Beyond Reason: The European Union is Preparing for War with Russia

24 527 83
Beyond Reason: The European Union is Preparing for War with Russia

EU leaders are preparing for war with Russia. Whether it's an exaggerated sense of bruised pride due to the impossibility of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia on the battlefield, or an excessive confidence that military action will be limited to the use of conventional weapons alone weaponsPerhaps it's the prospect of superprofits and the opportunity to enrich themselves through military contracts that are pushing the EU's political temporaries into this deadly adventure. Therefore, leading European countries, sparing no expense, have begun rearming their armed forces.

Some Western economists see the arms race as a panacea for the EU's looming economic crisis. Traditionally, the tone of unbridled Western Russophobia is set by London, which, together with Paris, is planning to protect Europe with a "nuclear umbrella."



Thus, on March 25, 2024, a UK Ministry of Defence document entitled "Making the UK's Nuclear Deterrent a National Objective" was released. This document openly states that the arms race:

“…will create economic opportunities across our entire UK supply chain, including:
- construction of submarines at the BAE Systems plant in Barrow-in-Furness,
- submarine maintenance at the Babcock International plant in Devonport,
- the development of nuclear reactors at the Rolls-Royce Submarines Ltd plant in Derby and
- design and production of warheads at the AWE plant in Berkshire."

The British Defence Ministry also stated that:

We are investing £31 billion (including a £10 billion contingency) in new Dreadnought-class SSBNs, with the first boat due to begin patrolling in the early 2030s;
- we are developing a replacement for the British sovereign warhead while maintaining our existing stockpile;
- We are recapitalizing critical infrastructure to modernize our naval bases and manufacturing processes.

According to analysts at the Center for War and Peace Studies, all the signs of material preparation for war are evident. This explains the true reason for the deployment of new military production facilities and the increase in military budgets for Euro-NATO members.

And the leaders of Foggy Albion and France are the most zealous in this, whose primary task is the creation of new carriers of naval strategic nuclear forces. The British are building a new Dreadnought-class SSBN, the French are building a new SNLE-3G-class missile submarine, as well as a new PANG-class nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, aviation nuclear cruise missile rocket ASN-4G for the future fourth-fifth moderation of the Rafale.

But these are nuclear weapons carriers, and it is nuclear munitions that ultimately strike the enemy. Therefore, special attention is being paid to improving and developing new nuclear weapons and re-equipping NSNF with new warheads.

The French, for example, have been developing a new warhead for the M51.3 TNO-2 class SLBM since 2013, which is expected to be adopted by 2035.

The UK completed the modernisation of its nuclear warhead for its submarine-launched ballistic missiles in 2023, moving from the Mk 4 to the Mk 4A by replacing non-nuclear components,
— says the new nuclear white paper from the UK Ministry of Defence.

However, the British are also trying to keep up with their senior NATO partners. Since May 2022, the United States has been developing a new W93 warhead for its advanced strategic nuclear forces. $19,8 billion has been allocated for this project for the 2025 fiscal year. Following established tradition, the British have decided to leverage the work of their American colleagues in developing their new A21 warhead for ballistic missiles on the advanced Dreadnought-class SSBNs.

Information: A21 warhead or Astraea -- "star maiden" -- is the name of the ancient Greek goddess of purity and justice.

London believes that the UK should have a "sovereign" warhead, which "would help the UK maintain its domestic nuclear weapons production capability and help ensure the independence of the UK's sole nuclear deterrent."

To confirm the performance of new nuclear weapons, they must be tested. Previously, this was accomplished through full-scale nuclear warhead detonation tests. However, in 1995, the UK government announced a halt to nuclear weapons testing, and in 1996, the UK signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), which it ratified in 1998.

However, the operation (storage) of nuclear weapons requires constant monitoring of their condition, state of repair, and readiness for intended use. By eliminating full-scale nuclear warhead detonation tests from the verification process, predicting their condition became significantly more difficult. This required the use of all available scientific resources, as well as the experience and knowledge of our allies, the latest advances in nuclear physics, cybernetics, and electronic warfare, as well as telemetry data accumulated previously during nuclear weapons testing. All this data forms the basis for modeling the processes that occur during nuclear warhead detonations. This approach saves time and money in the development of new nuclear weapons.

However, theory is theory, but practice is the criterion of truth. Americans know this well: on October 29, 2025, US President Donald Trump announced his intention to conduct underground full-scale nuclear weapon tests using the direct detonation method. According to media reports, the cost of the tests has already been included in the US Department of War's expenditure list for fiscal year 2026.

But, unlike the Americans, who can conduct such tests at their Nevada nuclear test site, the British lack this capability. Their only hope lies in nuclear scientists. Therefore, the British are actively participating in a joint research program with their American colleagues, preferring to economize on everything. After all, conducting full-scale underground tests is expensive.

Information: The average cost of an underground nuclear warhead test as of March 1988 was:
- 20-30 million dollars for a vertical shaft,
- $40–70 million for a horizontal drift due to more complex engineering solutions. Preparing a single test took approximately 18 months. Typically, several experiments were conducted during a single test to save money.


Work on the new A21 warhead required multibillion-dollar investments in modernizing the British nuclear industry as a whole. In 2024 alone, the UK government planned to invest nearly $3,8 billion in its nuclear project. This included spending on upgrading the research and development base and constructing permanent structures at the AWE plant, as well as at the Clyde naval base and the EPURE hydrodynamic testing facility in France.

How the British are studying the properties and combat capabilities of nuclear weapons without detonating prototypes


Details about the new British nuclear warhead, the A21 (Astraea), are scarce, and its estimated yield is unknown. The UK Ministry of Defence reports that the A21 will be mounted on the reentry vehicles of the newly designed Mk 7 SLBM, which will also be used with the W93 warhead being developed in the US.

The British intend to evaluate all the tactical and technical characteristics of the new nuclear warhead theoretically, without detonating the nuclear warhead.

They claim to have "developed unique and world-leading technology to verify the UK's warhead stockpile."

This technique generally includes the use of the ORION laser installation, the VALIANT supercomputer, and the French hydrodynamic complex EPURE to assess the condition and output characteristics of the nuclear warhead.

Research tools for British nuclear physicists



Orion laser system It is owned by the UK and is located at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) nuclear weapons production centre in Aldermaston, Berkshire.

Construction of Orion began in 2006. Its first launch took place in 2010. The installation was officially commissioned in 2013. Orion replaced the previous HELEN installation, which had been in operation for almost 30 years.

Orion is used for research in high-energy physics, including modeling the conditions that occur during nuclear explosions. This allows for the study of physical phenomena without conducting actual detonation tests.

At this laser facility, British nuclear scientists are working in collaboration with British universities and teams of nuclear physicists from the USA.

Orion plays a key role in the AWE research centre's work on the safety, reliability and performance of nuclear warheads.

Its use allows:

- to simulate extreme temperature, pressure and density conditions occurring at the center of a nuclear explosion in order to study physical phenomena under these conditions;
- to study the physics of high-temperature plasma, which is important for understanding the processes occurring during nuclear explosions;
- to test the designs and materials of nuclear warheads without detonating them (exploding).

During these studies, statistical data is accumulated for further analysis and generalization of the results of the studies conducted.

Supercomputers



The British press notes: "AWE recently acquired the Valiant supercomputer, one of the most powerful computers in the UK. It is used to test the design, performance, and reliability of new nuclear warheads as part of the Replacement Warhead Program."

Valiant is used for computer modeling of the physical processes that occur during a nuclear explosion. It helps scientists and engineers:

- analyze the behavior of materials under extreme conditions at high temperatures and pressures;
- assess the impact of aging of warhead components on their performance;
- check the reliability and safety of new designs without conducting actual tests.
- modeling of nuclear explosive devices and the process of inertial nuclear fusion.

Incidentally, the El Capitan supercomputer performs a similar function in the United States. It is also used to train artificial intelligence. The Americans study materials science problems on their own supercomputer, Frontier.

