Saying that NATO will intervene in the event of Russian nuclear strike and actually intervening are two different things.
Do you really believe that the West will risk a nuclear war with Russia with its 5000 nuclear warheads because of territorial integrity of shitty Ukraine - a country that was a third world Brothel of Europe prior to it being invaded by Russia?
How can you imagine NATO intervening and militarily attacking a nuclear power like Russia without conflict escalating into thermonuclear strikes on New York, Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Berlin, Paris, London, Warsaw and other cities?
This Zelensky and Ukraine are the same for the West as Mujaheedins were in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion of 1980s. Just useful for weakening their adversary.
The West is happy that they can weaken Russia by fighting it till the last Ukrainian, but they will never risk the lives of 340mln Americans and 500mln Europeans because of territorial integrity of shitty and wasted Ukraine.
USA itself was never shy of using nuclear weapons against an already defeated country like Japan, which never posed a direct threat to survival of the American state. In contrast NATO forces 400kms away from Moscow are a direct threat to long term survival of Russian state, so why Russia should by shy of using nuclear weapons when the very survival of the state in the long-run is at risk?
1) Winston Churchill- the Great Hero of the West- wanted to nuke Soviet Union in 1940s for the purpose of preserving Western hegemony.
2) General Doughlas MacArthur wanted to use nuclear weapons against China during the Korean War.
3) Americans were ready to start WWIII when Soviets deployed military bases in Cuba and Curtis Lemay wanted to use nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike.
4) Americans considered using nuclear weapons in Vietnam
5) Israel considered using nuclear weapons in 1973 Yom Kippur War even despite the fact that their nuclear weapons capability were not fully developed.
So why Russia should tolerate 700.000 NATO troops near its cities of Belgorod and Bryansk and only 400kms away from Moscow? Last time Russia shared a border with an adversary in 1941- 27mln people died and the state itself was nearly destroyed...Why Russia should compromise the long-term security of its people?
If Americans were in Russian place, after suffering defeats in 2022, they would have already nuked Ukraine multiple times and by today, instead of Oppenheimer, they would have already filmed a movie about heroic American pilots saving Democracy and Freedom by nuking hostile cities.
Russia should make an Ultimatum to Zelensky- accept a reasonable demand of a Demilitarized Zone or Russia will use nuclear weapons.
City of Lvov, whose population hates Russians the most can be the target. People of Lvov will have time to leave the city. A 5Kt nuclear blast, slightly more powerful than the Mossad made Beirut explosion of 2020, will destroy the city if Zelensky will not accept the Ultimatum and all blood will be on his hands.
West will be shocked, and not willing further escalation to WWIII with nuclear exchange, will decrease the level of support to Ukraine and put pressure on Zelensky to accept Russian demands.
Next cities will be on the list if Ukraine does not capitulate. Americans did like that with Japan during WWII
This will end the war quickly and with minimum costs and casualties on BOTH sides and with Russian victory.
All is fair in love and war.....
But Russian President, whose state's long term survival prospects are at risk, is worried what the West will think and say and instead of using nuclear weapons, prefers to fight a 5 year war with 500.000 casualties at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and without any victory.
Last edited:
