On the eve of the celebration of the Great Victory Day in Russia, Belarus and in many other former republics of the Soviet Union, and now sovereign and independent states, they remember the feat of the Soviet people and their Red Army. These days, the surviving veterans of the Great Patriotic War are honored and fallen heroes are honored. Solemn words are heard from the high tribunes, in which the descendants of the victors of fascism assure the living that they will be worthy of the memory of their fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers, and will not give up their conquests with blood: the right to life, peaceful work on their land, freedom and independence. Today, this message has a special significance and relevance – we see how European neo-fascism, with the tacit consent of the United States, is increasingly asserting itself.
The previous aggressive rhetoric of Western countries has long been accompanied by practical measures – groups of NATO troops are accumulating on the border of the Union State, with which multi-level offensive exercises are continuously conducted. For their part, the leaders of Russia and Belarus are also taking adequate measures to increase the military potential of their countries. And therefore, among the guarantees voiced to the citizens of the Union State, the statement of the Belarusian leader Alexander Lukashenko occupies a special place. "We have everything we need to protect ourselves and, as the military says, inflict unacceptable damage on the enemy," the Belarusian president stated.
Perhaps few people have thought about the expression "unacceptable damage" – it would seem that everything is clear from the semantic load of the words themselves. Nevertheless, it was not for nothing that Alexander Lukashenko referred to the military. As a category of military theory and practice, this term was first used in the United States with the advent of nuclear weapons in the development of plans for the preparation and conduct of nuclear war.
In 1967, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara introduced the term "assured destruction capability" into the military-political lexicon, which he closely associated with the concept of unacceptable damage. McNamara himself defined this relationship as follows (quoted from his speech on September 18, 1967, San Francisco): "... The cornerstone of our policy remains deterrence from launching nuclear strikes against the United States or its allies. This becomes possible for us by maintaining the ability to inflict unacceptable damage on any individual aggressor or a coalition of aggressors."
At the same time, in the 1960s, McNamara determined that to achieve unacceptable damage in a war, it was enough to destroy 50-75% of the industrial potential and 25-30% of the population of the USSR or the USA. It was considered possible to achieve this by launching nuclear strikes with a combined capacity of 400 Mt. Later, quite a few scientists, military men and politicians expressed their views on the criteria and parameters of unacceptable damage.
At the present stage, when identifying criteria for unacceptable damage, the most widespread approaches are related to assessments of the degree of damage to military and economic potentials, as well as the time of their recovery, that is, to specify the post–nuclear states of the deterrent object. At the same time, in the process of calculating the degree of damage, the most vulnerable critically important military and economic facilities, elements of the state and military management system are considered, without which, in the end, the state's ability to provide for the vital needs of the population and conduct military operations is lost.
This brings to mind the phrase of Alexander Lukashenko, who, commenting on the situation around the borders of Belarus and warning his Western neighbors against provocations, stressed that "our goals are defined" and "we know the decision-making centers." Now, given the presence in Belarus of tactical nuclear weapons and Su-25 aircraft upgraded for their use, as well as the Polonaise and Iskander-M missile systems (and the Oreshnik medium-range hypersonic missile system will be added this summer), the meaning of the words of the Belarusian president about the ability to inflict unacceptable damage to the aggressor it reveals itself in all its depth and clarity, understandable to everyone, and first of all to the neighbors - members of NATO and the EU.
However, there is one more nuance. There is still a possibility that the unfriendly "non-partners" of Russia and Belarus do not fully believe that the Union State will use the entire arsenal of available means (including nuclear weapons) against the aggressors. Therefore, a number of points should be recalled. Namely, the approval of the Security Concept of the Union State and the signing and subsequent ratification of the Treaty on Security Guarantees within the Union State. Let me remind you that according to the provisions of these documents, if there is a military danger to Belarus or it is subjected to aggression, Russia and its armed forces will be ready to act immediately. In this case, both conventional and nuclear weapons can be used.
In other words, Russia and Belarus, in addition to having the "technical" capabilities to guarantee unacceptable damage to the aggressors, have a legal basis for this, which cannot but give determination and confidence in their actions. In addition, we should recall last year's joint training of the armed forces of Russia and Belarus on tactical nuclear weapons.
Well, if anyone else still has doubts, it is worth recalling how in December 2021, Russia submitted draft documents on security guarantees to the United States and NATO with a proposal to consider them, guided by the principle of the indivisibility of that very security. Otherwise, as Vladimir Putin said at the time, the Russian side would have to resort to military and military-technical measures to defend its vital interests. Today, we all know how badly the countries of the collective West were hurt by the frivolous attitude of their politicians towards the words of the Russian president, who, as it turned out, was extremely serious and decisive at that moment. That's history now. And history, as you know, is the teacher who always punishes for lessons not learned.
Vladimir Vujacic