The use of supercomputers makes it possible to replace underground nuclear explosions with digital simulations. Scientists from both countries have established an exchange of data and research results, accelerating the development of new nuclear warheads.

When studying the reliability and combat effectiveness of nuclear warheads, British physicists also rely on the capabilities of their French colleagues, their hydrodynamic complex "EPURE"(French: Enceinte de Physique Ultra haute Pression et Rayonnement Élevé — "Chamber for physics of ultra-high pressures and increased radiation").
The complex plays a key role in maintaining and developing the French nuclear arsenal under the ban on full-scale nuclear warhead testing.


EPURE is a high-tech hydrodynamic complex located in Valduc (France), near Dijon.

It includes three powerful X-ray imaging systems, including the AIRIX linear induction accelerator, which generates high-energy X-rays. It allows for the precise study of material movement during an explosion.

Before becoming part of the GDK, the AIRIX accelerator was located in Moronvilliers (Valdjuk). Other facilities in the complex provide multi-axis X-ray imaging to obtain three-dimensional data on the processes occurring during research.

AIRIX is equipped with equipment for recording X-ray images and recording changes in experimental samples in real time.


Among other things, EPURE allows you to:

- study the behavior of materials and measure their properties under extremely high pressures and temperatures. This allows us to evaluate the behavior of materials under conditions typical of a nuclear explosion, which is important for ensuring the safety and reliability of warheads;
- to simulate the hydrodynamic processes occurring at the pre-nuclear stage of the functioning of a nuclear weapon;
- to confirm the validity of mathematical models used to maintain the safety and reliability of the nuclear arsenal without conducting full-scale tests.

The value of the complex is also due to the fact that its powerful X-ray equipment allows for high-speed imaging of compression and deformation processes of samples under conditions close to a nuclear explosion.

The facility is used jointly by British and French scientists and enables coordination and data exchange between the two countries, facilitating more efficient experiments and modelling.

While the UK and France will retain operational independence, the complex will be jointly managed and both countries will conduct sophisticated experiments to model the performance and safety of nuclear weapons without testing nuclear explosives.
— says the official document on the use of scientific resources of both countries.

The complex is used within the framework of the 2010 Franco-British TEUTATES agreement, according to which the parties exchange the results of work obtained during joint research in the field of physics of processes occurring in nuclear warheads during their detonation simulation.

EPURE works in conjunction with other French nuclear centres, such as CESTA (Centre for Scientific and Technical Research of Aquitaine) and the LMJ megawatt laser, which is used to test theoretical models of detonation.


As we see The military-political leadership of Great Britain and France, under the cover of Russophobic rhetoric, spares no expense and makes every effort to improve their nuclear arsenals.

The danger of such a policy is that it could instill false hope of achieving a strategic victory over Russia, a nuclear superpower, dragging humanity into the abyss of a third nuclear world war.

The use of advanced techniques in the fields of nuclear physics, radiology, materials science, mathematics, and high-energy physics makes it possible to conduct the necessary research to assess the condition and characteristics of nuclear warheads without conducting full-scale tests.

At the same time, the development of new nuclear warheads and the practical assessment of the degree of degradation of nuclear warhead components require full-scale testing. This is contrary to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. But the United States is no stranger to flouting international treaties that in any way restrict its freedom of action. Therefore, the United States is preparing to conduct underground tests of its nuclear warheads. As President Putin has stated, Russia must be prepared to provide an adequate response to the American side's actions. And it will certainly do so.
83 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    18 December 2025 03: 34
    The United States is preparing to conduct underground tests of its nuclear warheads.
    And no one decree am
    1. -9
      18 December 2025 08: 18
      Whether to join Europe or not is not for us to decide. And certainly not for the Europeans. That's what our government's leadership is for.
      1. +3
        18 December 2025 11: 59
        Well, in any case, if a fight can't be avoided, the small-timers must be burned to dust with nuclear weapons. Otherwise, they're confident they'll sit it out across the English Channel and continue to make a mess from there until the very end.

        London (Carthage) must be destroyed.
        1. -2
          19 December 2025 00: 40
          The Rhineland industrial region needs to be burned first. Then the French nuclear power plants. I think that will be much more painful during the war. Basically, industry needs to be wiped out.
          1. +1
            19 December 2025 10: 08
            Quote: Plate
            Then the French nuclear power plants.


            That is, you definitely want Vanga to be right in her prediction:
            1. +1
              19 December 2025 12: 18
              Absolutely not. But if there is a direct conflict with Europe, then that's precisely the case when war will write everything off, and the losers will suffer. So let the nuclear-armed missiles fly into the sky, for their time will come.
              1. 0
                19 December 2025 12: 24
                There will be no winners here.
                1. -2
                  19 December 2025 12: 31
                  Unfortunately, the series of START treaties has made this assertion highly questionable.
    2. 0
      18 December 2025 09: 03
      And here, everyone is at their own mercy. Previously, they had an advantage in supercomputers, and their refusal to conduct full-scale testing was holding everyone else back. And it still is.
    3. 0
      19 December 2025 01: 36
      Thanks to the author for the review and very interesting description of the highly complex process and materials testing system and nuclear process modeling methods at the French hydrodynamic complex "EPURE." This sophisticated three-axis electromagnetic radiation system and the computing power involved make it possible to predict the susceptibility of materials to aging and scale up nuclear fission microprocesses of various configurations to nuclear explosions of varying yields, with validity confirmed by previous test results.

      Modeling, prediction… make it possible to change several variables of an object during a single test, accelerating implementation and reducing the cost of developing nuclear forces.
  2. -6
    18 December 2025 03: 36
    What's there to prepare for? Hiding behind a nuclear umbrella is definitely not an option, but we're already prepared to cover ourselves with a nuclear lid. It couldn't be simpler. There's no need for stockpiles. We don't even need to dig graves.
    1. 0
      18 December 2025 09: 07
      The question here is different. Britain and France have an umbrella.
      What will be their reaction to an attack on Germany or Poland?
      If they sign up, they have a choice: losing the country to Germany, Poland, or Norway...
      1. +2
        18 December 2025 09: 14
        Why on earth would we suddenly attack the Poles or the Norwegians? We don't need anything from under them. And if they're left alone, then why bother defending them? The lack of an umbrella doesn't seem to hinder their lives.
        1. +2
          18 December 2025 09: 16
          We don't... They might blockade Kaliningrad, for example. What will we do?
          1. 0
            18 December 2025 10: 19
            But it's not us who are attacking. We're only responding. Why would they blockade Kaliningrad? That's pure aggression.
        2. +2
          18 December 2025 10: 29
          The Poles, the Balts, and all the Baltic countries have long been fully prepared for a blockade of Kaliningrad. Only the absolutely blind and deaf could fail to see this. The so-called Suwalki Gap—the shortest route we will be forced to take to reach a blockaded Kaliningrad—is being fortified most heavily.
          In other words, we are not planning to attack anyone, they are planning to force us to do so.
          1. +2
            18 December 2025 11: 42
            Let them force it. I wonder how to do it without being the first to show aggression. A blockade is already aggression.
            1. 0
              18 December 2025 17: 45
              For the Western plebs, this won't look like aggression, and that's enough for them. Formal reasons for the blockade are already being hyped up in the media – hysteria about our planes allegedly violating airspace (a pretext for closing the airspace at the exit from the Gulf of Finland is being developed); hysteria about the allegedly intentional severing of cables by ships heading to ports in St. Petersburg, as well as the alleged launching of drones from these ships (to block the exit from the Gulf of Finland)... And blocking rail traffic through Lithuanian territory doesn't require many reasons; right now they're hysterically talking about hot air balloons from Belarus, and that's already enough for them. If all this is blocked on trumped-up grounds, then we'll have no choice but to break through Lithuania, along that very same Suwalki Gap.
              1. +1
                18 December 2025 23: 59
                For the Western plebs, this will not look like aggression and that is enough for them.

