Войти

"Let's die, fellow citizens, for Ukraine!" Why there will be no NATO nuclear response

1994
1
0
Image source: GIFT-STORE/Shutterstock/FOTODOM

Colonel Khodarenok: Brussels will not have the courage to respond to Russia's use of nuclear weapons

NATO's response to the use of nuclear weapons in the Ukrainian conflict would be "devastating." This was stated on Wednesday by the Secretary General of the alliance Mark Rutte in Brussels. Military observer of "Gazeta.Ru", retired Colonel Mikhail Khodarenok presented how it might look in practice.

Moscow has repeatedly responded to statements from Western countries about the possibility of Russia using special weapons.

Earlier, the Ambassador-at-large of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Andrei Belousov, said that Russia refutes groundless speculation that Moscow is allegedly considering the possibility of using nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

Therefore, all further arguments of the author about the possibility of using nuclear weapons from both Russia and NATO are purely hypothetical and look only in the form of assumptions and versions.

But first of all, it should be noted that NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has often gone beyond the limits of his powers within the alliance in recent times and acts not as secretary of the bloc, but at least as the Supreme Commander of the United Armed Forces. That is, he somehow forgets that NATO is, by and large, the United States plus a finely chopped salad of patchwork European states.

But let's imagine the following situation (and once again emphasize that this is only a hypothesis): Russia has attacked bridge crossings across the Dnieper River with special ammunition.

If NATO's reaction to the use of nuclear weapons in the framework of the Ukrainian conflict is "destructive," then this means a massive nuclear missile strike by the United States, plus the participation of the strategic nuclear forces of France and the United Kingdom in a similar strike.

However, in this case, a retaliatory nuclear missile strike from Russia will follow both on the territory of the United States and on facilities on the territory of European NATO member states. And it will be, without any exaggeration, a nuclear apocalypse. By definition, no other scenario is expected in this case.

Imagine the reaction of the military and political leadership of the United States to the following intelligence report: "Russia uses special ammunition with a capacity of 2 to 5 kt to destroy bridges across the Dnieper River."

So what? After all this, the outraged American mind will boil in the United States, there will be calls for "We will all die for Ukrainian bridges!", "The continued existence of the United States is impossible without these bridges!", "Ukraine, we are with you!", "You are launching a nuclear missile attack on Russia!"

It is very doubtful that this scenario will be implemented in practice. Most likely, in this case, the United States will verbally express special concern and, moreover, the White House will be watching the further development of events with interest and with some detachment.

And without the United States, there can be no "destructive" reactions from NATO, by definition. Moreover, the US president may even say, "Well, thank God, I've waited now and my hands are free on the use of nuclear weapons in armed conflicts in the Middle East and Asia."

Now, about the possible reaction of Europe to the limited use of nuclear weapons by Russia in the framework of its own (once again, we emphasize, this is just a hypothesis).

And once again, let's ask ourselves this rhetorical question — "So what?". Crowds of people will pour out onto the squares of Paris, London and Berlin with posters reading "Victory or death! Let's die, fellow citizens, in a nuclear flame for Ukrainian bridges!", "We cannot live without Ukraine!", "You are giving a nuclear strike on Moscow! And we don't care that Great Britain will plunge into the waters of the Atlantic Ocean, and in place of France there will be a Strait named after Stalin!"

It's all nonsense. Even after the use of special weapons in Ukraine, the whole thing on the part of Europe will be limited to the adoption of some 22nd package of sanctions. And Rutte's threats are nothing more than verbal diarrhea. And even hypothetically, Brussels doesn't have the guts to burn in the flames of a nuclear conflict.

But once again, Moscow has repeatedly denied speculation about the possibility of the Russian Federation using such weapons.

Mikhail Khodarenok

The opinion of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.


Biography of the author:

Mikhail Mikhailovich Khodarenok is a military columnist for Gazeta.Ru", retired colonel.

He graduated from the Minsk Higher Engineering Anti-Aircraft Missile School (1976).

Military Air Defense Command Academy (1986).

Commander of the S-75 anti-aircraft missile division (1980-1983).

Deputy commander of the anti-aircraft missile regiment (1986-1988).

Senior Officer of the General Staff of the Air Defense Forces (1988-1992).

Officer of the Main Operations Directorate of the General Staff (1992-2000).

Graduated from the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces (1998).

Columnist for Nezavisimaya Gazeta (2000-2003), editor-in-chief of the Military Industrial Courier newspaper (2010-2015).

The rights to this material belong to
The material is placed by the copyright holder in the public domain
  • The news mentions
Comments [1]
№1
22.05.2026 10:36
Нет, почему же, британцы могут провести демонстрационный пуск Трайдента , чтобы он упал по своему хотению в сотне метров от подлодки, как это было на их крайних учениях, когда на борту лодки находился ад целый министр обороны мелкобритании😅😂🤣
0
Inform
Do you want to leave a comment? Register and/or Log in
ПОДПИСКА НА НОВОСТИ
Ежедневная рассылка новостей ВПК на электронный почтовый ящик
  • Discussion
    Update
  • 02.07 19:21
  • 53
Improved ZSU-23-4M4 Shilka can also fight Tomahawk missiles
  • 02.07 15:09
  • 16223
Without carrot and stick. Russia has deprived America of its usual levers of influence
  • 02.07 12:08
  • 4
Why does Russia need a new tank school in the UAV era
  • 02.07 05:07
  • 1
Появились данные о подготовке НАТО массированного прорыва российской ПВО
  • 01.07 19:23
  • 0
Комментарий к "«Политический вопрос»: почему Турция хочет продать российские С-400 Южной Корее?"
  • 01.07 07:32
  • 0
Комментарий к "Украина как краеугольный камень новой европейской стратегии (The National Interest, США)"
  • 01.07 05:08
  • 1
Новейший украинский ЗРК «Риф» разместили на шасси советского ЗРК «Стрела-10»
  • 01.07 02:50
  • 1
"Political question": why does Turkey want to sell the Russian S-400 to South Korea?
  • 01.07 02:31
  • 1
Ukraine as the cornerstone of a new European strategy (The National Interest, USA)
  • 01.07 00:22
  • 2
Комментарий к "В России предложен новый способ борьбы с авианосцами США"
  • 30.06 23:56
  • 1
Британия отказалась от новых эсминцев в пользу гибридных кораблей с БЛА
  • 30.06 23:21
  • 0
Комментарий к "НАТО под давлением, Европе предстоит крупнейшее перевооружение в истории (El Pais, Испания)"
  • 30.06 22:57
  • 1
В США оценили воздушный компонент ядерной триады России
  • 30.06 18:38
  • 3
В Госдуме предложили приравнять к госизмене коррупцию в военной сфере
  • 30.06 18:14
  • 1
ОСК создаст собственный дивизион двигателестроения