France sends combat troops to Ukraine

[LeroyDumonde]

Not really - since around 44% of the LEF are non-Europeans.

However the largest individual contingents are from Russia and Ukraine - so now they can indeed kill each other.

In 2018, the Foreign Legion comprises over 140 nationalities. An important number of legionnaires were born in Central and Eastern Europe, or in the Balkans (40% together). That means Russians, Ukrainians, Poles or Romanians in the majority. Asians follow with some 16% (a significant number of them come from China), then South Americans with 14% (mainly Brazilians). The recruits from Western world make up to 12%, just as those from Arab countries. The rest comes from Africa (exluding its Arab nations). Around 8% of all legionnaires are Francophones, to ensure the functioning of the institution. In particular, as intermediaries between officers and enlisted volunteers during the initial instruction.

That's a funny way of saying that 56% are Europeans.

 

[Kruska]

That's a funny way of saying that 56% are Europeans.

No not really, it's simply saying that without 44% others, there wouldn't be an operable LEF.

 

[Zavulon]

If so - Putin aka the Russian government could nuke those French troops (thus including loads of Ukrainian troops) in Ukraine - why would he/they need to attack France with nukes???

Furthermore France isn't doing this in the interest of Ukraine - but simply having a daft government, that hopes onto replacing Germany's lead-role in the EU, with such a plain ludicrous decision - that only dumb warmongers find "great".

First of all, the Armies do not fight wars. The States do. So, if they come with their flags waiving, it means that the situation escalated from " 3rd battalion of Foreign Legion vs 123 Armored Brigade" (which could be a merely little problem for a local General) to the level "France invaded Russian land" (which is, definitely, the question of the national safety).
No one is sending his troops just to be killed without any practical results. So, if they send some insignificant forces, we can't exclude, that those forces are just a tripwire - French excuse for the coordinated nuclear attack against Moscow.

Napoleon burn down Moscow (as well as many other villages and towns), and then he was defeated in the war. Macron has his chances to burn Moscow and then, definitely, be defeated in the war. Moscow is an important city, but it is definitely an "acceptable loss".
So, in the case of the French invasion, the Russians face two grave but non-equal choices:
1) Attack French nuclear forces first (and suggest unconditional surrender before counter-values attack has begun) and then take the risk of the retaliation strike from one survived nuclear submarine (which means that Moscow, protected by ABD won't be destroyed)
2) Attack French regular forces, wait for the first coordinated French nuclear attack against Moscow (which means significant but acceptable human losses) and then, by Russian retaliation strike totally annihilate France.

As for me, the first option is much more safe for the Russians and much more humane for French civilians.
Of course, those choices are working only if the USA is neutral both de jury and de facto.

 

[Zebra]

do they really?

 

[Deadstick]

Many will be suprised by this...perhaps even shocked?

Irregardless.....it is good France has committed itself to opposing Putin....perhaps other european leaders will be emboldened by this when they see Russia not attacking France with nukes....putins nuclear bluster is being seen for what it is....desperate talk from a walking dead man...i give putin another year.

France sends troops to Ukraine: Russian report - Asia Times

Editors' Note, May 6, 2024: A link originally indicating a source for this report has gone dead. A new link to the same source, a Sputnik page, is given

asiatimes.com

which nations have special forces in ukraine - Google Search

Russia doesn't need to attack France with Nukes, they can burn Paris down with missiles, if those Legionaires are actually in Ukraine that is where they will be buried like they were at Dien Bien Phu.

 

[Deadstick]

If true, it’s disgraceful.

many wars going on in the world in the past 20 years, and the politicians act like Russia is uniquely evil. SMH

They have taken leave of their senses, NATO can see they are being defeated in Ukraine so i wouldn't put anything past them, we had that unelected moron Cameron saying UK can provide long range Missiles to the Kiev Regime to hit Russia, that moron just put the UK in the crosshairs, Russia has already warned them, i am surprised how much patience Russia has shown with those criminals, problem is they see that patience as weakness and that could prove to be a huge miscalculation.

 

[Ringo]

 

[Ringo]

 

[Deadstick]

Great vid, the guy speaks with sadness about the situation, those Ukrainians keep making the same mistake.

 

[Kruska]

First of all, the Armies do not fight wars. The States do.

