NATO Exercises and Russian Military Response

Well, along these lines, or as you put it, down these tracks, we've now arrived at a rather interesting junction where NATO exercises are taking place in the Baltic Sea. Highly decisive statements are being made, threats are directed at Kaliningrad, and the Russian side is promising to use all means at

its disposal, up to and including nuclear weapons, in the event of an attempted blockade of Kaliningrad. Is this already a genuine escalation where we stand on the brink of war? Or are we still just playing a game of mutual intimidation? We aren't trying to intimidate anyone, and what you just mentioned, the

foreign ministry statement and the letters the ministry sent to several countries, is not intimidation. It is a response to an attempt to intimidate us. After all, these statements by Western politicians,

European politicians, about the necessity, the possibility, and the preparations for a war with Russia in twenty twenty-nine or twenty thirty, those aren't our formulations. That's what we hear coming from their side,

and continuously so. Continuously. And then come the concrete actions. NATO exercises in the Baltic Sea one after another, followed by attempts to detain our ships and vessels.

All of this constitutes escalation, just as I noted in my address. It is all escalation. Then we began hearing statements regarding the Kaliningrad region. What was laid out in the foreign ministry statement and in those letters that were sent out is entirely accurate.

If it comes down to a direct attack on the Russian Federation, in this case referring to Kaliningrad, though it could well involve other territories as well, then naturally the question of the Russian Federation employing all weapons

systems at our country's disposal will inevitably and immediately be placed on the agenda. This is unavoidable, and this has nothing to do with the specific surname of the supreme commander-in-chief or the president of Russia.

It comes down to the fact that, as I understand it, the NATO Secretary General spoke about Europe having three hundred million people, and so forth. Yes, that is precisely why it will be inevitable for us to raise the question

of deploying all the forces and means at our disposal. Why? First of all, we recognize that we would be facing an adversary whose numbers are twice our size. That represents significant economic potential and significant military

potential. And yes, our conventional forces and resources would not be sufficient on their own to counter such a threat. Therefore, we would have to leverage our competitive advantages in this

conflict. And what are those? The reality is that within our self-defense arsenal, we possess distinct competitive advantages. Yes, of course, France and the United Kingdom are nuclear powers.

We understand this perfectly well and are fully conscious of it. However, the strike capabilities that Russia possesses today are matched by no one else. These constitute our competitive advantages. How else are we to resist an aggressor? We are not threatening anyone.

We are simply stating that our tools for self-defense are not unlimited. And incidentally, neither the letter nor the foreign ministry statement explicitly mentions the use of nuclear weapons.

They state, as I have just framed it, the deployment of all forces and means at our country's disposal. How that actually unfolds is a decision we will make when the time comes.