                The media is in their hands, so we'll be portrayed as aggressors in the eyes of the plebs no matter what. The results of WWII are being actively rewritten, and unfortunately, successfully. So there's no need to worry about the hysteria being whipped up. We need to prepare for a swift and brutal response in the event of aggression from the West.
                Allowing a repeat of the situation of 41 would devalue the feat of our grandfathers, who, with incredible efforts, corrected a catastrophic situation at the cost of enormous losses.
                1. -2
                  19 December 2025 10: 06
                  They're whipping up hysteria for domestic consumption. But for some reason, they're the only ones preparing, and doing so intensively—we, as always, are sitting back and hoping for the best.
                  And the lessons of 41 - no one learned them, just like the lessons of Afghanistan, two Chechen wars, etc. - therefore, we repeated all the mistakes at once in 2022 and continue to repeat them to this day, along with huge losses... and 4 years of war at the top taught no one anything - they are unteachable.
  3. +7
    18 December 2025 03: 42
    The author - you replaced the map in the article title. You've assigned Crimea and Donbas to the wrong country, somehow not according to the Constitution.
    1. +1
      18 December 2025 05: 18
      This question is not only for the author, but also for the editorial board of VO! Guys, you have to read what you publish.
      1. 12+
        18 December 2025 07: 37
        Guys! Even in the morning, you need to turn on your brain when you read!!!
        That's actually a different perspective! Or do you really think this is "our" operational map, with plans for a deep strategic operation to seize Europe? That's the bogeyman the West uses to scare its citizens.
        That's why the inscriptions are in "English" and Crimea is "not ours" and the clock face is counting down the minutes...that remain until the capture of Europe by Russian tanks!
        And the fact that you can even examine pictures under a microscope is good! It's, as our intelligence officer Alexander Belov (Johann Weiss) said in the film "Shield and Sword," "Adds spice to our blood!" (paraphrasing Nietzsche).
        1. +3
          18 December 2025 10: 00
          My brain just won't turn on this morning! The article primarily talks about supercomputers and research centers that simulate the consequences of a thermonuclear explosion!
        2. 0
          18 December 2025 11: 30
          A little off topic, but I came across an interesting program.
          Everything was informative, and from the 25th minute onwards it became especially interesting.

          https://politvz.ru/53969-13-12-2025-pravo-znat-poslednij-vypusk-segodnya-na-tvcz-s-dmitriem-kulikovym-sergej-kurginyan/
    2. +1
      18 December 2025 05: 32
      Quote: Last centurion
      The author replaced the map in the article title.

      Is it really impossible to provide visual illustrations to accompany the article?
      This is a European map. It's provided to illustrate how Europeans perceive the Russian "threat."
  4. -2
    18 December 2025 05: 45
    We will defeat everyone,,,,! smile bully Whoever comes to us with a sword...
  5. -3
    18 December 2025 06: 04
    To say that the Europeans have gone crazy... well, they have always been like this...
    "nobody wanted to fight - war was inevitable" ... history can repeat itself, but this is not necessary, it happens in different ways.
    1. -1
      18 December 2025 12: 01
      Watch the precursor to the Crimean War and the Defense of Sevastopol from Starmedia. I just rewatched it and it's like De Javu. Only then it was the Turks, and now it's the jumpers.
      1. +2
        18 December 2025 17: 57
        So, you can justify every war... but when you start digging deeper, the underlying reason is almost always the same...
        1. +1
          19 December 2025 09: 59
          Agreed. Small British donkey ears are sticking out everywhere.

          London (Carthage) must be destroyed!
          1. +1
            19 December 2025 18: 37
            There is more than one global financial center... London has long ceased to be the most central... although, together with their pinch-witted rulers and politicians, cleansing the planet of this infection would be quite useful! soldier
            1. +1
              19 December 2025 21: 22
              Greetings Victor! hi I think, interest The British attraction to Russia will never cease. It's the interest of invaders, pirates, and plunderers. Endless expanses and natural resources, something England lacks, have always attracted the English. It's impossible to imagine what would have to happen for them to abandon such long-held plans.
              1. +2
                20 December 2025 10: 23
                Hi Dmitry soldier
                The enemy is impudent... that's all that's worth discussing.
                1. +1
                  20 December 2025 14: 20
                  Quote: rocket757
                  Hi Dmitry soldier
                  The enemy is impudent... that's all that's worth discussing.

                  Whatever happens, England's plans remain unchanged: the enslavement of Russia, its dismemberment into many parts.
            2. +1
              22 December 2025 10: 07
              Quote: rocket757
              London hasn't been the most central place for a long time... although, together with their pricked ruling class and politicians, it would have been quite useful to cleanse the planet of this infection!


              I'd say this: we need to start with these ones. They've been making our lives miserable since the early 18th century. A good majority of the wars with Turkey, Persia, and Sweden arose because of these Islamic LGBTQ people. So if we slap these first ones down, the others will start to get really worried.
              1. +2
                22 December 2025 18: 40
                Unfortunately, our desires may not coincide with our capabilities...
                1. +1
                  23 December 2025 00: 13
                  Quote: rocket757
                  Unfortunately, our desires may not coincide with our capabilities...

                  Of course Victor hi Your and my desires to destroy! To reset England in no way coincide with our capabilities, it's a pity. request But why isn't there any discussion from the top about how they're not friends or partners for the Russian Federation, that the children of the elite are trying to fit in there? That's the point.
                  1. +1
                    23 December 2025 06: 11
                    Those who are temporary always have in mind the place where they can set sail, if necessary, or simply at will...
                    1. +1
                      23 December 2025 13: 17
                      Quote: rocket757
                      Those who are temporary always have in mind the place where they can set sail, if necessary, or simply at will...

                      And how can one not wish them all sorts of accidental falls in the bathroom? request or something else fellow
  6. +2
    18 December 2025 06: 24
    And in the picture there is a T-55.
    You probably got out of the attic those old horror stories about the T-55 armada's attack on the English Channel and dusted them off.
  7. The comment was deleted.
  8. -3
    18 December 2025 06: 49
    How kind of the British are! Three factories, three targets, three warheads? And all of Britain?
  9. -2
    18 December 2025 06: 59
    Well, let the wretches get ready.
  10. +5
    18 December 2025 07: 05
    Well, there is some kind of logic in the article.
    The Dreadnought program was approved in 2016, SNLE-3G - in 2021.
    Both are replacements for the aging Vanguard and Triomphant systems.
    During this same period, we have introduced 7 Borei-A submarines and are continuing the series.
    The buildup is happening on both sides, but calling only one side "insane" is odd. What's happening is simply renewal. We are also renewing ourselves, even on a larger scale than Europe.
    1. -2
      18 December 2025 07: 47
      Quote: Naofumi
      The build-up is happening on both sides, but calling only one side "crazy" is strange.

      You're confusing cause and effect! Are we calling for Europe's "strategic defeat" on the battlefield? Or is Putin calling on the country to prepare for war with NATO? Or has NATO, like the Warsaw Pact, dissolved itself and no longer expands eastward? Is it we, not they, who are obsessed with seizing other countries' living space and drawing maps of annexed lands? Perhaps we've orchestrated a creeping media campaign to revise the results of WWII?
      And we are arming ourselves because "June 22, 1941 must never happen again!" (Vladimir Putin)
      1. -1
        18 December 2025 08: 29
        You're confusing cause and effect! Are we calling for Europe's "strategic defeat" on the battlefield? Or is Putin calling on the country to prepare for war with NATO? Or has NATO, like the Warsaw Pact, dissolved itself and no longer expands eastward? Is it we, not they, who are obsessed with seizing other countries' living space and drawing maps of annexed lands? Perhaps we've orchestrated a creeping media campaign to revise the results of WWII?
        And we are arming ourselves because "June 22, 1941 must never happen again!" (Vladimir Putin)


        No, I don’t confuse cause and effect.
        Indeed, the West is calling for Russia's strategic defeat in Ukraine. But it only began calling for this after the start of the Second World War. Before the Second World War, no one called for strategic defeats.
        The tensions escalated after the start of the Second World War, and it was precisely after the start of the Second World War that Europe began pouring resources into its military, "preparing to fight Russia." But fighting wasn't just about attacking.