You forward a very confused understanding and strange mindset in regards to the Ukraine-Russian war.

States NEVER fight wars or in wars - they are the political organization of a society, represented by the institutions of government. Those are either a parliament with a democratic system or a dictatorship. As such the "leaders"/representatives of the State declare war or order their ARMIES to go to war and thus fight. aka the NATIONS are at war with each other and the "fighting" is done by the respective armies.

So, if they come with their flags waiving, it means that the situation escalated from " 3rd battalion of Foreign Legion vs 123 Armored Brigade" (which could be a merely little problem for a local General) to the level "France invaded Russian land" (which is, definitely, the question of the national safety).
No one is sending his troops just to be killed without any practical results. So, if they send some insignificant forces, we can't exclude, that those forces are just a tripwire - French excuse for the coordinated nuclear attack against Moscow.

A possible deployment of the LEF into Ukraine - has nothing to do with attacking Russian territory, but aiding Ukraine to defend sovereign Ukrainian territory - the very same sovereign territory and country that the Russian Federation under Jelzin had acknowledged in 1990/1.
France is simply making use of the Ukraine-Russian war to maneuver themselves into a lead role amongst the EU nations.

It was solely Putin who so far has been constantly wavering around with his nukes - NOT the West. And absolutely no Western or NATO country has threatened nor mentioned the use of it's nuclear weapons against Russia.

Russia can only win this war conventionally, if NATO reduces it's financial and military equipment commitment towards the Ukraine.
IMO - even if Trump (will most likely win the election) should (basically he just talks and lies to his own voters) should reduce the USA's commitment towards Ukraine (US global hegemony policy won't allow for that) - the European NATO is way more capable then what Russia has to offer.

France has made it's intentions clear, to form a more independent European military alliance - and simply bets onto other European NATO members sending troops as well, IF France should send military contingents.

Also IMO - what France proposes now, NATO should have done by October 2021 or latest in February/March 2022, and this present Ukraine-Russia war/issue would either never have happened, or would have been over by June/July 2022.

As to NATO having provoked - or even forced Russia into attacking Ukraine is another debate.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Putin doesn't need to directly attack France. He just needs to smuggle weapons into France and sell them to the anti-West Muslims that Macron and his predecessors let in.

 

[Kruska]

Putin doesn't need to directly attack France. He just needs to smuggle weapons into France and sell them to the anti-West Muslims that Macron and his predecessors let in.

Any other moronic suggestions or fantasies you want to forward?
Yeah sure - these Muslim radicals off course would never use those nukes/nuke devices against Russia or e.g. Israel - right?

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Any other moronic suggestions or fantasies you want to forward?
Yeah sure - these Muslim radicals off course would never use those nukes/nuke devices against Russia or e.g. Israel - right?

I'm not talking about nukes. Obviously.

 

[Kruska]

I'm not talking about nukes. Obviously.

Obviously anything else can be bought or obtained IN France or in any other country - No one needs Russia for that.
Israel aka Mossad would, gladly supply them with their Soviet/Russian bounty stocks.

 

[Deadstick]

You forward a very confused understanding and strange mindset in regards to the Ukraine-Russian war.

States NEVER fight wars or in wars - they are the political organization of a society, represented by the institutions of government. Those are either a parliament with a democratic system or a dictatorship. As such the "leaders"/representatives of the State declare war or order their ARMIES to go to war and thus fight. aka the NATIONS are at war with each other and the "fighting" is done by the respective armies.

A possible deployment of the LEF into Ukraine - has nothing to do with attacking Russian territory, but aiding Ukraine to defend sovereign Ukrainian territory - the very same sovereign territory and country that the Russian Federation under Jelzin had acknowledged in 1990/1.
France is simply making use of the Ukraine-Russian war to maneuver themselves into a lead role amongst the EU nations.

It was solely Putin who so far has been constantly wavering around with his nukes - NOT the West. And absolutely no Western or NATO country has threatened nor mentioned the use of it's nuclear weapons against Russia.

Russia can only win this war conventionally, if NATO reduces it's financial and military equipment commitment towards the Ukraine.
IMO - even if Trump (will most likely win the election) should (basically he just talks and lies to his own voters) should reduce the USA's commitment towards Ukraine (US global hegemony policy won't allow for that) - the European NATO is way more capable then what Russia has to offer.

