By Matt Underwood Russia threatens Ukraine to use “retaliation weapons” next week, hinting on Nazi V-1, V-2 bombs that bombed London, which begs the immediate question: why even make such threats, especially when they’re already dropping bombs and missiles on Ukrainian civilian structures? It feels like a twisted irony, especially considering the “denazification” narrative Russia pushes. It’s hard to reconcile that with fielding neo-Nazi mercenary groups and threatening to repeat the actions of the Nazis. Are they planning to bomb more playgrounds and hospitals? This talk of V-1 and V-2 bombs from the Nazi era suggests they may be running out of effective options, a sign of weakness in their military capabilities.
The prospect of Russia resorting to such tactics feels like a desperate measure, a sign that they may be losing the war. The shift to targeting civilian areas, hospitals, and schools would be a grave escalation and a clear war crime under the Geneva Convention. Using these antiquated weapons, which were the Nazis’ last desperate attempt to turn the tide, feels like a waste of resources. Are these “retaliation weapons” merely a euphemism for targeting civilian infrastructure, a tactic that would only increase the severity of the conflict?
Considering the historical context, the Russian government’s rhetoric often leans on World War II as a cornerstone of their identity. By invoking the specter of Nazism and equating opponents with “Nazis,” they simplify the geopolitical landscape and try to rally support for their policies. This “us versus them” narrative, framing Russia as a defender of justice against historical evil, is nothing more than propaganda. The whole concept of “denazification” looks more like “renazification.”
The implication of threatening to use V-1 and V-2s makes you wonder if Russia is running low on modern weaponry. Are these even effective weapons in the modern context? The fact that Russia might be considering such measures feels like an admission of a dwindling arsenal.
The use of antiquated weaponry is indicative of desperation. They are essentially unguided and used to simply inflict maximum damage. The goal is to cause chaos, not to achieve a strategic military advantage. If they actually do resort to this, it would represent a significant escalation.
The fact that the threat comes as they are apparently deploying new missiles suggests that they are capable of manufacturing and deploying new armaments. It’s a reminder that even against a more advanced adversary, a determined resistance can still prevail. The situation in Ukraine could get even more tragic if they start using these old weapons, and one wonders if this marks a turning point of the war.
The historical context of the V-1 and V-2 is also important. These weapons were designed to strike Britain and didn’t necessarily require bombers. The V-1 was launched shortly after D-Day, and the V-2 wasn’t deployed until later in that year. While they were designed earlier, their widespread use came during a crucial phase of the war. Also the Nazis deployed the V1’s and V2’s because the Luftwaffe was losing the ability to attack the Allied forces with traditional bombing campaigns. The Germans recognized they could never match the Allies’ production capabilities in the long run.
The situation underscores a deeply rooted historical feud between Russia and the West. Russia’s view of itself as the Third Rome, the true successor of the Roman Imperium, and the centuries-long conflict with Western churches add a layer of complexity to the situation. Ultimately, the use of such weapons is not about military strategy; it’s about trying to inflict maximum damage and terror.