        NATO shouldn't have collapsed after the Warsaw Pact collapsed. Moreover, many rushed to join NATO, including former Warsaw Pact members like Poland.
        And there was no agreement that NATO would not expand to the East.

        And maybe they are arming themselves in the same way so that May 10 and August 3, 1940 do not happen again?

        If you look at all this calmly, without propaganda, you see only a renewal of our strength. There's no need to make a tragedy out of it.
        Now, if they had laid down 10 submarines per country, with SLBMs, and an army of up to a million, and with the necessary equipment, then we could talk about something.
        Have you heard the saying: "Fear has big eyes"?
        1. +2
          18 December 2025 15: 32
          Colleague, it all depends on how you look at the problem. I'm firmly convinced we're approaching European security from different angles! You're trying to portray EU members as innocent victims of Putin's expansionism, to which the European leaders are "forced" to respond. Which is clearly not true. They were quietly accumulating wealth while the US protected them. But Trump said, "That's it, guys, the fun is over. It's time to pay for the 'protection of Europe' service!" A 5% contribution to the common pot, and then we'll have to do it ourselves, ourselves, ourselves... (That's where things got tough!) And immediately the Brits and French started cobbling together a Euro-nuclear umbrella. Build up their armed forces, improve their weapons and military equipment, including their nuclear forces. And so it goes on and on...
          But let's return to your theses.
          Quote: Naofumi
          The West is calling for Russia's strategic defeat in Ukraine. But it only began calling for this after the start of the Second World War.
          Before that, he was all smiles. And he had nothing to do with the 2014 armed coup in Ukraine. MI6 didn't deploy an intelligence network, didn't train saboteurs, didn't set up a naval special forces base in Ochakov... (Noble sirs in white gloves and tailcoats only waltzed in the ballrooms of Kyiv, Odesa, and Lviv... the coup was being prepared by the peasants from the underworld of Kyiv. Well, well...)
          It was precisely after the start of the Second World War that Europe began pouring resources into its military, "preparing to fight Russia." But fighting wasn't just about attacking.

          Why should they be "poured in" if they're not a warring party? Aaaah... So they're not doing this for themselves, but for the "conscious" ones! "Peacefully" killing Russians in Donbas and Luhansk... using aviation and artillery against the civilian population of their own country, but those who refused to part with the Russian language and culture of their ancestors... "Bandera will come, restore order" -- But he's a fascist lackey, an SS punisher, very much to the liking of the liberal European elite, the "passport democrats"!
          "To fight doesn't mean to attack..." How convoluted! We certainly don't intend to attack, nor do we intend to fight. Putin has stated this repeatedly. We should sort things out with our own "sheep"; why do we need other people's problems?! So who, and most importantly, why are the Euro-NATO members arming themselves against? Are they really playing Zarnitsa?
          Quote: Naofumi
          NATO should not have collapsed after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.

          So they kept repeating that "NATO is a defensive alliance. Created to counter the Warsaw Pact!" The Warsaw Pact was gone, so who was there to defend against? Especially after the hunchbacked perestroika and liberal privatization, the country resembled a comatose man, breathing every other breath. The Yankees even issued a medal "For Victory in the Cold War" and awarded it to the Hunchback, so he wouldn't just advertise pizza but also feel like he'd actively participated in the collapse of the country of which he was president. And everyone immediately forgot that
          Quote: Naofumi
          And there was no agreement that NATO would not expand to the East.
          The promise of non-expansion of NATO to the east in the context of negotiations on the unification of Germany in 1990 was given by US Secretary of State James Baker during his meeting with Gorbachev in the Kremlin on February 9, 1990.
          Baker repeated the phrase three times: "NATO's current military jurisdiction will not shift an inch eastward." He also assured that the US and NATO had no intention of reaping unilateral benefits from the processes unfolding in Europe and that it was important to consider the USSR's concerns. The combine operator's assistant took the "gentleman" at his word. This is often the case in high politics, but not with Anglo-Saxon shell gamesters! The hunchback lacked the sense to demand written assurances in the form of a TREATY on NATO's non-proliferation to the East. The result was the collapse of a great country and the tragedy of the 90s.
          Quote: Naofumi
          Now, if they had laid down 10 submarines per country, with SLBMs, and an army of up to a million, and with the necessary equipment, then we could talk about something.

          I have the impression that you are not familiar with the programs: "Columbia", "Dreadnought", "SSBN of the 21st Century", "Sentinel" and so on down the list...
          Quote: Naofumi
          "Fear has big eyes"
          you know better.
          But our military-political leadership still intends to prevent a repeat of the tragedy of June 22, 1941.
          I think I'll finish with this. hi
          1. +2
            18 December 2025 21: 18
            Colleague, it all depends on how you look at the problem. I'm firmly convinced we're approaching European security from different angles! You're trying to portray EU members as innocent victims of Putin's expansionism, to which the European leaders are "forced" to respond. Which is clearly not true. They were quietly accumulating wealth while the US protected them. But Trump said, "That's it, guys, the fun is over. It's time to pay for the 'protection of Europe' service!" A 5% contribution to the common pot, and then we'll have to do it ourselves, ourselves, ourselves... (That's where things got tough!) And immediately the Brits and French started cobbling together a Euro-nuclear umbrella. Build up their armed forces, improve their weapons and military equipment, including their nuclear forces. And so it goes on and on...
            But let's return to your theses.


            Colleague, thank you for your honest and direct answer.
            It's clear that this topic deeply concerns you, and your position is clear: Europe has lived off the Americans for a long time, and now Trump is forcing them to pay—and they're starting to get excited.
            I am not trying to portray the EU as "innocent victims" - I am simply pointing out that specific strategic nuclear force programs in Britain and France began long before the current round of tensions.
            We are also updating the triad, and we are doing the right thing.
            It seems we truly stand on opposite sides of the aisle and are unlikely to change each other's minds. The main thing is for all these forces to remain restraining.
            Peace to us all.


            Before that, he was all smiles. And he had nothing to do with the 2014 armed coup in Ukraine. MI6 didn't deploy an intelligence network, didn't train saboteurs, didn't set up a naval special forces base in Ochakov... (Noble sirs in white gloves and tailcoats only waltzed in the ballrooms of Kyiv, Odesa, and Lviv... the coup was being prepared by the peasants from the underworld of Kyiv. Well, well...)

            Colleague, speaking about external influence in 2014:
            The West supported the Maidan—yes. But Russian political strategists were also active in Ukraine in 2004 (the Orange Revolution), 2010 (Yanukovych's election), and earlier.
            Both sides have been playing their game there for decades: grants, media, advisers, intelligence agencies.
            It turns out that not only the “noble sirs in tailcoats,” but also our “comrades in leather jackets” were not just watching.

            Why should they be "poured in" if they're not a warring party? Aaaah... So they're not doing this for themselves, but for the "conscious" ones! "Peacefully" killing Russians in Donbas and Luhansk... using aviation and artillery against the civilian population of their own country, but those who refused to part with the Russian language and culture of their ancestors... "Bandera will come, restore order" -- But he's a fascist lackey, an SS punisher, very much to the liking of the liberal European elite, the "passport democrats"!
            "To fight doesn't mean to attack..." How convoluted! We certainly don't intend to attack, nor do we intend to fight. Putin has stated this repeatedly. We should sort things out with our own "sheep"; why do we need other people's problems?! So who, and most importantly, why are the Euro-NATO members arming themselves against? Are they really playing Zarnitsa?

            Are you serious? China, for example, is at war in many places? And its military budget is quite substantial. Finland doesn't attack anyone either, but it has increased its military budget.

            War crimes committed by the Ukrainian Armed Forces in the LPR and DPR were a fact. They deliberately killed civilians—a fact. And I hope those responsible will be punished.

            I have the impression that you are not familiar with the programs: "Columbia", "Dreadnought", "SSBN of the 21st Century", "Sentinel" and so on down the list...