France has made it's intentions clear, to form a more independent European military alliance - and simply bets onto other European NATO members sending troops as well, IF France should send military contingents.

Also IMO - what France proposes now, NATO should have done by October 2021 or latest in February/March 2022, and this present Ukraine-Russia war/issue would either never have happened, or would have been over by June/July 2022.

As to NATO having provoked - or even forced Russia into attacking Ukraine is another debate.

You know full well the years of background to the war in Ukraine, but you wash it from your mind, NATO/the Empire has used the Ukrainian Regime as a proxy to attack Russia along with all the other hybrid attacks, it aint complicated.

 

[Ringo]

the very same sovereign territory and country that the Russian Federation under Jelzin had acknowledged in 1990/1.

Yeltsin is long dead. So did Stalin.
But for some reason you're talking about Yeltsin's borders. Why don't you talk about Stalin's borders?

And some people are so fond of the 1862 U.S. borders...

 

[Zavulon]

You forward a very confused understanding and strange mindset in regards to the Ukraine-Russian war.

Just a question of translation, may be.

States NEVER fight wars or in wars - they are the political organization of a society, represented by the institutions of government. Those are either a parliament with a democratic system or a dictatorship. As such the "leaders"/representatives of the State declare war or order their ARMIES to go to war and thus fight. aka the NATIONS are at war with each other and the "fighting" is done by the respective armies.

Army is just teeth of a dragon. But the dragon needs scales, legs, wings, body, and, most important - a brain. And state is the brain of the dragon. If a politician just say to his Generals - "Go and fight", he is going to loose the war. A war, even a local one, demands deep involvement of the whole state and nation.

A possible deployment of the LEF into Ukraine - has nothing to do with attacking Russian territory, but aiding Ukraine to defend sovereign Ukrainian territory - the very same sovereign territory and country that the Russian Federation under Jelzin had acknowledged in 1990/1.

It depends from the point of view. For example, sending Warner group to Corsica island, or GRU saboteurs to Ile-Longe base, or even nuking Paris, also can be considered as a support of Corsicans in defending of their sovereign territory.

France is simply making use of the Ukraine-Russian war to maneuver themselves into a lead role amongst the EU nations.

No. France is simply committing collective suicide.

It was solely Putin who so far has been constantly wavering around with his nukes - NOT the West. And absolutely no Western or NATO country has threatened nor mentioned the use of it's nuclear weapons against Russia.

Doesn't matter what they do mention or what they do not. The "unlimited war" between two nuclear states is definitely a nuclear war. And if France is really determined to commit a murder-suicide, the only thing we can do is to minimize our own losses. And the only way to do it - is a preemptive nuclear attack.

Russia can only win this war conventionally, if NATO reduces it's financial and military equipment commitment towards the Ukraine.
IMO - even if Trump (will most likely win the election) should (basically he just talks and lies to his own voters) should reduce the USA's commitment towards Ukraine (US global hegemony policy won't allow for that) - the European NATO is way more capable then what Russia has to offer.

There is no any use in conventional wars, actually, there is no such term in Russian military doctrine. Small wars are including significant part of unconventional actions. Large wars are including usage of nuclear weapons (and other WMDs).

France has made it's intentions clear, to form a more independent European military alliance - and simply bets onto other European NATO members sending troops as well, IF France should send military contingents.

If there are more than two countries of one region fighting the war, it becomes, according the definition, a regional war. And a regional war is fought, according the very definition, by both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. Russia won't allow France prepare to use their own nuclear weapons.

Also IMO - what France proposes now, NATO should have done by October 2021 or latest in February/March 2022, and this present Ukraine-Russia war/issue would either never have happened, or would have been over by June/July 2022.

If they prepared to do it in 2021 - we would attack in 2020 to preempt exactly this situation.

As to NATO having provoked - or even forced Russia into attacking Ukraine is another debate.

It's the same debate. Russia has her own goals. One of those goals is to prevent Ukraine joining NATO. If achieving this goal means nuclear war with France (or even with the USA) - Ok, let it be.

 

[Kruska]

You know full well the years of background to the war in Ukraine, but you wash it from your mind, NATO/the Empire has used the Ukrainian Regime as a proxy to attack Russia along with all the other hybrid attacks, it aint complicated.

