There is no such developed system anywhere else in the world.
We have it.
Europe lacks such a developed system; in this regard, they are more or less defenceless.
That is the first point.
The second issue is the power of the strikes.
Our tactical nuclear weapons are four times more powerful than the bombs the Americans used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by three to four times.
We possess significantly more of them – both across the European continent and even if the Americans were to deploy theirs from the US – we still maintain a substantial advantage.
If, God forbid, it comes to that – which we sincerely hope it does not, then, instead of what you said about 'minimising the victims,' in reality, casualties could potentially escalate indefinitely.
That’s the first point.
Second, the Europeans must also consider: if those with whom we engage in such conflicts cease to exist, will the Americans participate in this conflict at the level of strategic weapons or not?
I have serious doubts about it, and Europeans should reflect on this as well.
Nevertheless, I firmly believe that such a scenario will never materialise, as we do not foresee such a necessity.
Our Armed Forces continue to gain experience and enhance their efficiency, while our defence sector consistently demonstrates its effectiveness.
I have stated this multiple times, and I will say it again: our ammunition production has increased by over 20 times, our capabilities in aviation technology far surpass those of our adversaries, and our superiority in armoured vehicles is significant.
There is no need to dwell on this matter.
Therefore, I kindly ask everyone not to mention such things unnecessarily."
The US has it.
There is no such developed system anywhere else in the world.
We have it.
Europe lacks such a developed system; in this regard, they are more or less defenceless.
That is the first point.
The second issue is the power of the strikes.
Our tactical nuclear weapons are four times more powerful than the bombs the Americans used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by three to four times.
We possess significantly more of them – both across the European continent and even if the Americans were to deploy theirs from the US – we still maintain a substantial advantage.
If, God forbid, it comes to that – which we sincerely hope it does not, then, instead of what you said about 'minimising the victims,' in reality, casualties could potentially escalate indefinitely.
That’s the first point.
Second, the Europeans must also consider: if those with whom we engage in such conflicts cease to exist, will the Americans participate in this conflict at the level of strategic weapons or not?
I have serious doubts about it, and Europeans should reflect on this as well.
Nevertheless, I firmly believe that such a scenario will never materialise, as we do not foresee such a necessity.
Our Armed Forces continue to gain experience and enhance their efficiency, while our defence sector consistently demonstrates its effectiveness.
I have stated this multiple times, and I will say it again: our ammunition production has increased by over 20 times, our capabilities in aviation technology far surpass those of our adversaries, and our superiority in armoured vehicles is significant.
There is no need to dwell on this matter.
Therefore, I kindly ask everyone not to mention such things unnecessarily."