0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
1,600 $

Why a U.S.-v.-Russia War Would Inevitably Be a Globe-Annihilating Nuclear War, Over Within An Hour or Two

Support SouthFront

Why a U.S.-v.-Russia War Would Inevitably Be a Globe-Annihilating Nuclear War, Over Within An Hour or Two

Illustrative Image

Written by Eric Zuesse

Even Russia acknowledges that any conventional war between the U.S. and Russia would destroy Russia but not destroy the U.S. Consequently, for Russia, any such war will not be waged. Only idiots would choose to engage in a war that they are certain to lose, and which would utterly destroy themselves. This means that if the U.S. strikes Russia by a conventional (i.e., non-nuclear) invasion, then Russia has only two options: (1) to respond with conventional weapons and assuredly be destroyed while achieving nothing; or, else (2) promptly release at least enough of its 6,255 nuclear warheads so as to maximally weaken the U.S.A.-and-allied retaliatory capability so as to be able then to go into a “Round Two” nuclear attack against the U.S.-and-allied side by having a much stronger military position than all of its many enemies (America and its allies) do.

That second option would leave BOTH SIDES, and (because of the then-inevitable nuclear winter) actually the entire planet, either doomed or else being close to being so. However, the U.S. and its many allies would be in far worse condition than Russia would be (because they’d have been greatly weakened by Russia’s nuclear first-strike); and then, MAYBE, Russians could survive that war by having lives that might be worth living.

The second option, for Russia, would be enormously less horrible than the first option; and here is why:

First of all: Russia would still retain its sovereign independence, not become a slave-nation (which the survivors in any U.S.-and-allied nation would then be: slaves, then, to Russia).

Secondly: Russia wouldn’t need to worry any longer whether the U.S.-and-allied side would be the first to go nuclear. Instead, the war would be over.

This is the reason why, ever since at least 2006, the U.S. has been planning and building its war against Russia for the U.S. side to be the first to go nuclear. (That plan is called “Nuclear Primacy,” and it replaces the previous system, which still continued on in Russia, and which was called “M.A.D” for “Mutually Assured Destruction.”)

Consequently: any idea that Russia would likely respond to a non-nuclear invasion of Russia without promptly going nuclear against the invading powers is stupid. Russia now knows how voracious America’s rulers (America’s billionaires) are. Ever since 24 February 1990, the U.S. had been secretly informing its allies that though the Soviet Union would soon end, and Soviet communism would soon end, and the Soviets’ Warsaw-Pact that they had built up in response to America’s NATO military alliance would also soon end, the U.S. side of the Cold War was to be secretly continued against Russia, until Russia itself becomes conquered and swallowed-up by the U.S. side, and the U.S. thereby becomes the unchallengeable dictator over the entire world.

Russia’s recent demand that all U.S.-and-allied weaponry that is less than a ten-minute flying-distance from Moscow be removed, and that NATO expansion be permanently halted, is a desperate attempt by Russia to avoid becoming yet-another slave-country to the U.S. regime. Russia doesn’t have good options. But, given the insatiably voracious appetite for expanding yet further America’s power that America’s rulers have, neither does any other country. And even Russia’s enormous nuclear force can’t protect Russians against so evil an enemy. But, perhaps, Russia’s nuclear force will be able to prevent Russians from becoming slaves to the U.S. regime. And that would be something worthy of achieving.

This entire matter was brought to a head because Barack Obama perpetrated in 2014 a coup-takeover of Ukraine, which has the longest European border with Russia. He had planned to seize Russia’s largest naval base, which was (and remained) on Crimea, but Russia was able to block that part of Obama’s plan. (Obama’s team had started by no later than 23 June 2011 to plan that coup.)

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Russia should first destroy ukraine. No need of takeover since ukraine owns nothing of value


It’s because there is no way to touch the U.S. without icbms. Unless Canada and/or Mexico allow forces to move through their countries. The U.S. is well protected by their geographical location.

Even if you could have a coventional war, in the end it wouldn’t matter because the people of the world have bought into the lies of freedom of democracy and equality. The U.S. has already won politically when everyone started wanting what they have. Now it’s just a fight for control. It’s too late to save this place.

That being said I say let the missiles fly.

Lone Ranger

You don’t need ICBMs.
Cruise missiles fired from subs or long range bombers like the Tu-160 would be very effective against any type of target.