Therefore I had stated in my previous post:

As to NATO having provoked - or even forced Russia into attacking Ukraine is another debate. aka another Topic
Since this topic is about a "possible" involvement of the LEF in Ukraine, and not as the creator of this thread - tries to paint the false picture of the LEF - already being in Ukraine.

And for your information - Ukraine NEVER attacked Russia or Russian territory before 2022 (upon Russia's full scale attack) - but Ukraine's government was instrumental in suppressing and killing Ukrainian-Russians (aka their own countrymen) in UKRAINE, who then intensified their pursue of separatism - heavily instigated and later fully supported (militarily) by Russia. And this is when the UN failed to do their job.

NATO's relentless Eastward expansion is logically detrimental to Russia's security and its hegemonic economic interests. So are the USA's actions and that of their willing serfs in the SCS - however China (thank God) has not resorted to war, but is still adhering to diplomacy - unlike Putin who saw no other means for himself, to prevent NATO from getting their feet and hands permanently onto Ukraine.

Therefore if the USA would station US troops or US military assets on Taiwan - China "might" act in the same manner as Putin, since IMO China will not launch a full-scale attack onto Taiwan as an immediate reaction (they are not interested in killing their own countrymen and devastating Taiwan's infrastructure) - but IMO, China will seek an alternative target or targets.

Okay so now we are totally off topic.

 

[Kruska]

Just a question of translation, may be.

Maybe - but not really

Army is just teeth of a dragon. But the dragon needs scales, legs, wings, body, and, most important - a brain. And state is the brain of the dragon. If a politician just say to his Generals - "Go and fight", he is going to loose the war. A war, even a local one, demands deep involvement of the whole state and nation.

Doesn't change the fact - that the state doesn't do any fighting - it's solely it's Armed forces.

It depends from the point of view. For example, sending Warner group to Corsica island, or GRU saboteurs to Ile-Longe base, or even nuking Paris, also can be considered as a support of Corsicans in defending of their sovereign territory.

If Wagner Group is directed by the Russian government - then it is a Russian military interference onto another countries sovereign territory. A possible LEF deployment into Ukraine - does NOT interfere with Russian sovereign territory, as long as they remain in Ukraine's sovereign territory - the territory that ONLY Russia disputes - despite it's acknowledgement in 1990/1.

No. France is simply committing collective suicide.

Only to those who believe into Putin's or NATO's hype about a nuclear war.

Doesn't matter what they do mention or what they do not. The "unlimited war" between two nuclear states is definitely a nuclear war. And if France is really determined to commit a murder-suicide, the only thing we can do is to minimize our own losses. And the only way to do it - is a preemptive nuclear attack.

This topic is about a "possible" deployment of the LEF to Ukraine - and not some hypothetical nuke war debate about France contra Russia.

There is no any use in conventional wars, actually, there is no such term in Russian military doctrine. Small wars are including significant part of unconventional actions. Large wars are including usage of nuclear weapons (and other WMDs).

Operation Desert-storm was a HUGE conventional war - involving far higher numbers of conventional forces with a far higher destructive power then this ridiculous Ukraine-Russian war. And Nukes were never debated about. Only the Greens and their lefty/Lib comradery ran around on the streets purchasing drinking water supplies, and hyping/fantasizing about nuclear destruction.

If there are more than two countries of one region fighting the war, it becomes, according the definition, a regional war. And a regional war is fought, according the very definition, by both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. Russia won't allow France prepare to use their own nuclear weapons.

Who says that France is preparing for a nuclear war ??? and no, Desert Storm did NOT involve nuclear weapons.

If they prepared to do it in 2021 - we would attack in 2020 to preempt exactly this situation.

Russia got nothing to attack with - how blind are you?? (they lost almost everything of their mediocre equipment in 2022). Since latest the 80'ies the Russian Armed Forces have been an ill lead, badly trained and equipped, and a totally corrupt and ineffective fighting force. Why do you think Putin started to threaten and wave around with his nukes???

Russia aka Putin is simply willing (no other choice according to himself) but to sacrifice troop numbers - hoping to outweigh Ukrainian troop losses in the long run. And this Putin concept is doomed to fail - if NATO members decide to send in their own superior troops with their own "far superior" equipment.

