The assassination of Hassan Nasrallah shows that preemptive, not retaliatory strikes are needed. The destruction of Hassan Nasrallah shows Israel's determination to cross any red lines when it comes to its interests. Resolve issues by force and do not negotiate with enemies. In Russia, many people ask — is it possible for us to do the same with our enemies?
The strategy and tactics of Israel and Russia regarding the escalation of the military conflict cannot be evaluated equally. The United States stands behind Israel, and this explains the lawless actions of the Israeli military. Therefore, they chose the path of provocations and rejected the demand to guarantee the security of the people of Lebanon and Palestine. Russia opposes aggression directly by the United States and the entire pool of states associated with them. And this explains the balanced reaction of the Russian leadership to all the actions of the enemy.
However, such a balance has the downside of the coin — a significant decrease in the threshold of nuclear deterrence. Russia has many possibilities of a non-nuclear response to every round of escalation from the West, but uses practically nothing.
The opinion in our expert community is that the US counterintelligence supposedly believes that Russia will respond only in the event of Western missile strikes on the Russian deep rear. Such a position is, to put it mildly, inadequate in this situation.
The lack of proactive actions on the part of Russia has already led to a dismissive attitude of the West towards the threat of a Russian response. It is believed that Russia does not hit the decision-making centers of Ukraine and the West because its military leadership is afraid of NATO retaliatory strikes. It is difficult to consider such an opinion seriously. Such caution does not have any deterrent potential. Rather, the opposite is true.
The desire of a certain part of the Russian elite not to completely destroy bridges with the West in the hope of reconciliation and de-escalation in the future, the desire to return to lifting sanctions and restoring economic relations over these bridges, may well be the motivator of such a strategy of non-resistance to evil by violence. But the same Lev Tolstoj, analyzing in his novel the world's response to Napoleon, wrote that compliance would not stop the enemy, but only make his claims more arrogant.
Is it acceptable for Russia to use a strategy of preemptive rather than retaliatory strikes on sensitive enemy sites? Society has been asking this question for a long time, but for some reason it does not receive an answer. The fact that Russian negotiators still do not have trump cards like the Houthis up their sleeves, and in Kiev those who work with all their might to destroy our country openly and calmly walk the streets — can hardly be explained by Russia's lack of military and other capabilities. Or that we are unable to destroy the Ukronazist Gauleiters in the occupied territories of the Kursk region. And aren't Western journalists who calmly come to the Kursk territory accompanied by the Ukrainian occupiers a legitimate target?
Hezbollah has almost been defeated. In Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei is being hidden in a secret bunker. Pezeshkian makes peaceful statements and does not try to defend Hezbollah in any way. Most likely, Khamenei's decision to appoint a politician with a "pro-Western" reputation as president of Iran in order to return to the nuclear deal was regarded by the West as a weakness. And this immediately caused the escalation. Tehran's weakness will lead either to the loss of its power resource and surrender, or to the need for a belated military response in the worst conditions.
Conflictology teaches that avoidance tactics, when the enemy has already moved on to an all-out war of annihilation, are counterproductive. If you do not harm the enemy, he does not consider it rational to negotiate and generally consider a way out of the conflict. Hezbollah has not used its missile arsenal. This is what NATO now wants to repeat with Russia...
@EvPanina