Conventional war between NATO and Russia is basically impossible, perhaps some short exchange of fire involving jets (and ships), but it cannot be localized. No sides, especially Russia, can’t allow to lose strategic assets like nuclear submarines (primary targets of both sides). One sub can destroy Britain or Texas. If the war starts it must be stopped in 24hours or less, or go full scale nuclear. But I doubt NATO plan to attack Russia directly, at least not now. They’ll use ukro-cannon fodder to attack Donetsk, then they’ll accuse Russia of aggression, use this as a pretext for “unprecedented sanctions” as Nuland said a few days ago, then they’ll accept Ukraine into NATO and move their missiles even closer to Russia, including Baltics and Georgia.

Eventually the war is inevitable even if this current crisis is peacefully resolved. Cliques in Washington are obsessed with Russia, they plan to destroy it this way or another. Russian options are: surrender and be completely dismantled into zillion small and pathetic vassal states, or to fight to the end. If they fight – then strike first.

Last edited 21 days ago by gonzalo

I agree. If ever a first strike were justifiable it is now for Russia.

Paul Citro

Why do we humans so persistently march to our own extinction? Are we fundamentally flawed as a species?

Lone Ranger

The problem is that we are too passive.
The only thing evil needs to succeed is to good people do nothing.
Russia could have put an end to this a long time ago.
But they choose not to.
Now they will be forced to do it.


This is the least convincing article written by Zuesse I’ve read. The USA would lose any war against Russia and/or China. FYI, Eric, “Russia” doesn’t admit it would lose, some dimwit pundit on RT does. When the RAND Corporation (scarcely a bunch of pinkoes) games war between Russian and the USA, the latter loses every time. I thought Mr Zuesse was familiar with Andrei Martyanov’s work on how the Russians outmatch the USA in every important sphere of warfare except submarines.


And with Russia’s Poseidon drone, the US coasts would be tsunamied. Also Russia’s EW capability and now it’s S-550 anti satellite rocket would leave the US blinded.


spot on. I also noticed that particular article is full of shite but it’s not the only one: RT sometimes promotes subtle ANTI Russian propaganda and NATO narrative. They even have some “expert” from Turkey who constantly write the worst propaganda garbage against Belarus. Obviously infiltrated by CIA but no one in charge even notice; if Russians can’t even control RT then they really have a problem

Last edited 21 days ago by yep

After this piece of crap Zuesse is not worth reading anymore. Completely wrong and unconvincing.

Eric Zuesse

That’s not what I said. I didn’t say that Russia would lose aWW III in which the U.S. and its allies invade Russia. I said that a U.S.-and-allied invasion of Russia would promptly be responded to by a first-strike Russian nuclear attack against all first-strike targets in U.S.-and-allied countries so as to reduce or eliminate those enemies’ defenses and retaliatory capabilities against Russia’s second strike soon after that first strike; and, so, WW III would be over within less than two hours. In short: any U.S.-and-allied invasion of Russia would promptly bring WW III and decimation of all U.S.-and-allied countries. Shorter yet: the Rhodesists’ dream is unrealistic. This article is not about a Russian war beyond its own borders, but about the U.S.-and-allied war against Russia. That is doomed to fail. The Rhodesists ignore that. They believe their fantasies, which are based upon their own limitless power-cravings and lies. They delude themselves. The U.S.-and-allied regimes constantly delude themselves. How much simpler can I put it? You missed this article’s main point entirely.


Who is Alexander Gryazev ? Is he an Aristostle of military analysis whose prediction of a future conflict between the RF and USA/West is a paradigm ? I read the article thrice and do not think that Julian was mistaken or missing the point. The whole perspective of future scenarios of a full-scale war between the two is based upon conviction of military superiority of the West over Russia. What about China? Go to Russian sources, if you can read and understand Russian. This week, a Russian general stated that USA and their vassals would be crushed within a few hours without knowing what hit them. And I believe him. I had served in an army of the Warsaw Pact Treaty and known the Russians from joint drills quite closely, their stubborn mentality and dogged capacity for fighting. You and your countrymen would not like to meet them on the battlefield.



For a hypothetical scenario, see the link above. It is in Slovak, so you may want use the google translator.

Eric Zuesse

Even the author of that article referred to the scenario that he was describing as “fictional.”


Jules Verne wrote fictions too.

Eric Zuesse

My point was that the scenarios that are discussed in my article here are NOT fictional: they present a very real decision-tree of the possible outcomes if America invades Russia. Such an invasion is a very real possibility. For example, if Ukraine invades Donbass, and then Russia intervenes to protect the Donbassers, and then Ukraine invades Russia, and then Russia invades Ukraine, then U.S. and some of its NATO allies might invade Russia. How should Russia then respond — to that invasion of Russia?


