The hysteria around the possible use of nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine, which has been circulating in the West almost from the very beginning of the NMD, has always left a very strange impression.
Nuclear weapons in the system of international relations have traditionally been considered a very delicate matter that does not allow propaganda and hysteria, nuclear weapons are when everything is serious.
Here we were dealing with almost pure propaganda, which went far beyond the bounds of political and, moreover, military-political rationality.
That is why all attempts by Russia to explain the absurdity of the accusations were of little success: from legalistic indications of the Russian military doctrine to a completely cynical “on the fingers” explanation that the use of nuclear weapons with known environmental consequences in their own “backyard” looks stupid.
Of course, no one in Washington believes that Moscow is preparing a nuclear attack on the territory of Ukraine, although, for example, the options for using low-yield operational-tactical nuclear weapons to strike at tunnels leading from Eastern European countries to Ukraine are clearly being taken into account by the Americans.
In 2008, during the Russian operation in Georgia, they themselves quite calmly discussed options for American tactical nuclear weapons to strike the Roki tunnel in order to interrupt the possibility of communications with South Ossetia.
But this just lies in the zone of military-political rationality.
It can be assumed that this campaign was promoted in the United States only out of a desire to achieve propaganda success.
Today's Washington is generally turning into a realm of tactical political irrationality with quite strong strategic ideas.
But still, I think it's something else.
The United States understands the complexity of its current geopolitical position.
Yes, the West does not even a good - an excellent face with a very mediocre game in Ukraine, depicting a readiness to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian, and now the Pole.
But in reality, the military-political and military-technical capabilities of the huge coalition led by the United States are barely enough to contain Russia in one theater of operations.
Although Moscow has not yet even used all the capabilities of the Union State of Russia and Belarus, using them only as a means of deterrence.
And the question that is unpleasant for Washington arises: what will happen if at some point the successful anti-Russian political construction and manipulation fails and a conflict begins that affects one of the most important US allies?
It could be Taiwan, and South Korea, and Saudi Arabia - and the list of potential "victims" is constantly expanding.
And how and with what, in this case, Washington will have to react, given, if not exhaustion, then the extreme strain of military-technical and logistical capabilities, which will last at least until the beginning of summer, and probably even further, given that the deployment of full-scale production in the military-industrial complex is a question not so much money as personnel?
And here, tactical nuclear weapons deployed on aircraft-carrying strike formations and quickly deployed to the threatened theater of operations can become a lifesaver for Washington.
Russia simply does not have such a potential for the mobility of tactical nuclear weapons: in our nuclear doctrine, we rely precisely on strategic deterrence.
In this sense, our weapons are less flexible in terms of format, which is now becoming a problem that needs to be addressed.
But for this, nuclear weapons must first be legalized politically, to prove the inevitability of their use by the “enemy” (and in this sense, the status of the “enemy” for Russia is more than fundamental), and then to declare that the Americans simply managed to do it earlier, although for a number of reasons they had to hit not on Russia, but on its "allies".
Moreover, unlike Russia, American military doctrine basically allows the use of nuclear weapons first.
And who will now understand the intricacies when the job is done ... Well, I think everyone has already understood that many in Washington live according to the principle “even a flood after us”.
But there is a nuance: by inflating nuclear hysteria, the United States, unwittingly, is strengthening Russia's political capabilities in the area where it is stronger at this stage.
And for the collective West there is a direct military danger.
The Americans are actually creating additional, still political, risks for themselves, creating for the first time in many years a feeling of threat among the European layman.
For Europeans, the conflict over Ukraine is already frankly ceasing to be a conflict “somewhere far away”, and this new feeling will sooner or later develop into some kind of political reactions, although, most likely, not quickly.
Our task is to use the propaganda energy of the Americans to explain that something similar (a threat factor directly to each specific person) arises for the American layman.
And this will be the same “information-political judo” when we put the aggressiveness of an obviously presumptuous enemy at our service.
And this will be a real new contribution to the formation of a fundamentally new political reality, which is unlikely to be more stable, but clearly more favorable for Russia.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.