In the event of a nuclear attack on Russia - maybe we should not retaliate? Let us perish, but will mankind survive? The very fact that we are asking these questions speaks very much about Putin and Russia. However, the President has a very clear - and very important - answer to this question.
After Vladimir Putin spoke about new types of Russian weapons, the discussion continues, "what did the president really mean?" Although Putin himself did not conceal his goal, new missiles and other weapons that do not have analogues in the world are needed to ensure Russia's security. To make useless attempts to achieve military superiority over us. And this military invulnerability, in turn, is designed to provide Russia with the opportunity to make a breakthrough, to eliminate our social and economic backwardness.
But, as you know, the said do not believe - and so coincided that in the days following the message, several big interviews with Putin came out, in which he, in fact, developed the same thought.
This is about the film "The World Order-2018", most of which is interviewed by Putin Vladimir Solovyov, the film "Putin" by Andrei Kondrashov and a big interview with the journalist of the American NBC television Megin Kelly. The key phrase from all Putin's words in these three interviews is the words he said in response to Soloviev's question about the possibility of using nuclear weapons:
"Our plans of application (I hope that will never happen), theoretical plans of application are the so-called counter, counter-impact ... Such a decision can be made only if Russian missile warning systems record not only the launch of missiles, but will also give an accurate forecast of the flight trajectory and the time of falling of the head parts to the territory of Russia ...
If someone decided to destroy Russia, then we have a legitimate right to respond. Yes, for humanity it will be a global catastrophe. For the world it will be a global catastrophe. But nevertheless, as a Russian citizen and head of the Russian state, I want to ask myself:
but why should we have such a world, if Russia is not there? "
In fact, Putin did not say anything fundamentally new. On the retaliatory strike, he spoke repeatedly and before, most recently in the message 1 March. And in this same interview on the same day Megin Kelly:
"We have two reasons to respond with the help of our nuclear deterrent forces. This is a nuclear attack on us or an attack on the Russian Federation using conventional weapons, but in the event that a threat to the existence of the state is created "
This is all in the military doctrine of Russia. So there were no revelations in the words of Vladimir Putin. It is clear that these words of the president are most actively used by the conditional party of our own "Ukrainians" - for inciting hatred both to Putin himself and to Russia as a whole. Say, "here's a man with a nuclear suitcase that is ready to start a global war to destroy." The conclusions from such arguments are very different - whether Putin is thus blackmailing the world and demands that Russia be considered, or whether he simply went insane. This set of conclusions is interesting only from the point of view of the analysis of the processes taking place in the brain of those who have gone crazy in the fight against Putin. The president speaks of a retaliatory strike, and those who condemn him talk about the first. But here and so everything is clear.
However, the phrase "And why should we have such a world, if there is no Russia?", Without any doubt, will go not only to the list of the most important statements of Putin, but also take its place among the most significant quotations of all Russian history.
In one row, not only "whoever comes to us with the sword will come, he will perish by the sword" and "there is nowhere to retreat - behind Moscow", but also "the teardrop of a tormented child", "do not have heaven - give my homeland". Vladimir Putin formulated what is most appropriate to national self-awareness. By chance, he did it or not, it's not so important. What is important is what we see in this phrase ourselves, and what other nations see?
What is Putin talking about - besides what warns about the impossibility of an unpunished blow to our country? If Russia is destined to perish, will it take the whole world with it? Or - if Russia wants to destroy, then we retaliate by killing the aggressor, no matter what the price of these actions is?
No, it's not that, it's not exactly. Russia is not going to take the whole world with them, and our ability to destroy the killer with a retaliatory blow is understandable. Putin talks about something else - what only Russians can understand. He says that our forgiveness is not unlimited. And our all-exclusion is not limitless. Yes, we are Christians, but we will not substitute the second cheek and do not respond with blow to blow.
Imagine that we still underwent an attack - and when the missiles are already flying to our cities, we understand that they will soon be destroyed. We did not succeed in preventing the blow, and we can only shoot down part of the missiles flying at us - and, therefore, the death of a large part of our people is inevitable. Not all will perish, but the old Russia will not be any more. Survivors will be able to establish a new life. But what it will be, no one knows, and whether our country will remain as a single whole, and our people as a separate civilization, is unknown to nobody.
And in this situation, before us - Russians in general or Putin in particular - there is a "simple" question: do we need to respond to the blow? That is, we have already "missed" it, missed it, no matter for what reason - it was allowed that there would be a situation in which we decided to inflict a massive nuclear missile strike. And our retribution will not prevent the death of our people. It can only revenge, killing in response not only those who ordered the aggression, but tens of millions of people in the country that attacked us. And also in other countries - those where this country's nuclear weapons are located, or whose cities are too close to the zone of destruction. Although scientists are trying to calculate the consequences of nuclear war, no one really knows if the "nuclear winter" will come, how many people will survive after it. And whether the atomic Armageddon will survive as a whole mankind.
And if so - maybe you should not retaliate, retaliation? Let us perish, but will mankind survive? What kind of delusional reasoning, to whom could they even come to mind?
To any Russian person, Putin including - in it that's the whole point. It is the Russian logic - to regret the murderer, to enter someone else's position, to put himself in the place of another. Yes, when they attack us, we fight back. And if we bring, then in general we have no barriers. But here is another bet. If the survival of mankind as such is at stake - to beat in response or not to beat? This is a question of the nation of Dostoevsky and Yesenin, Sergei Radonezhsky and Vasily Rozanov. This question will not be posed to any other nation (and even more so - its elite), but it can not be bypassed by the Russians.
And it is to this very question that Vladimir Putin himself answers. No, all the same to beat - because what for to us such world if there there will be no Russia? We will be killed, but will you stay? This is not national egoism. It is a love for fatherly coffins, for a native ashes, for a millennial, more than once, as it seemed not only to enemies, but to ourselves, dying, but then resurrecting Russia.
This Putin answer is to himself, to us, the answer to a question that only we can ask ourselves. And we respond to it with Russian straightforwardness. But in order to understand the meaning of our answer, you need to be Russian. Otherwise, do not hear this most unproved aloud question, to which the answer is given. "Maybe we will not answer? Can we save the world? "
No, we will, because there is not for me and all of us life in a world in which there is no Russia. Russia refuses to save the world at the cost of its life - that's what Vladimir Putin said.