Quite possible scenario. Although I believe, I’m certain actually, there will be no war, at least not now. Instead they will make a “diplomatic solution” (=rotten compromise), DNR will be disarmed and peacefully integrated into Ukraine (continuation of silent genocide against Russians in Ukraine), Ukraine will be accepted into NATO and NATO/US will move their forces eastward (they are already there, unofficially).

The main objective of Washington cliques is not to attack Russia directly because it’s too risky; sure, they would like to see some relatively small, localized war to humiliate Russia, modern Crimean war 2.0, but that’s not possible. So their main goal is to isolate Russia diplomatically, then economically, to ruin living standard of Russian citizens and finally to stage an ultimate coloured revolution – Moscow-Maidan, using 5th column (Navalny&co) and increasingly stupid youth. Russian presidential elections are also soon. Only if this fail, they will attack directly. Or in case of some major incident, in Syria for example, or the Black Sea, or Baltic… then the conflict will escalate. In any case, Russia face major challenges and perhaps has no other option but to consider first strike scenario, as I said in 2-3 years when their modern systems will be more available.

Stephen Obi Emekekwue

I Disagree, Because The RFR, Cannot afford to lose it’s Sovereignty and last Buffer’s @Ukraine, Baltics State’s.If You Understand Fmr KGB Col Putin@All and His Regime Elite And Pro UR Party Russian’s They Would Prefer”TOTAL-WAR-NUKE BONE HEAD TO SURRENDER!”.If The U.S. /NATO Don’t Back Off, There’ll Be No Warning,RFR And CCP-PRC, It’s Ally Will Simultaneously Strike On The US Homeland.And Across All The SWPA,For CCP-PRC, While RFR Will Annhilate West Ukraine And U.K. It Will Go For Broke!!!. There Will Be Massive Destruction With Objective Clear American Forces Outside U.S.Territory in their Seperate Theatre’s Of Action And Wipe The US Off the Face of The Earth.Take The Chance That They Will Have More Survivors To Rebuild later.


Putin expressed himself very clearly: no war on Russian soil anymore. If he does not mean it due to his proven cunctatorial style of politics, the trigger-happy Russian military will do the job. Thus, any further scholastic speculations on a limited conventional war in Europe in which Yankees would stay out and watch their allies to spill their blood for America´s cause, is meaningless. Once Russians detect an attack from the NATO + platforms, the global conflict is on.
The link I had posted above is no less realistic than your article based on scarce and selective references that hardly augment your central argument.

Raptar Driver

So now both sides are contemplating 1st strike?
Or is this just the author’s opinion?


Ah. But they don’t know about the double secret first strike.

Eric Zuesse

America’s leaders choose the “Nuclear Primacy” meta-strategy. This means that Russia is FORCED to respond to any conventional-war invasion by America against Russia by immediately going nuclear.

Njoku ifechi

A little disclaimer, Russia can confidently defeat American in conventional war thanks to her super weapons like kinzhals, zircon,buresvestnik and so on.


Unfortunately, I doubt it. Russia is not USSR, it has no industry or population for a prolonged world war not just with the US but with all it’s vassals and puppets. Europe (including ‘neutral’ countries like Finland and Sweden), Turkey, Japan, Australia, almost half of the world… while most of these vassals are incompetent and/or cowardly, they are just too many of them. Russia can’t fight them alone. But Russia and China? That’s something different. And I’m sure China won’t just stand and watch, if Russia falls – China is next.

Marcelo Rodriguez

Un ataque nuclear Premeditado y primero de Rusia, le daría cierta ventaja sobre sus oponentes, pero creo que esto no sería necesario si Rusia logra disuadir cualquier aventura bélica de EE.UU y sus aliados en Ucrania para eso simplemente debe colocar su infraestructura militar cerca de las fronteras de EE.UU colocando misiles hipersonicos con cabeza nuclear, misiles de crucero tipo Kalibr con cabeza nuclear y colocando también sus sistemas antimisiles en los países aliados de Moscú (Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela).Esto le daría una ventaja tactica y estratégica que dejaría a EE.UU y sus aliados con muy pocas opciones de respuesta y por lo tanto asumiendo que solo el diálogo es posible para poder resolver esta situación de escalada que crearon la OTAN y EE.UU en la frontera de Ucrania y Rusia, siempre respetando los derechos legítimos y soberanos de Moscú en cuanto a su seguridad Nacional.


us and russia should destroy each other for destroying the world.


