Ukrainian and Russian nuclear victory

Ukrainian victory and Russian nuclear


As soon as the document for the annexation of four Ukrainian regions has been signed, we learn that the town of Lyman has been taken over by Volodymyr Zelensky's troops.

< p>Celebration and optimism

After denouncing the fraudulent nature of the referendums that preceded annexation, members of the Biden administration rejoiced at the most recent Ukrainian victory . Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin hailed a significant strategic gain.

Why do the Americans and their allies unanimously welcome the loss of Lyman by the Russians? Firstly because it is timely, reflecting the state of the forces present in this region. Above all, land routes and railways converged there, as many relays of which the Russians will be deprived for the supply and deployment of troops.

Strengthened by this recent progress, President Zelensky promised that soon many Ukrainian flags would be seen flying over the Donbass, warning Russian soldiers as they passed that they would be killed one by one as long as Vladimir Putin ruled Russia.

These celebrations and harsh rhetoric should not, however, make us forget that the aggressor is not at the end of its resources and that it has been waving the nuclear threat for quite a while now.

A justified fear?

The Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, whose security forces sow terror wherever they go, launched a few well-felt pikes in the direction of the Russian generals, of whom he is nevertheless an ally. Beyond these criticisms, he suggested resorting to drastic measures, pointing in the direction of the use of low-power nuclear weapons.

Should this option be feared? Never since the end of the Cold War has the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons challenged me so much. The Russian president can no longer impose himself in a conventional way and I would not be surprised if he uses extreme methods.

If from the outset a majority of experts seem to rule out full-scale nuclear war, other options are on the table before considering low-power nuclear weapons.

It is impossible to rule out the fact that we can target civilian targets such as hospitals or schools. To these strikes that aim to demoralize the adversary, we could add the use of chemical weapons.

The next few days and weeks should allow us to answer at least two major questions.

First, we will know if the leadership of the Russian president is as precarious as some intelligence services suggest. Putin does not decide alone and we will soon know if he has free rein.

The other big question is what the Americans and their allies will tolerate. Remember the famous Obama administration “red line” in Syria? Will we issue the same ultimatum to Putin as that given to Assad? If the Russian president is backed against the wall, he must be kept there.