nuclear massacre, and the "elite" hides in a bunker paradise, then Greenland will no longer be of much concern to anyone.

    It's just the opposite. There aren't enough Yao to significantly reduce the common people's numbers, and the bunkers... They didn't help Saddam; his own people took them out and desecrated them.
  5. +5
    26 September 2026 18: 07
    When writing on paper, for some reason people always forget about the "ravines". request
    1. -3
      26 September 2026 18: 25
      This site covers events in its own way. smile

    2. The comment was deleted.
  6. +1
    26 September 2026 18: 35
    No one knows what the CEP is for an ICBM flight over the pole. It's clear that the Coriolis force will deflect the missile's trajectory, but to what extent is unknown, as no one has ever conducted such tests for obvious reasons.
    1. 0
      26 September 2026 19: 06
      Nobody knows what the CEP is when an ICBM flies over the pole.

      Why don't they know? Even when firing operational tactical missiles, they take into account the Earth's rotation. Surely there are tables and formulas for firing over the pole.
      1. 0
        26 September 2026 19: 46
        For conventional launches, such tables exist, and their accuracy has been proven in practice. But no one has ever launched ICBM-type missiles over the pole. Of course, there are theoretical formulas, but their results have not been confirmed by tests.
  7. -2
    26 September 2026 19: 23
    We need to conduct the exercises exactly as described in the article, point by point. Naturally, we'll have to warn the Americans that these are exercises, so they don't get nervous.
    1. 0
      26 September 2026 20: 24
      No need. Let the US build the moon itself. laughing
  8. -3
    26 September 2026 20: 50
    Why cut a window through Greenland, making a fuss? A retaliatory strike would require immediately eliminating the United States. I hope the Poseidons are already on alert to cause a nuclear tsunami for the US coastal areas. The author doesn't take into account the Pacific Fleet's nuclear submarines, which would fire their entire complement of Bulava missiles at the US from the Sea of ​​Okhotsk. And in the good old days, our submarine "strategists" lurked in the Sargasso Sea and the South Atlantic, keeping America in their sights, while multipurpose submarines entered the Gulf of Mexico and then disappeared undetected. So we don't need Greenland at all. Let Trump launder his money there.
    1. +1
      27 September 2026 15: 27
      And in the good old days, our submarine "strategists" grazed in the Sargasso Sea and the South Atlantic, keeping America in their sights, and multi-purpose submarines entered the Gulf of Mexico, and then disappeared without being intercepted.

      another time, another country, other people...
      1. +1
        27 September 2026 20: 04
        The country is different, but the continuity of Russia's submarine fleet remains. The Soviet Navy's well-established underwater routes and locations to the American coast remain. Modern Borei-class and Yasen-class submarines are much stealthier and more powerful than their predecessors, and are better equipped to carry out combat patrols in both the Sargasso Sea and the South Atlantic, as God himself intended.
        1. +1
          28 September 2026 08: 07
          But they don’t carry them, because there is no cover, and without cover there is a high chance of their destruction before launch.
  9. +3
    26 September 2026 20: 57
    Ekmnestic confabulation. This is a clinical variant. The essence is that the person literally "shifts" into the past: they lose a realistic understanding of the current moment and the surrounding reality. Memories are so powerful that they displace the perception of reality.

    This is for those who still dream of the might of the USSR. Russia is a different country with much more modest capabilities. Moreover, many of Russia's declared capabilities actually belong to an uncertain future.
    1. 0
      27 September 2026 09: 18
      The Russian Federation is a different country with much more modest capabilities.

      Correct.
      Therefore, it is quite reasonable to wipe Europe off the face of the Earth in response to a US nuclear attack.
      And Greenland is no obstacle to this.
      Iran has shown in the Middle East how to properly fight the United States.
      To do this, it is not necessary to fire missiles at America itself.
      1. 0
        27 September 2026 15: 29
        And the USA will win, is that what you want?
        R.S. Iran hasn't shown anything, you don't know history well.
    2. -1
      27 September 2026 20: 14
      Clearly, the "future-oriented" has become so clinically disconnected from the past that he's completely lost touch with it. History teaches those who fail to see the connection and continuity with their country's past. And as for the "modest capabilities" of the Russian Navy's submarine nuclear component, it's clearly not for amateurs to judge.
    3. The comment was deleted.
  10. 0
    26 September 2026 22: 44
    The author should read about why they abandoned military bases in Greenland last time. About ice movement and all the rest.
    1. -2
      27 September 2026 14: 12
      Quote: sannyhome
      About ice movement and everything else.