Eric Zuesse

U.S. is the aggressor. Russia is in very real danger from NATO’s placing forces near Russia’s border. The is the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse. Russia, like any country, has a right to destroy any nation that invades it or increasingly threatens to do so (as America/NATO is doing). Russia has a right to demand it be stopped — and all of NATO’s expansion after 1990 to be cancelled.

Veritas Vincit

p2. A coordinated strike involving the strategic forces of Russia and China would be required to effectively minimise the number of US-NATO-allied bloc missiles that would need to intercepted by ABM systems of Russia and China. The broad targeting of US-NATO-allied military architecture (including in Australia that is increasingly hosting US military forces and nuclear-capable aviation, with reports verifying moves to acquire allied nuclear device delivery potential [US Virginia-class or UK Astute-class submarines, already having procured Mk-41 VLS being compatible with Mk-14 Mod 2 cruise missile launch canisters], Australia also being integrated into US operational plans including nuclear warfare exercises [such as Global Thunder]) would logically be required.

The prevention of war (and in particular nuclear war) remains a priority however if these situations potentially (arguably in time probably) occur, those who have prepared will be better placed than those unprepared.

Note: Despite various theories (worst case or best case scenarios)[1], a post-nuclear warfare environment will only be determined after such an event.

1. “Even a full-scale thermonuclear exchange between Russia and the US is patently survivable. The theory of “nuclear winters”, at least in its wilder variants (drops of many tens of degrees), has been long discredited. The eruption of Mount Tambora in 1815 was approximately equal in megatonnage to that of all the world’s current nuclear arsenals, and yet it merely led to a single “year without a summer” that did not even produce any major famines in a pre-industrial world. Fallout radiation levels decay rapidly, and it will be safe to emerge from shelters almost everywhere after just two weeks. Most rural areas and many small towns would be almost unaffected, at least directly…… There will be a modest global cooling, and a collapse of the global economy. Many Third World countries may indeed slip into famine due to the breakdown of global trade.” (Let’s War-Game What a Real Russia / China / US Escalation Might Look Like, Anatoly Karlin, Russia Insider, 17/04/2018)

Veritas Vincit

It is well recognised by many analysts the US-NATO build-up of military architecture relates to preparations for ‘large-scale military conflicts’ (against Russia and China). The potential for such conflicts to escalate to a nuclear war event is self-evident (minimal times from detection to response, requiring worst-case assumptions [missile warfare being a key component of military conflict]). If such direct kinetic stages of conflict (the hybrid warfare domain being active) were to occur, these situations would conform to world war scenarios. A world war in a nuclear era has a logical outcome. In this context it would be advisable for Russia and China to similarly seek the attainment of nuclear primacy (a key objective of the US-NATO bloc [efforts to overcome mutually assured destruction through fast first-strike potential with multi-layered multi-phase retaliatory missile interception capabilities]).

L du Plessis

Russia must VAPORISE the Ukrainian frontline.


Zuesse knows nothing about military capabilities of modern Russia. For example her advanced hypersonic weaponry and air defenses can neutralise US naval power projection, complemented also by world-leading EW technology. The US & NATO cannot successfully mobilise sufficient force to defeat Russia in eastern Europe using conventional weapons. Ignorant analysts like Zuesse may believe otherwise but US military decision makers know that Russia holds military dominance in eastern Europe.

Eric Zuesse

I didn’t present myself as being an expert on the “military capabilities of modern Russia” nor on those of its enemies. I started this article by referring to RT’s article on those comparisons — and RT cited there two experts, one being Stefanovich, and the other being Khodarenok. Both agreed that America would win a conventional war against Russia. My article says that if those men are correct, then any invasion of Russia by America would either win or else promptly be responded to by a Russian nuclear first-strike against America and the other invading nations. Why do so many readers here insist upon misunderstanding what this article is about? The article is clearly written. Understanding what it says — and the evidence for it (from the expert testimony of those two Russians) doesn’t require exceptionally high IQ. But, apparently, many readers here are way off-base on their understanding of what the article says and of what evidence it cites. Instead of responding to the article, they condemn its author. Why?


Zuesse still believes in viruses and pandemics. Nuff said


All the saber rattling is unmanly. No one wins a world war, conventional or nuclear.

Let the negotiations proceed. They are obviously making progress.

For these negotiations to be a success Putin must have a win. He will have a win.

But so will Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Romania.

There will be a more stable and secure arrangement emerge, and the passage of time will mellow the potential billgerents as the passage of time mellows red wine.

All you fellows raging for war will live longer, more comfortable lives as a result. So please tone down the chorus of chaos. Peace is better than war. Neither side is enslaved. Let the abundance increase.

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x