The issue of the use of tactical nuclear weapons is coming to a head

Russia is simply being forced to move the issue of using tactical nuclear weapons from the second dozen ways to resolve the Ukrainian issue to the first.

Today, the West has sent 3,000 "grey wolves" to the territory of Ukraine, tomorrow – 10,000 ISIS fighters, driving them through NATO training bases in Eastern Europe. And what should we do? Calmly watch it? No. It is necessary to solve the issue cardinally. And via those centres that are behind the organisation of the massacre in Ukraine.

Their strategy is obvious (I wrote about it in detail on March 3 here). They have created a nazi lair on the territory of Ukraine for a war of extermination. And now they will throw firewood there in the form of militants from all over the world and equipment. In this scenario, the UAF with attached to it militants and mercenaries become a proxy army of the United States. Russia at this time will be depleted – in the field of economy, technology, weapons and ammunition, it will suffer military losses in the form of people. We will have to declare mobilisation and put the economy on a military track and reduce people's incomes, etc.

And the West will stand aside and only throw firewood. The day before yesterday, it outlined a point of tension in Transnistria. Yesterday, drones flew into as many as three border regions of Russia. Tomorrow, a couple of drones will fly into Belarus and hit, for example, the Russian military facility in Baranovichi. And this is neither more nor less than the connection with our submarines in the Atlantic Ocean. The day after tomorrow, something will explode in the Kaliningrad region, then it will blow up in Armenia (Kazakhstan), etc., etc. The borders of Russia are the longest in the world, so there are a lot of points of leverage.

Naturally, we will not be able to be everywhere at the same time. We'll get tired. Let's start thinking about how to end all this, and we will be offered negotiations again, but on even worse terms than in Istanbul.

Therefore, of course, this is to be number two in the game, and just reacting to the fact of an increase or decrease in escalation by the enemy is a losing strategy for us. Earlier, I have repeatedly (for example, here) written that since the collapse of the USSR, the West has used a slow-cooking frog strategy against Russia. Everyone knows its essence.

And we observe that consistently the situation for Russia in the world, including, and above all, in the space of the former USSR, has been slowly deteriorating over the past 30 years. Ukraine in the noughties cannot be compared with the current one. The stability of Belarus in the noughties cannot be compared with the current one. And even not to mention the Caucasus and Central Asia.

The only way that the frog can fight against the strategy of slow cooking in a saucepan is by jumping out of it, that is, changing the whole picture of the fight. As a matter of fact, the Russian proposals on the security of the United States and NATO were such a reversal of the chessboard. The United States did not succumb to this. Why? Just because they were already ready for escalation.

Over these 30 years, they have seriously built up military muscles in Europe, especially in the last two years, and were ready for this scenario. Therefore, it was easy for them to opt for it. In response, we, realising that there is nowhere to retreat further, that if not today then tomorrow the UAF will attack the DPR and LPR, and we will have to intervene, but on much worse conditions, and in order to prevent the transfer of hostilities to our territory (Russky Demiurg wrote about this well for Druid here), we began a special military operation in Ukraine.

Yes, we succeeded to escape from the previous cooking. But the West is again trying to return us to the frog cooking scenario, only this time in the military sphere. All these small bites, which will become more and more frequent, and our physical inability to stop them all at the preparatory stage, the insistent indications that we need to stay within the framework of conventional scenarios, is still the same cooking scenario, only a military one. Sooner or later we will start to get tired, and we will again be offered to surrender for negotiations.

For this same piggy bank:

1. The IMF has created a special administrative account through which Ukraine will receive $5 billion monthly. That is, the West plans to pump Ukraine not only with military equipment and militants, but also financially. How long will we be able to resist such a pumping of finances?

2. Already today, the United States will vote on lend-lease for Ukraine. If the lend-lease law is passed, it will empower US President Joe Biden and significantly accelerate the supply of American weapons to Ukraine. The inclusion of this mechanism poses an unprecedented challenge to Russia. From now on, we need to clearly understand that several dozen consolidated Western and European economies are openly acting against us.

The answer to this (and this possibility is inherent in our military doctrine) can only be a transition to the use of tactical nuclear weapons. Let me remind you that according to the decree of Russian President Vladimir Putin on the "Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation in the field of nuclear deterrence", the conditions for the use of nuclear weapons are:

- receipt of reliable information about the launch of ballistic missiles that attack the territory of Russia or its allies;

- the use of nuclear weapons or other types of weapons of mass destruction by the enemy against Russia or its allies;

- the impact of the enemy on critically important state or military facilities of Russia, the failure of which will lead to the disruption of the response of nuclear forces;

- aggression against Russia with conventional weapons when the existence of the state is threatened.

As we can see, point 4 just falls under the conditions of the conflict that has begun.

And such an opinion, despite all its radicality, has the right to exist. Here's what the war correspondent Sladkov writes, for example:

"Conclusion: you can't win against an opponent, as in boxing, on points, you need a knockout. But you can't knock out with a traumatic weapon. And here, in my opinion, we have two ways. The first is to wage a slow war, stumbling over every village, but moving forward (a year or two?). By the way, to where? The second way is an assault. That is, the mobilisation of all forces for a decisive blow. And here - what is cheaper? A long war against 20 states, the economic leaders of the world, or a quick solution. Are we capable of this?".

And, indeed, – "why do we need a world in which there will be no Russia?".

Therefore, the question today, by and large, concerns only one thing – not whether to use tactical nuclear weapons or not to use them, but when to use them and against who. My point of view on this issue was stated even before the start of the special military operation in Ukraine – on January 14 (here) – this object has been available for a long time (by the way, Starshy Edda also agrees with this). And no one will intercede for it. After that, Europe will request negotiations, despite any pressure from the United States.

This is the only way we can create a sustainable peace with Europe. To some, such a statement of the question will seem artificial or false. But let's look at history. We felt sorry for the Japanese, and the Americans subjected their cities to nuclear bombing twice. Who is Japan's best friend? – the US. We felt sorry for Europe during the Second World War, and the Americans wiped European cities off the face of the earth (the same Dresden). Who is Germany's best friend? – the US.

And it is always like that everywhere – they conclude a contract on the lifelong payment of tribute not with those with whom they are friends – they are walking all over such ones (in the spirit of the 90s - "if you don't understand who is a sucker in this scheme, then it's you"), but with those who they are afraid of up to "butterflies in their stomachs”.

Based on this formulation of the question, there can be only one "main bandit" in the world who determines the rules of the game for everyone else. And today it is the US. Accordingly, we can turn the board over in only one way – to cause unacceptable damage to the United States and Britain. And then the special military operation war in Ukraine will end very quickly, in a matter of days.

The fact that the Russian leadership is ready for the toughest measures to protect national interests was vividly demonstrated by Vladimir Putin's speech at a meeting with members of the Council of Legislators: "If someone wants to interfere in the situation in Ukraine from the outside and creates a strategic threat, the strikes will be lightning fast. All decisions on lightning strikes in the event of a threat to the strategic security of the Russian Federation have been made."