Some time ago, there was a voice on the Internet that Russia can't bear it, will it use nuclear **?Will there be a third world war?
I don't think so.
First of all, what does it mean to be unbearable?
Is it the Ukrainian soldiers coming to the Kremlin?
A few years ago, the United States withdrew from Afghanistan in disgrace, and no one asked why the United States did not use nuclear bombs to level Afghanistan
More than 30 years ago, the Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan, and the Afghan war that dragged on for ten years exhausted the Soviet Union, so that many people said that the Soviet Union collapsed because of the failure of Afghanistan
Nearly 50 years ago, the Americans hastily withdrew from Vietnam, and there was a famous Saigon moment, it can be said that the country's face was lost, and at that time I didn't hear anyone who would suggest that the United States **use nuclear**, it seems that Vietnam is not much to resist, right?Is it the Americans who are kind?
The current Russian-Ukrainian war, or the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, or what Russia calls the "special military operation", where is the battlefield?
Is it Moscow or Petrograd?is on the territory of Ukraine.
And so if Russia loses?
Some people say that war is winner-takes-all, and there is anything when you win.
But what does it mean to take all the winners?
If it's a winner-takes-all, then Afghanistan must be the hegemon of the earth now, after all, it has overturned the superpower United States, the superpower Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, the empire on which the sun never sets, so Afghanistan has taken it all?
A victory on one's own land is, at most, to avoid enslavement, dismemberment, and partition. That's all.
Regarding Russia's nuclear **, you see what Ukraine has been beaten into, look at the NATO aid model to Ukraine, from the beginning of the steel helmet body armor, and then add some stinger javelins, all for individual use, and finally on rocket artillery and 155 guns, it feels like it's okay, so I buckle the cable and get on the tank, and now I am ready to give F16.
Why don't you dare to get on tanks, artillery and planes as soon as NATO comes?
Why do you only dare to give things and not send troops?
It's not that Russia is weak, and as soon as the NATO ground forces come out, won't they directly push back Moscow?
Why wouldn't NATO dare?
It's not that I'm afraid that Russia will really flip the table.
Many people say that Russian nuclear ** is useless, in fact,The Russian-Ukrainian war has really proved that nuclear ** is really useful
If Russia does not have nuclear **, NATO will absolutely not say a word, first set up a no-fly zone over Ukraine, and then the no-fly zone will soon be extended to Russian airspace.
And then it won't be long before a "multinational force" will appear on the ground to help the Ukrainian people regain lost ground.
Finally, there is the "punitive action", which will drag Putin to trial, and then throw the ashes into the Black Sea, Moscow will be replaced by the ** supported by the Americans, Russia's oil companies and natural gas companies happen to be state-owned, and the democratic freedom of the Americans will definitely support the acquisition of domestic companies.
Why didn't any of this happen?Is the Russian army strong?
No, it's Russia that really has nuclear **.
Even if Ukraine wins, big wins, wins and wins, it only dares to win on its own soil, so that as long as Zelensky is ready to lead troops to Moscow, NATO will make this democracy fighter ** dare not bear that risk without saying a word.
Russia's nuclear ** is to ensure that Ukraine can only win on its own soil.
That is, to ensure that you will not lose on your own soil.