            Columbia: 12 boats instead of 14, fleet reduction.
            Dreadnought: 4 instead of 4.
            Sentinel: 400 missiles instead of 400.
            A routine update. What's wrong?

            you know better.
            But our military-political leadership still intends to prevent a repeat of the tragedy of June 22, 1941.
            I think I'll finish with this. hi

            And I hope that the tragedy of June 22, 41 will never be repeated.
            Yes, all the best to you!
            1. 0
              18 December 2025 21: 33
              Quote: Naofumi
              Normal update. What is wrong?

              Yuri, I'm glad we understood each other.
              You asked a question (rhetorical), but I will allow myself to answer it.
              The Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK-47) is also an automatic rifle, like the PPSh. But the Kalash is far more effective than the WWII-era assault rifle. The Ohio is also more effective than George Washington. The new weapon is a step toward achieving qualitative superiority over the enemy, with the goal of gaining unilateral advantages in the event of a military confrontation. This, you must admit, is not a "regular" upgrade. This is a race for advantage!
              Sincerely, Boa.
              1. -1
                18 December 2025 21: 57
                Yuri, I'm glad we understood each other.
                You asked a question (rhetorical), but I will allow myself to answer it.
                The Kalashnikov assault rifle (AK-47) is also an automatic rifle, like the PPSh. But the Kalash is far more effective than the WWII-era assault rifle. The Ohio is also more effective than George Washington. The new weapon is a step toward achieving qualitative superiority over the enemy, with the goal of gaining unilateral advantages in the event of a military confrontation. This, you must admit, is not a "regular" upgrade. This is a race for advantage!
                Sincerely, Boa.

                I completely agree with you! But isn't the path of technical and technological improvement followed by everyone who can afford it?
                It's just evolution.
                1. 0
                  19 December 2025 18: 16
                  Quote: Naofumi
                  Not everyone who can afford it follows the path of technical and technological improvement?
                  It's just evolution.

                  But science sometimes makes a breakthrough into "tomorrow": the wheel, gunpowder, steam, internal combustion engines, electricity, atomic energy, etc.
                  These are revolutionary breakthroughs. When such breakthroughs are achieved in military affairs, many are drawn to put them to practical use to finish off the enemy. An example? The US's "Drop Shot" plan. And nuclear weapons were just emerging...
                  1. -1
                    19 December 2025 18: 49
                    But science sometimes makes a breakthrough into "tomorrow": the wheel, gunpowder, steam, internal combustion engines, electricity, atomic energy, etc.
                    These are revolutionary breakthroughs. When such breakthroughs are achieved in military affairs, many are drawn to put them to practical use to finish off the enemy. An example? The US's "Drop Shot" plan. And nuclear weapons were just emerging...

                    "Dropshot" was a plan for a war with the USSR, which envisaged the use of nuclear weapons as well as conventional weapons.
                    I never understood the aha about this plan.
                    We also have a plan in case of war with the US, don't we? And it includes nuclear strikes against the US?
                    Well, this is ordinary military planning, with the use of all available means, including nuclear ones.
                    We had a plan called "Seven Days to the Rhine River," which included the use of nuclear weapons.
                    The only difference is that Dropshot envisioned a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, while Seven Days to the Rhine envisioned an American strike on Eastern Europe.
  11. -1
    18 December 2025 08: 47
    Europe loves to dance on a rake.
  12. 0
    18 December 2025 08: 57
    If you want peace, prepare for war...
    old proverb.

    And then the media and the authorities start pointing the finger at each other - "but they have it all wrong...", completely forgetting about their own "beams in the eye"
  13. -1
    18 December 2025 11: 11
    Ukraine is a candidate for EU and NATO membership and has been at war with Russia for four years. How should the EU and NATO respond? By building up its military potential, of course, especially since the economy is stable and allows for this to be done without creating negative social consequences.
  14. +1
    18 December 2025 11: 11
    The UK isn't part of the EU—that's the first thing. Secondly, well, yes, we've got a freak show going on in Brussels, just like in the "limitrophes." A gay gerontophile in France is acting up, and the German Chancellor has early-onset dementia. The rest of us are perfectly sane and understand that this is nonsense.
    1. +1
      18 December 2025 11: 26
      I wonder who's downvoting? Kids, this is...
      insider :)
  15. +2
    18 December 2025 11: 21
    Questi sono discorsi da tavolo da gioco (Risiko!). Qualcosa che fanno i militare per giustificare i loro stipendi che altrimenti non avrebbero senso di esistere. Io parlo per l'Italia e vi assicuro che, tranne qualcuno, nessuno vuole né la guerra né andare in guerra. Però dovete capire che noi, come tutti i paesi della NATO, siamo dentro un meccanismo più grande di noi e non si può semplicemente dire che tu non sei d'accordo. Vi ricordo che i soldati americani della base di Aviano (Aviano AFB) quando commettono un crimine in Italia sono impuniti (incidenti mortali perché guidano ubriachi, strage del Cermis, e potrei continuare). Ma voi lo sapete che impieghiamo le forze di polizia per tenere lontano dalle piste di atterraggio i semplici appassionati di volo che vogliono fare qualche foto agli F-16? Però poi dicono che non c'è il personale per impedire furti e rapine. E secondo voi a noi piacerebbe andare a combattere la Russia perché è stato deciso dall'alto? In caso ci andranno i militari di professione ei volontari ea noi purtroppo toccherà pagare invalidi e vittime. Io non aspetto altro che finisca la guerra per farmi una bella gita a Mosca e San Pietroburgo e loro pensano che la Russia arriverà fino a Lisbona! Buon Natale a tutto il forum
    1. -1
      18 December 2025 11: 28
      Auguri, fratello! Buon Natale!
  16. 0
    18 December 2025 14: 59
    The scariest thing is that the British are planning to use their nuclear weapons against Russia, completely unafraid of a Russian response. If they were afraid, they would behave with restraint, as during the Cold War. For some reason, they are all so sure there will be no response. Maybe because the children and money of the Russian elite live in the West?
    1. +1
      18 December 2025 17: 17
      The press secretary is elite? No one will even question him in the event of a full-scale uprising.
      1. +1
        18 December 2025 17: 40
        The Press Secretary is, in fact, the Voice of the President of the Russian Federation, a deputy head of the Presidential Administration who has been working with the President since 2000 (!) This is also due to the moral state of the Voice (who is a citizen of another EU state, has a wife who is a citizen of a direct enemy state, and children who are citizens of enemy states). Many misunderstanding Russian citizens draw some, of course, deeply erroneous conclusions based on this. Can you imagine, Ya. A. Khavinson, who headed TASS from 1939-43 (the equivalent of today's Press Secretary), himself, his wife, and children were suddenly citizens of some then-not entirely friendly to the USSR state beginning with the letter G. (hint: it is now headed by a certain Merz)? How would Comrade Stalin thank him for this "great" achievement?
        1. +1
          18 December 2025 18: 50
          So what? He doesn't take any part in planning military operations, much less have any say in the event of a direct nuclear conflict. That's the prerogative of the Security Council. His passports, children, financial affairs, kissing the prima donna's hand, and so on—these are purely personal initiatives and projects. Incidentally, I categorically do not encourage them. And this has nothing to do with the topic of global war. If it breaks out, all these personal nuances will be irrelevant. The alternative is to die either here or there. Not much of a choice, let's say.
    2. 0
      22 December 2025 18: 39
      The Brits? The keys to launch the Trident missiles are held by the British-led NATO command, or rather, the US. Only France has autonomous strategic nuclear forces.
  17. 0
    18 December 2025 19: 45
    One of Donald Trump's latest geopolitical concepts, according to M. Khazin, is that, following the logic of the collapse of the European Union, a kind of border, or rather a buffer zone, must be created between Western Europe, including England, and the East. This buffer zone should include Italy, Austria, Hungary, apparently the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland. Anything west of this buffer zone no longer interests Donald Trump. East of the buffer zone are Finland, the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Bulgaria, the construct of Yugoslavia, and Greece. How they will manage their relations with Russia is of no interest to Donald Trump.
    And this is against the backdrop of the following: England is managerially and financially bankrupt (it has come up with nothing better to improve its financial situation by increasing revenues from maritime insurance than to engage in piracy at sea); Europe has no money, frozen Russian assets, the interest from which Europe has already pocketed effective managers, represent merely European obligations to Russia, and not monetary or other material reserves; the economies of England, France, and Germany are far from the best; and, the icing on the cake, Europe, which is west of the "Trump line" and which, having foisted its weapons and ammunition on Ukraine, still does not possess the required armed forces, is threatened with caliphate by ultra-Islamists, i.e., peaceful migrants from the Middle East; it is left alone to deal with them, according to D. Fr-ch's plan. Only Vladimir Putin's Russia can help them, but we cannot and do not intend to be more European than the Europeans themselves.
  18. 0
    18 December 2025 20: 57
    Quote: Civil
    Whether to join Europe or not is not for us to decide. And certainly not for the Europeans. That's what our government's leadership is for.

