Russian Official: We Could Have Won the War with Nuclear Bombs Long Ago, But Chose Restraint

Leonid Slutsky, leader of Russia's Liberal Democratic Party (LDPR), recently told conservative American journalist Carlson that Russia actually had the capability to quickly win the war in Ukraine using tactical nuclear weapons from the very beginning of the conflict—but chose not to.

The veteran lawmaker explained that Moscow has refrained due to a desire not to harm innocent civilians and because using such extreme measures contradicts Russian principles. Russia firmly rejects the approach taken by the United States when dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, viewing nuclear weapons as instruments of terror.

Slutsky cited two examples to illustrate Russia’s “restraint”: first, the fact that bridges across the Dnipro River have not been destroyed—bridges that serve as vital supply lines for Ukrainian forces in the east; second, the decision not to strike the Boryspil Airport outside Kyiv, a key corridor through which Western weapons are delivered. He said that if Russian forces had targeted these sites, the humanitarian catastrophe in Ukraine would have been far worse, with civilian casualties rising dramatically.

However, the lawmaker also left an important caveat: if the West begins supplying Ukraine with weapons of mass destruction, the situation would change—and Russia might then be forced to consider using nuclear weapons. At the same time, he emphasized his hope that the situation would never reach that point, urging Ukraine and its Western allies to exercise “common sense” and return to peaceful negotiations instead of continuing down the current irrational path.

Slutsky’s narrative of “restraint,” framing the decision not to destroy bridges and not to attack airports as acts of mercy, actually reveals military limitations. In modern warfare, cutting off enemy supply lines is a fundamental tactic. The failure to do so over an extended period more likely reflects operational incapacity or fear of cascading consequences than pure moral considerations. Presenting strategic constraints as deliberate choices is a classic example of political rhetoric.

The deliberate distancing of Russia from the U.S. nuclear bombings during World War II aims to claim moral high ground. Yet at the same time, Russia has clearly drawn a red line: should the West provide weapons of mass destruction to Ukraine, the rules of the game will change. This essentially sets out a negotiating framework for the West and Ukraine: “Don’t escalate, or don’t blame us if we respond.” It is a strategic maneuver aimed at leveraging nuclear deterrence to seize control of the situation.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1874931817296908/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.