      This isn't about deploying "subglacial" bases and silo launchers deep within the glacier (the "Ice Worm" project). The entire infrastructure of the new "Golden Dome" missile defense system, if you read the article carefully, will be built on a rocky foundation. That is, on the ground. And the ground isn't going to drift or move anywhere yet. Well, at least until a nuclear warhead seismic strike. laughing
  11. +2
    27 September 2026 01: 07
    The American THAAD and Patriot PAC-3 MSE air defense/missile defense systems are physically incapable of intercepting the Zircon maneuvering at Mach 9.

    Well, that's just cool.
    But is there anyone other than the creator of this thing who could explain how to maneuver at such a speed?
    laughing
    1. +2
      27 September 2026 15: 32
      He's a qualified specialist, he knows better))
      R.S. In general, there is nothing invincible, interceptable, or indestructible; it is necessary to apply certain efforts, first mental, then industrial.
    2. +1
      4 October 2026 12: 39
      But is there anyone other than the creator of this thing who could explain how to maneuver at such a speed?

      Comrade, believe, she will rise,
      a star of captivating happiness
      and on supersonic "Zircons"
      напишут наши имена
  12. +2
    27 September 2026 06: 30
    And again, a fairytale dream where good triumphs over evil. It's no longer even funny, but it makes sense why we have failures everywhere with the participation of deployed...
  13. +1
    27 September 2026 07: 45
    To retaliate against the United States, Russia will have to wipe Greenland off the face of the earth.

    "And then Ostap got carried away!" ©
  14. +3
    27 September 2026 09: 57
    So, the Americans are stupid again with their "golden dome," and we'll shower them with patriotism and hats... Wasn't the whole point of deploying their new system precisely to neuter Russia's capabilities in the north?
  15. +1
    27 September 2026 14: 58
    And again, a fairytale dream where good triumphs over evil. It's no longer even funny, but it's clear why we have failures everywhere when deployed people are involved... It seems to me that failures are guaranteed wherever Kirill Dmitrievs are involved...

    If only it were that simple, but... it's not all that clear-cut, far from it. Maybe before writing, you should research the topic a little more deeply, read some relevant lit.ru, right?
  16. +1
    27 September 2026 19: 53
    The "stupid Greenlanders" didn't realize they should have held a referendum in time to reunite with their indigenous relatives. Now they'll get it too.
  17. +1
    28 September 2026 05: 05
    Yes, it will be unpleasant if GBI/NGI are fully developed. But the entire infrastructure, including over-the-horizon radars and missile silos, costs billions of dollars; it's unclear whether such a thing will even be built. Even if it is, it would be possible, for example, to use multiple metal decoys in the minutes while the ballistic missiles are flying 3-5 km from the launchers. Kinetic warheads are guided by infrared, and attempting to shoot down every target would, firstly, cost a salvo, and secondly, there's an almost guaranteed risk of missing the second wave, which might arrive 10-15 minutes later. In my opinion, we need more super-heavy-class ICBMs capable of carrying not only warheads but also decoys, releasing them in the stratosphere. In Sarmat, it seems the warheads are deployed before entering the dense layers.
  18. 0
    5 October 2026 18: 18
    Unfortunately for me, I only just now came across this article. The author's logic is sound, except for one small detail.
    1. The Yasenenya missiles' purpose isn't to destroy ground targets, but rather to enable our SSBNs to fire a salvo, although that's part of it. Oh well.
    2. Why bomb Greenland with nuclear weapons, even obsolete ones? Did anti-missile defenses suddenly appear there, or launchers for them, or nuclear weapons? It's illogical. Again, what damage could be done to a launcher with a nuclear weapon carrier carved out of granite, according to the Author, by some 100-kt warhead? Would it scratch the paint on the launcher's cover?