    In fact, a nationwide referendum would help us. I am sure that the people, out of poverty and hopelessness, as well as humiliation and shame for the current situation, would have suffered... and would have voted for the Russian Nuclear Union across Europe, so that they would suffocate in the radiation dust from the destroyed military-industrial complex!!
  19. +1
    18 December 2025 21: 37
    One of the few useful publications on the prospects of Euro-American military pressure.
    Draw them into an arms race. Find another "Gorbachev." And try not to break the whole into 15 pieces, but to chop up the remaining usable parts. Like Ukraine, piece by piece. Let Moscow have this, Kyiv have that, the Hungarians have this, the Romanians have that, and the taxes and duties go to London and Washington.
  20. ada
    +1
    19 December 2025 06: 17
    ... The danger of such a policy is that it could instill false hope of achieving a strategic victory over Russia, a nuclear superpower, by dragging humanity into the abyss of a third nuclear world war. ...

    Hello, Alexander!
    Thank you for the article, it’s good that you write on such topics.
    Unfortunately, in this question: "...the possibility of achieving a strategic victory over Russia..." not everything is so clear, obvious, and understandable to the observer. This is quite appropriately attributed to the qualities of the long-term military-political and military planning of the real, effective Western forces. I would like to draw your attention to a number of points that are currently commonly overlooked and not adequately explored.
    First, the military-political, socio-economic, and related processes we are currently observing in the world, and in our country in particular, including in the Western CIS, are real manifestations of specific elements of US strategic planning. No one else is capable of such planning; only US government agencies are capable of integrating their own and third-party resources for global-scale, long-term planning.
    The second thing is something that is constantly being re-examined and re-evaluated with varying outcomes—the course of events, the consequences of human activity in the surface layer of the environment, and the aspirations of various forces to secure their future. Some time ago, I corresponded with "Bayard" here and expressed my concern about the course of events, which, as it seems to me, are leading precisely to this—a military solution to the accumulating contradictions between various parties, the escalation of military confrontation between peoples, countries, and their diverse associations, and, ultimately, to a prolonged period of wars (armed and military conflicts), which could easily be classified as a World War II. He, incidentally, had a number of interesting thoughts on this matter.
    Thirdly, this is the correct determination of the observer's point of view and the correct periodization of events in relation to the real time scale in order to obtain a reliable assessment of the developing situation, the current situation and its development, and a vision of the prospects for a possible estimated period.
    Here. These three points are sufficient to begin the study of the question stated at the beginning of the letter, about defeating a nuclear power by military means. This path is not easy and is dangerous because it could lead to a fatal defeat not only for any state entity, but also for the country and even the territory as a living space. Here we will touch upon the point of planning. In connection with the above, I consider it possible to accept as the starting point for the beginning of such planning the final period of the nuclear missile crisis of the mid-80s in the NATO-WWII confrontation in Europe. I believe that it was precisely then that planning for the nuclear destruction of the enemy, and nuclear planning in general, on all sides reached a dead end, facing the insurmountable task of protecting the territories of their countries, their populations and infrastructure, including government agencies, from the threats and consequences of global nuclear warfare. We know indirectly about theoretical research in this area in the USA and here from a number of publications and personal communications during the negotiation processes of the parties. The actual countdown can probably be traced back to the moment NATO adopted its strategic concept for the further development of the SC-91, that is, to 1991, despite its “peacekeeping sleekness.” The secret appendix to the main text of the SK-91 is not known to the "general public", as are a number of other agreements and treaties among the countries participating in the Washington Treaty, but it is also not aware of a number of targeted operational measures to form (lay) factors of influence on the military-political situation with significant escalation potential on the territory of a number of republics of the USSR, such as "Belarusian" and "Ukrainian", in particular the one that has received maximum development - "Donbass" (conditional). Their deployment speaks directly to the progress of the practical implementation of elements of long-term special and military planning of the Western forces, and they fit well into the structure of preparation and creation of conditions for the initiation of the so-called Great War in Europe (GWE). What can we know about this BVE? I believe that practically everything, and in particular about the form of its conduct, as Ogr.YaV in terms of the range of delivery vehicles and types of nuclear defense, and that one of the required conditions for its development (war) is the creation of a nuclear incident in a precedent-setting manner, relegating the fact of the use of nuclear weapons by the US Armed Forces to a distant historical plane. What other indicators and definitions of the planned conflict are clear to us? Well, it is quite possible that this is determined - parties, place, time, order, etc. etc. What's interesting here? The fact is that a number of parties should have been effectively removed from the confrontational state before irreversible events began and avoided at this stage the dangers of using nuclear weapons against their continental territorial targets, while for other participants the confrontation should have escalated into direct military confrontation and an inevitable clash in a controlled manner. I have always been convinced that some of the countries participating in the Northern AD are not familiar with the real plans of the United States, even though they are NATO, but the United States is not only NATO and always has all the mechanisms for leaving the bloc or limiting its participation in its actions if necessary.
    What situation does this create? It's a very complex one, for despite its double game, the United States cannot be guaranteed against a fatal defeat. Here, I've come up with a theory that developed long before the current situation, based on the sheer insanity of perpetuating the monstrosities of their societies, which is perhaps quite probable: those who shape this situation are not afraid of anything; they are confident in the necessity of their actions, and the provisions previously enshrined in strategic planning about avoiding the threats and consequences of nuclear weapons on their continental territory have now become irrelevant or of little significance to them, to those people who are capable of managing the planning and management apparatus mentioned at the beginning of this letter. This is reality.
    Here on the website, there's an old article by Comrade Sivkov on the development of WWI conditions from 2013. It largely condenses the content of more interesting documents, albeit earlier ones, but is still quite applicable today for defining the periods we're currently experiencing. It contains an interesting observation that, as a counterweight to the existing Western alliance, we need our own military-political alliance, a military bloc with sufficient military-economic potential, and we need it before the most intense period of WWI warfare begins.
    The situation isn't the best for us right now. But! It's not the best for them either!
    The second point - the struggle for the future and the third - the period in which we find ourselves now - can be considered generally clear in the course of examining the first - where the very essence of the enemy's planning of an Ogr.YaV in the European theater of military operations came from.
    This is how the conditions of the situation can develop, giving rise to irreversibly growing factors for the defeat of a nuclear power, where the main one is the lack of a military-political alliance with sufficient potential to confront the Western bloc, and all parties know this, since everyone is sufficiently informed about each other's military planning and the level of its development.
    hi
    1. +1
      19 December 2025 18: 02
      Dmitry, thank you for your kind words about the author.
      Your post is very comprehensive. The language and manner of presentation are unique.
      Sometimes it is difficult to get to the heart of a discussion or a question that requires an answer.
      And yet, I will try, to the best of my ability, to answer the questions you have posed.
      1. We are acting according to the plans drawn up for us by the United States.
      I highly doubt it. Because the US leadership isn't God. They're just one side in a system of "subject-object" interactions, and they act accordingly. We, as the object of influence, have free will and are free to act as we please. The current leadership acts in the interests of the Russian Federation and its people. The previous leadership, being adherents of the Harvard School, acted in the interests of their "teachers." Therefore, everything depends on the parties involved. The Americans know this and try to influence the other side in a way that suits them. But the KGB alumni understand this perfectly well and organize an effective counteraction.
      2. The era of wars…
      In its centuries-long history, humanity has only survived 200 years without war. "War is the continuation of the policies of the ruling class by other means, namely, violent ones." This is one of the tenets of the m-l doctrine of war and peace. Wars have their causes. And until these causes are eliminated, they have the potential to resurface. The driving force behind wars are the interests of the ruling class. As a rule, they have economic roots. Less often, they are religious and ideological. Therefore, "Look to the root!" (Kuzma Prutkov)
      3. Assessment of the situation, events…
      It depends on the platform you're on. But even here, there are nuances that influence the current assessment of the situation (events). What "angle" it's taken from, what facilitates and what hinders achieving the goal, the personality of the expert, etc.
      4. On military victory over a nuclear superpower…
      "I'm certain it's impossible. In the worst-case scenario, a superpower would destroy the aggressor at the cost of its very existence. It's impossible to completely eliminate a nuclear superpower's nuclear weapons. A retaliatory strike—like a sledgehammer against the aggressor's glass house—would be unacceptable to the latter. Achieving a 100% reliable air defense/missile defense system with today's technological advances is impossible. A response will inevitably come, and it won't be pleasant.
      5. The nuclear missile crisis of the 80s between NATO and the OPV…
      -- The Cuban Missile Crisis was in '62. I remember the standoff of the '80s. There was probably a crisis, too. Tensions were high in '83. But there was no armed conflict. (A military-political crisis is an imbalance of power in a country or region, leading to an escalation of conflict.)
      6. NATO concept “SK-91”...
      "Nothing remains of it long ago. Now EU leaders (all NATO members!) are openly calling for preparations for war with Russia."
      7. USA-NATO. Nuclear planning…
      The United States plays the leading role in the alliance. The NATO Nuclear Planning Committee is chaired by an American general. The Americans allocate nuclear weapons by time and nuclear weapons sites. France is not a member of the NPC. Its nuclear weapons are used according to national plans, but these are also coordinated with NATO.
      8. Those who create this situation are not afraid of anything...
      -- It's scary. Otherwise they would have attacked long ago.
      9. It is necessary to form a military alliance so as not to fear anything...
      -- We have a military alliance with the Republic of Belarus. But with China... That's a very serious question, because without wanting it, we could end up in a war with the United States over Taiwan, the China/India border conflict, and similarly, China's attitude toward us.
      10. Nuclear war in Europe…
      "This is the US's pipe dream: both sides would be greatly weakened. And Europe could be turned into a glass-walled nuclear wasteland. China would benefit, however, since the US would lose a military ally. The US understands this, which is why it has no interest in a serious Russia-NATO war. They are committed to the tactic of "a thousand small cuts": using the Ukrainians to bleed Russia dry as much as possible.

