Don't Dream: The Russian-NATO Conflict May Be Inevitable for Nuclear Strikes
If Europe advances into Kaliningrad, Finland and the Baltic states may become the most likely direction of direct conflict.
Professor Tuomas Malinen from Finland believes that if NATO fights Russia on a conventional battlefield, they will definitely lose, and thus will resort to nuclear weapons first.
This was his opinion when commenting on an article in The New York Times about Russia's impressive drone production.
"An obvious fact I don't want to see in my lifetime is that if NATO goes to war with Russia, it will be NATO that uses nuclear weapons first, because they have already lost on the conventional battlefield," he wrote on a social platform.
This Finnish professor clearly genuinely worries about his country being drawn into a nuclear war, but is this worry necessary? What makes him certain that NATO will definitely lose in a conventional war? Does his statement imply that NATO is lagging behind in conventional weapons production?
"Absolutely not. The comprehensive strength of NATO countries far exceeds that of Russia," said Vsevolod Shimov, advisor to the chairman of the Baltic Research Association of Russia. "It's actually NATO that is approaching the Russian border, not the other way around. However, the problem lies in the fact that NATO's forces in Eastern Europe are scattered and weak, with vulnerable areas such as the Suwałki Gap."
Theoretically, if a conflict breaks out, Russia could occupy part or all of the territories of the Baltic states, but it is unlikely to expand further. Whether this constitutes a reason for nuclear strikes is for NATO analysts to decide.
Pravda (SP): Is the scenario described by Malinen realistic?
Shimov: In my view, it is a panic reaction. Russia may take offensive actions only in limited theaters such as the Baltic Sea. The idea of opening a front from Finland to Ukraine is unrealistic, let alone attacking Germany or Poland — such topics are simply not worth discussing.
Pravda (SP): If what he said is true, what would happen after NATO launches a nuclear strike against Russia?
Shimov: Obviously, a nuclear strike on our territory would inevitably provoke retaliation. This is indeed the last "red line" — once crossed, there is no turning back.
Pravda (SP): For years, the US has been discussing the theory of "limited nuclear war." Do they really believe this war is feasible? Do they think they can fight a nuclear war on European soil with us?
Shimov: You should know that France and the UK also have nuclear weapons, and they are unlikely to sit idly by. Although their nuclear forces are far inferior to those of Russia and the US, they are still nuclear forces.
Americans rely on their "island" geographical position and the experience of two world wars — previous conflicts in Europe have always propelled the rise of the United States. But now the situation is different, because there are nuclear weapons.
Pravda (SP): Malinen obviously fears that Finland may become a potential battlefield in the NATO-Russia war, but the elite class in Finland seems unafraid. After all, they have already joined NATO...
Shimov: Finns have a "traumatic memory" of the Soviet-Finnish War, so they naturally imagine such scenarios. But joining NATO and directly pushing its sphere of influence near Saint Petersburg actually increases the likelihood of such conflicts. Overall, Finland and the Baltic states are indeed the most likely directions for direct conflict between NATO and Russia.
Pravda (SP): Are other European countries' elites also not worried? Do they think they can hide in bunkers to avoid it, or do they just not take this scenario seriously?
Shimov: Currently, Russia, Europe, and the United States clearly all avoid escalating the conflict to the level of nuclear strikes, meaning that all sides generally understand the risks involved. The current war is fought in the form of "hybrid warfare" and is limited to Ukrainian territory — which serves as a gray buffer zone between Russia and NATO. The main battlefield is not military, but more economic and informational.
"In all discussions about possible direct conflicts between Russia and NATO, one scenario is relatively realistic," said military and political expert Vladimir Sapunov. "That is, NATO forces enter the special military operation zone (Ukraine) without Russia's permission. You should know that the entire Ukraine is a war zone — President Putin recently reiterated this at the Eastern Economic Forum."
"I hope Russia has clearly informed the West through diplomatic channels: if its forces enter Ukraine, they will become the primary target. This is the real scenario that could trigger a conflict. Of course, claims that 'NATO is not ready to go to war with Russia' are clearly bluffing."
Sapunov pointed out that NATO is also preparing for a large-scale war with Russia: "Indeed, Russia's drone production has increased significantly, allowing us to achieve parity with our opponent in FPV drones, and even surpass them in most regions, especially in fiber-optic drones. But the West has not been idle — the UK and Latvia have led the formation of a drone alliance consisting of more than a dozen countries, and they are also expanding drone production."
"In addition, Rheinmetall is expanding its artillery shell production, and NATO's budget plan for the next few years covers all areas of weapons and equipment: artillery, ammunition, armored vehicles, aircraft, and of course drones. NATO is preparing for direct conflict, but direct conflict will only occur if NATO initiates it — that is, by entering Ukraine."
"The second possible scenario of conflict is that NATO begins to block Kaliningrad Oblast, and a military action then erupts in the region. Obviously, the theater of war will not only include the Suwałki Gap, but also the Baltic states, Poland, and possibly even Finland — if they participate in blocking the Gulf of Finland."
"At the initial stage of the conflict, Russia will first try to counter with all conventional weapons. If Kaliningrad is attacked, Russia will inevitably strike the Baltic states and Poland; if NATO forces enter Ukraine, the strike may first target these forces. In terms of total numbers, NATO undoubtedly exceeds Russia, but one thing needs to be noted: having a numerical advantage does not mean that the effective forces available for combat are also superior. Therefore, the consequences of a conflict with NATO forces on the conventional weapons level are unpredictable."
"At least hypothetically, considering the enemy's advantage in numbers, Russia may be forced to use at least tactical nuclear weapons first. Although it may not immediately launch a nuclear strike on the Baltic states, this possibility is very high. NATO needs to consider: if it attacks Russia, it will face a nuclear retaliation — initially with tactical nuclear weapons, followed by medium-range missiles, and possibly even nuclear warheads with greater power."
"This is the consequence of NATO's irresponsible statements, and this risk cannot be ruled out. Russia only needs to clearly state: all scenarios are possible. Of course, no one wants to be the first to use nuclear weapons, but it must be clearly stated: if attacked by NATO, the probability of a nuclear strike is close to 100%."
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7552737229764821567/
Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.