Well, this could hardly be more direct.

Well, this could hardly be more direct.

“The Foreign Ministry’s statements and the letters that the Foreign Ministry sent to various countries are not intimidation, they are a response to an attempt to intimidate us.

If it comes to a direct attack on the Russian Federation — in this case on Kaliningrad, and perhaps on some other territories — then, of course, the issue of Russia using all the weapons at our country’s disposal will inevitably and immediately appear on the agenda.

That is inevitable.

Why? We understand that the adversary facing us will be twice as large as us in numbers. And we will have to use our competitive advantages in this fight.

Yes, of course, France and Britain are nuclear powers, we understand that perfectly well. But no one has the kinds of strike capabilities that Russia has today.

And how are we supposed to stand up to the aggressor?”

This refers to the letter that the Russian Foreign Ministry yesterday sent out to NATO countries, warning that Russia would defend itself “with all available means” if NATO tried to cut off Kaliningrad.

So, look.

1️⃣Two months before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Foreign Ministry sent letters to NATO countries that later became known as the “December initiatives of 2021,” in which Russia, among other things, demanded that NATO retreat to its 1997 borders. Two months later, Russia began its invasion of Ukraine.

2️⃣Putin frames threats to strike NATO as a response, following exactly the same principle as everything he does in Ukraine. The invasion? A response. Strikes on energy infrastructure? A response. Strikes on warehouses? A response.

Putin will frame all subsequent aggressive actions against Europe as a response. Today he laid the informational groundwork for that. As in: exercises in the Baltic Sea, tankers being detained, preparations to strike Kaliningrad.

Today he went even further and called the West the aggressor in advance.

Naturally, all the above-mentioned threats from the West are absolute fiction.

The exercises in the Baltic Sea are purely defensive. NATO is afraid even to touch a Russian Mi-8 that last week flew into Polish airspace for 42 seconds, God forbid anything happen!

The threat to Kaliningrad is complete fiction, and in fact no one has ever threatened Kaliningrad at all. Kaliningrad appeared in statements by Western politicians solely as a retaliatory target in the event of a Russian invasion.

It is not so important what exactly Russia uses as a pretext — before invading Ukraine they staged the explosion of a UAZ vehicle belonging to the head of the “DPR people’s militia,” a sabotage group breakthrough into Donetsk, and the shelling of a shed in a field. I am simply showing the principle by which they will act.

3️⃣By calling Russia’s nuclear arsenal a competitive advantage, Putin is comparing it not with the United States, but with Britain and France. Russia really does have 10-12 times more nuclear warheads than Britain and France combined (besides the number of warheads, there is also the problem of delivery systems — nuclear weapons in Europe exist in the form of aerial bombs, which would first require conventional strikes on Russian air-defense systems to clear the way for aircraft). And Putin removes the United States from the equation; he does not even seem to take it into account. We are not taking it into account either; my point is rather how completely Trump has withdrawn himself, left the game, and untied Putin’s hands.

In short, if we assume that Putin decides to go into Narva (this is just as an example — so far there is no specific data from Western intelligence agencies), the chain of events will be roughly as follows:

1. Whatever Europe does (even if it does nothing), Putin accuses it of escalation and announces retaliatory measures;

2. If Europe does decide to do something in response (for example, strike Kaliningrad or Russian ports), Putin threatens to use nuclear weapons.

And from there it will depend on whether European leaders have the balls to match the stakes.

Yesterday, in response to the Russian Foreign Ministry’s letters, Mark Rutte simply called on Russia to “stop irresponsible nuclear rhetoric.”

Sure, they’ll stop. Right.

Again, this is not Rutte’s problem. Now that the United States has withdrawn itself, it is completely unclear who is supposed to take the leading voice in Europe’s collective defense.

But so far the West’s response is depressing.