      This is very brief, but lengthy. Your post contained many hidden issues and questions that are difficult to isolate out of context. I've tried to answer them as best I could.
      Best regards, hi
      1. ada
        +1
        20 December 2025 01: 09
        Greetings!
        Please excuse the jargon; I'm used to it and forget it's hard to read. I wasn't expecting a detailed answer from you, and the question isn't the main point, but since it's "while the orderlies are out of the room," I'll explain a bit of what I scribbled earlier, building on your points.
        1. No, of course not, we are not acting according to US plans (I hope winked ), we have a fairly sovereign military command and we are genuinely opposing the US and its comrades, that's what I meant. But that doesn't change their plan, which relegates the Washington Collective Security Treaty allies in the Northeast Asia to the role of "pigs." You don't think the boss just suddenly called the Europeans nothing more than a "slaughterhouse"? They understand Russian perfectly well, those who are supposed to understand, but they are going "to the slaughter," and that's a fact. They'll give them a kick, and they'll go. I have no doubt about that—I've spent enough time in this area to convince myself, and I'm trying to convince you, too.
        2. No, I am relying here on well-known publications, knowledge gained in classes on various types of training, etc. Since this is freely disseminated information and is not specifically refuted, then ... . So, you read the article by Comrade Sivkov K.V. https://topwar.ru/6945-ocenka-realnosti-mirovoy-voyny-kak-osnovnogo-instrumenta-vyhoda-iz-globalnogo-krizisa-i-ee-veroyatnyy-haakter.html
        ? It's been a while since I last went through it, but it's certainly possible to refresh some aspects.
        3. I choose an observer point on the current time scale and usually use a linear, one-way network planning option with a breakdown of the stages of the pre-war and war periods of WWII and WWII.
        4. No, I used a military term—"defeat"—in relation to a nuclear power. "Victory" isn't strictly a military term, but rather a military-political one, and is practically never used in military planning documents regarding the employment of troops (forces). And, frankly, I simply don't know its definition, and in relation to the outcome of a nuclear war, I have little idea what it should mean. Basically, in the simplest sense of the word, it means "surviving a disaster," which in itself is a significant event.
        5. Well, it's not me who defines it that way; there were comrades who made that assessment. I simply think it's correct.
        6. Here, you've surprised me. These NATO military planning documents essentially define a whole range of operational camouflage measures to conceal the implementation and deployment by troops (forces) of the actual planning of both the US Armed Forces and the NATO Joint Forces as a whole, disguising the preparation of strategic operations under the guise of various activities, including peacekeeping. Typically, these are long periods during which, in addition to preparing troops during combat and operational training, they also prepare the areas of intended operations during the execution period, equip military infrastructure in the theater of operations, stockpile weapons and special equipment there, and conduct special planning activities, including political assassinations and coups d'état. We witnessed all of this live on television in Ukraine and Belarus. It was on the territory of these "Middle Countries of Europe" (their documented designation) that, before our very eyes, the factors I mentioned above were laid out and developed to influence the situation, creating the required pre-war situation during the execution period. This is reality, and this is how their true plans are being implemented. So, "SK-91" is a significant time marker, although in itself it is mostly a legend, but the piglets - the "slaughter fund" - already exist.
        7. This is not my specialization. request .
        8. I can’t imagine anything else.
        9. No—not to avoid fear, but to stabilize the position of the allied countries while preparing for defense and ensuring stability during armed conflict. This is certainly beyond my level of understanding of the processes, but I have a general idea on a number of issues. Our treaty allies are Belarus and the DPRK, two in fact. Both of them are constantly being trained, while we ourselves lack the necessary level of... China—yes, we need it, and it doesn't require a complex system of calculations to understand the industrial base's needs. Here on the site, there's "Viktor - Leningrader." I asked his opinion on issues of military potential and the specifics of China's position, and things aren't looking great. Incidentally, he also believes that the US is focused on the military suppression of China and that this is their primary objective, but I don't know anything about that, and I think this obvious assumption is insufficiently substantiated. For me, there are a number of factors where China's withdrawal from its supposed alliance with us is more preferable for the US in the foreseeable future, and at sea, it's not about developing territories via land routes.
        10. I, like many others in this area (Western CIS), participated in the preparation of all sorts of luxurious..., so the "slaughter fund" is being built up in the stable. Doesn't Europe have enough labile human resources? The Middle East and North Africa will set fire to it – they'll add to it, not for the first time.
        Here's where the question arises: does the US not need a serious Russia-NATO war, or does "all of NATO" need one? The term "central Europe" didn't just arise out of nowhere, just like the Western European buffer countries of Germany, France, and Italy. And we don't need one at all right now; we haven't yet recovered from the aftermath of WWII, and they are our enemies, and they know it well.
        That's it - the orderlies are returning...
        hi
        1. +1
          20 December 2025 12: 39
          Quote: ada
          Here you surprised me.