Therefore it is going to be a "conventional escalation" of the war. Putin knows this and he also knows that he can't match such a conventional escalation, and therefore he waves around with his nukes - and those NATO members (respectively their population) who are in disagreement in regards to supporting Ukraine) - use the Western Media to create a nuke hype - much to the amusement and liking of Putin.

It's the same debate. Russia has her own goals. One of those goals is to prevent Ukraine joining NATO. If achieving this goal means nuclear war with France (or even with the USA) - Ok, let it be.

Russia took it's chance on Feb/March 2022 - and failed miserably - thanks to PUTIN and his useless Russian Armed Forces.

A nuke war doesn't serve anyone - even Putin and nutty Kim knows this. It only destroys everything and even a destroyed Ukraine or e.g. France - doesn't implement at all - that Russia would then be able to take a nuclear wasted Ukraine. So a nuke war for and about what ???

Russia can only continue to sacrifice it's people and money via a conventional war, and rest it's hope for the West to give up it's hegemonic and economic interests towards Ukraine - that "might" be out-weight by the financial burden that Ukraine poses. Since this can take many more years (alone Germany's planed defense budget for 2024 already exceeds that of Russia) - Putin most likely will not be in power or around anymore - thus NATO finding a far more "agreeable" Russian government that is even willing to join the crusade against China.

Therefore IMO - it is and will be China that decides the outcome of the Ukraine-Russian war - since this is a Global-Issue, pertaining solely towards NATO (aka USA) against China - Russia just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, and Putin wanting to safeguard Russian interests towards his "partner" China, via highlighting (non-existent) Russian power towards NATO, and thus choosing Ukraine to demonstrate this.

In other words, since no one wants a nuclear war - China is the only country that could easily tip the NATO-Russian conventional forces balance, in favor of Russia - thus allowing for Russia to win a conventional fought war, about Ukraine.

 

[Zavulon]

Maybe - but not really

Doesn't change the fact - that the state doesn't do any fighting - it's solely it's Armed forces.

The Armed forces hardly can do a thing without supplies from its state. The war is the business of the whole state, not just Army.

If Wagner Group is directed by the Russian government - then it is a Russian military interference onto another countries sovereign territory. A possible LEF deployment into Ukraine - does NOT interfere with Russian sovereign territory, as long as they remain in Ukraine's sovereign territory - the territory that ONLY Russia disputes - despite it's acknowledgement in 1990/1.

De facto, Kievan Junta is a private military company, directed by NATO countries, fighting against Russian people on sovereign Russian territory (because Crimea and Novorussia are parts of the sovereign Russian territory). Therefore, de jure there is no difference between hiring Zelenskiy to fight against "Russian occupation of Novorussia", and between hiring Surovikin to fight against " French occupants of Corsica".

And no, Novorussia is not Ukraine anymore.

Only to those who believe into Putin's or NATO's hype about a nuclear war.

Do you know how do they call folks who doesn't take seriously possibility of a nuclear war? - Suiciders.

This topic is about a "possible" deployment of the LEF to Ukraine - and not some hypothetical nuke war debate about France contra Russia.

Direct war between France and Russia will be a nuclear war. It's quite simple. There is no way to prevent escalation in that case. At least I don't see it.

Operation Desert-storm was a HUGE conventional war - involving far higher numbers of conventional forces with a far higher destructive power then this ridiculous Ukraine-Russian war. And Nukes were never debated about. Only the Greens and their lefty/Lib comradery ran around on the streets purchasing drinking water supplies, and hyping/fantasizing about nuclear destruction.

First of all, operation Desert-storm wasn't a war. It was an operation. (As well as so called Russian-Ukrainian war is, for both sides, de jury - merely operation).
Second - there was agreement of all nuclear powers (including the USSR) about necessity of liberation of Kuwait.
Third - it was quite limited operation with pretty tiny goals (Kuwait is roughly twice lesser than Donetsk region of former Ukraine).
Forth - during the operation of 2003, the possible usage of nukes was discussed.

U.S. Weighs Tactical Nuclear Strike on Iraq

For what one defense analyst says is a worst-case scenario, planners are studying the use of atomic bombs on deeply buried targets.

www.latimes.com

Who says that France is preparing for a nuclear war ??? and no, Desert Storm did NOT involve nuclear weapons.