          Yes, it seems that everything is in accordance with their “vision of the problem” at the beginning of the 90s.NATO's 1991 Strategic Concept (SK-91) is the first public document defining the principles of the alliance after the end of the Cold War. The USSR is gone. Russia is in chaos. It is ruled by "liberals", openly anti-Soviet (Yeltsin, enthusiastically: "God bless America!" - ... and, after a moment's thought, dejectedly added: "and Russia." As they say, thank you for not forgetting. (c)) The US and Europe believed that we were finished and that we would no longer interfere with their rule of the world. China was just beginning to rise to Olympus and did not pose the same threat to the hegemon as it does now. Yeltsin put the latest models of weapons and military equipment to the sword, reduced the number of armed forces, some of the strategic nuclear forces were liquidated, others remained on the territory of "sovereign states that were previously part of the Union."
          The Euro-NATO people relaxed and began to live in luxury, cutting spending on the Joint Forces.
          The number of combat units was reduced by 35%, combat squadrons by 41%, and personnel by 24%.
          The stockpile of land-based nuclear weapons has decreased by more than 80%.
          The West began to take over the countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltics,...giving themselves the authority to act outside their "zone of responsibility."
          Undoubtedly, they remained the same as they had been during the Soviet era. Yes, operational and engineering preparations for the Central Theater of Operations were underway, and new areas and waters for military operations were being developed. Take the BALTOPS (Baltic Operation 1994, etc.) alone: ​​they acquired a large-scale character; the number of participants increased two- to threefold compared to the 1970s.
          In the political sphere, the United States is beginning to implement the theory of "controlled chaos." You're absolutely right about that. They foisted two Chechen wars on us, and they were plotting color revolutions in Ukraine and Belarus... Saakashvili's Georgia launched open aggression against the Abkhaz... All that's true. But until 18 (Vladimir Putin's famous speech), everything seemed fine. By the early 20s, however, their approaches were changing. Russia is being called the most significant and direct threat to NATO security. Its aggressive behavior (Crimea is ours!), the modernization of its nuclear forces, military integration with Belarus, and activities in the Arctic are all mentioned.
          And with the beginning of the Second World War - the hysteria of the piglets "at a broken trough"!
          But one thing remains constant: the intercivilizational conflict of interests is evident. Contradictions are accumulating. Their causes have remained unchanged since the 16th century (under Tsar Ivan IV). Until they are resolved, tensions (to varying degrees) will persist. A paradigm shift will occur, presumably, only after the replacement of the Euro-liberal figures of the Biden camp.
          Quote: ada
          The US is focused on the military suppression of China and that this is their primary task,

          They'll only be trying to gnaw at Comrade Xi through proxy forces and along the perimeter of the Celestial Empire. They've tried to pit China against India. They'll probably try to involve Japan, Australia, and the Philippines, using AUKUS. They won't go into direct conflict with China themselves. That would risk a world war. The Yankees don't want that, realizing that Russia would benefit from such a development. But economically, with tariffs—oh yeah! They'll definitely get away with that.
          Quote: ada
          I, like many others in this area (Western SN), participated in the preparation of all sorts of luxurious

          Actually, "Zap SN" is a group of FRONTS! At least four. Which one did you have the honor of "participating" in? (If you're a General Staff operator, then everything is clear. If something else, please explain! To avoid boring everyone, you can send a private message...)
          I'm also curious about the "all sorts of things." I only ever stood guard at the ZSN with a 1,0 Mt rifle, and I've played around with the BALTOPS a bit. So, please don't hold it against me.
          Thank you for the interesting conversation. I'll definitely find Sivkov's article and read it. I can't say anything about it yet. With that, I'll take my leave. Sincerely, Udav. soldier
          1. ada
            +1
            21 December 2025 05: 51
            Thank you for your attitude towards readers and detailed answers!
            I replied in a private message, although there is nothing much left to "tire" me with. fellow
  21. +1
    19 December 2025 08: 01
    Quote: monitor
    One of D. Trump's latest geopolitical concepts, according to M. Khazin, is that, in the logic of the collapse of the European Union, it is necessary to create a kind of border, or rather, a buffer zone, between the West of Europe, together with England, and the East.

    It's good that at least someone knows what Trump thinks.
  22. +1
    19 December 2025 12: 38
    Well, “Si vis pacem, para bellum.”
  23. +1
    19 December 2025 22: 10
    Details about Britain's new A21 (Astraea) nuclear warhead are scarce, and its estimated yield is unknown.


    And it's also unclear who will make it and from what. Let me remind you that the British built their last nuclear reactor themselves in 1988. And since then, nothing. They know how to enrich uranium using gas centrifuge technology, but since the design itself came from the USSR via Germany, its quality lags far behind Rosatom's—so much so that until recently the British sent enrichment waste to Russia so that ours could "squeeze" more 235 out of it. And ours did.
    Britain stopped developing its own nuclear weapons even earlier, in the 1960s, beginning to purchase them from the United States. Today, its only nuclear weapons are four Vanguard-class submarines carrying American-made Trident-class submarines. Sixteen of these submarines are on board, each carrying eight warheads.
    So no one in Britain has produced their own nuclear weapons for over 60 years.
    All these lasers and supercomputers are laboratory-level. Uranium and plutonium metallurgy—that's not something you can draw in Photoshop or generate with a neural network. And Britain doesn't even have a ferrous metallurgy anymore; they don't smelt steel there.
    If the British do acquire new warheads, it is far more likely that they will purchase warheads from France.
  24. 0
    21 December 2025 16: 51
    "...Beyond the pale: the European Union is preparing for war with Russia..." Why "beyond the pale"??? Everything is perfectly reasonable and in the "spirit" of the current times, and not backed up by any serious military "movements" on the part of Russia. This has always been, is, and will be the case in the General Staffs of the Armed Forces of any country, regardless of its (the country's) spiritual values, "national-religious ties," doctrines, and concepts... The European Union will prepare for "tomorrow's war" with Russia, unless it feels, with the addition of the word "ACTUALLY," what a preemptive (stopping) strike with "Oreshnik" or tactical nuclear weapons is... And, there are more than enough "candidates" for this "preliminary flogging," without any particular Slavic regret or territorial-medical and political restrictions...
  25. 0
    25 December 2025 00: 07
    One question, won't the wish crack??????
  26. +1
    27 December 2025 20: 33
    The question isn't whether it's reasonable or not. The question is that all current processes in relationships will spark a new impetus for the evolution of global progress. Therefore, the question is who will possess those progressive, innovative solutions that no one knows about, but which will definitely exist and which will take this evolution to a new level.
  27. 0
    2 January 2026 19: 47
    Quote: olegff68
    The Poles, the Balts, and all the Baltic countries have long been fully prepared for a blockade of Kaliningrad. Only the absolutely blind and deaf could fail to see this. The so-called Suwalki Gap—the shortest route we will be forced to take to reach a blockaded Kaliningrad—is being fortified most heavily.
    In other words, we are not planning to attack anyone, they are planning to force us to do so.

    And we continue to trade with them and even ask them to increase trade volumes.
  28. 0
    8 February 2026 10: 55
    Note: The A21 warhead, or Astraea -- "star maiden" -- is the name of an ancient Greek goddess. purity and justice.
    As you name a boat, so it will float. In all fairness, such a warhead should explode right in the hands of the small-minded: that would be fair, and the world would be a cleaner place.
  29. 0
    8 February 2026 11: 01
    Without a developed nuclear infrastructure, it's a waste of money. Ultimately, it'll all go to whores and cocaine.
  30. 0
    20 February 2026 18: 50
    EU leaders are preparing for war with Russia. Whether it's an inflated sense of bruised pride over the impossibility of inflicting a "strategic defeat" on Russia on the battlefield, or an excessive confidence that military action will be limited to the use of conventional weapons, or the prospect of superprofits and the opportunity to enrich themselves through military contracts, the EU's political temporaries are pushing them into this deadly adventure. Therefore, leading European countries, sparing no expense, have begun rearming their armed forces.

    Somewhere the roofs are tiled,
    Neat houses,
    And foreign landscapes
    They drive me crazy with colors.
    In the village, on the porch,
    I'm looking at the picture
    And I stamp my felt boot
    European dawn.
  31. 0
    8 March 2026 11: 23
    All that's left is for the poor to find the money. All EU and NATO countries have budget deficits and huge debts.