And who say they do not preparing for a nuclear war? How we can be sure? If they believe that they can defeat Russia without nukes - they are even more stupid and suicidal that I thought. (And I don't believe in crazy dictators sending their armies of brainwashed goons in suicidal missions just for lulz.) And in this case it's much safer to eliminate their nukes, either.

Russia is not Iraq. Novorussia is not Kuwait.

Russia got nothing to attack with - how blind are you?? (they lost almost everything of their mediocre equipment in 2022). Since latest the 80'ies the Russian Armed Forces have been an ill lead, badly trained and equipped, and a totally corrupt and ineffective fighting force. Why do you think Putin started to threaten and wave around with his nukes???

Really... What a frightening horror story you are telling us, dear friend.

Russia aka Putin is simply willing (no other choice according to himself) but to sacrifice troop numbers - hoping to outweigh Ukrainian troop losses in the long run. And this Putin concept is doomed to fail - if NATO members decide to send in their own superior troops with their own "far superior" equipment.

That's why we are not going to fight against the whole NATO alliance "conventionally". Regional (or large-scale) war is a nuclear war by definition.

Therefore it is going to be a "conventional escalation" of the war. Putin knows this and he also knows that he can't match such a conventional escalation, and therefore he waves around with his nukes - and those NATO members (respectively their population) who are in disagreement in regards to supporting Ukraine) - use the Western Media to create a nuke hype - much to the amusement and liking of Putin.

Do you really want to put all your bets (including one billion of NATO+ population) on zero? If yes, if you really are that suicidal - all what we can do, is to minimize civilian losses (both our and yours) by preemptive counter-force nuclear strike. I do love America and American culture and I think it would be a lesser evil for both us and them.

Russia took it's chance on Feb/March 2022 - and failed miserably - thanks to PUTIN and his useless Russian Armed Forces.

A nuke war doesn't serve anyone - even Putin and nutty Kim knows this. It only destroys everything and even a destroyed Ukraine or e.g. France - doesn't implement at all - that Russia would then be able to take a nuclear wasted Ukraine. So a nuke war for and about what ???

Limited nuclear war is about prevention of all-out nuclear war. We eliminate Ilê-Longe base, and France won't be able to destroy Moscow anymore. Then we suggest France very generous peace trearty - they leave Ukraine and Corsica, they do not retaliate from their last submarine and we don't bomb their cities. Few nuclear bursts over military bases in the civilized France won't mean a thing. May be even no civilian casualties. They can evacuate their people from fallout regions and after few days the radiation will be gone.
If they do retaliate and attack our cities (say, Smolensk) - will burn down seven their cities for every one our. And then we'll suggest them to sign another peace treaty on much lesser comfortable terms (something like unconditional surrender).
Highly unlikely that there will be a nuclear attack against Ukrainians - they are our brothers anyway.

Russia can only continue to sacrifice it's people and money via a conventional war, and rest it's hope for the West to give up it's hegemonic and economic interests towards Ukraine - that "might" be out-weight by the financial burden that Ukraine poses. Since this can take many more years (alone Germany's planed defense budget for 2024 already exceeds that of Russia) - Putin most likely will not be in power or around anymore - thus NATO finding a far more "agreeable" Russian government that is even willing to join the crusade against China.

I don't think so. If NATO countries want more "agreeable" Russia - they should have not discriminate Russians, support genocide of Russians and steal our property. The reliable peace is possible only on the terms of equal rights and undivided safety for everyone.

Therefore IMO - it is and will be China that decides the outcome of the Ukraine-Russian war - since this is a Global-Issue, pertaining solely towards NATO (aka USA) against China - Russia just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time, and Putin wanting to safeguard Russian interests towards his "partner" China, via highlighting (non-existent) Russian power towards NATO, and thus choosing Ukraine to demonstrate this.

China do not discriminate Russians and do not hire another Russians to kill each other.

In other words, since no one wants a nuclear war - China is the only country that could easily tip the NATO-Russian conventional forces balance, in favor of Russia - thus allowing for Russia to win a conventional fought war, about Ukraine.

Who said that no one wants a nuclear war? There are some people who want a nuclear war just for itself. They think, that a world war means a world revolution.
They are not in power, yet, but it doesn't mean much. What is more important, even for sober minds nuclear war is much more preferrable than a "conventional war" against NATO alliance (actually it's an only choice).