An interview with Sergey Karaganov about nuclear war: Putin hears me
Translation of a conversation with a key Russian foreign policy expert. Nuclear war, his thoughts on western elites, his drift away from NATO-optimism
The original can be read here, and was published on October 27, 2023. Karaganov is interviewed by Fedor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the journal ‘Russia in Global Affairs’ and research director of the Valdai Club. English versions of Karaganov’s famous recent articles about nuclear war can be read here.
Sergey Karaganov equals a grand scandal. A grand scandal equals Sergey Karaganov. The Honorary Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy is the flesh and blood of the Russian elite, a man whom the Russian President may publicly address simply by name – "Sergey" – and who periodically sits next to Lavrov at ceremonial events. And he is also the person who recently called for contemplating the unthinkable – the possibility of Russia delivering nuclear strikes on NATO countries.
Seeing Sergey Karaganov at the Valdai Forum, I naturally could not resist the temptation to ask him to clarify his position. And, surprisingly, we had quite a civilized conversation.
"A minimal edit. It was interesting to talk to a critic. Everyone is afraid. They only criticize in the press. Good luck!" - Sergey Karaganov sent me this message after approving the interview. And good luck to you, Sergey Alexandrovich! I was not at all afraid to argue with you. But, I must admit, I was very surprised when you endorsed this text practically without any edits.
Sergey Alexandrovich, the title of one of your recent articles reads: "No choice left: Russia will have to deliver a nuclear strike on Europe." Are you really sure that Russia has no other choice?
The media outlet where my article was published came up with this headline. I hope that Russia will not deliver a nuclear strike on Europe. But our American partners, who consciously downplay the danger of nuclear war, should know that it is possible.
My position is that we have a careless, or maybe even reckless, nuclear doctrine. It envisages the use of nuclear weapons only in the most impossible scenarios. Thus, we are giving the Americans a green light to use conventional forces against us.
Previously, such a thing was fundamentally impossible. A major war in the underbelly of a great nuclear power was unthinkable before. I'm afraid it's partly our fault. We relaxed and followed the theories and perceptions of the 1980s and 1990s.
Two specific examples. America is at war in Vietnam, the USSR, despite all protests from Washington, supplies weapons to its opponents. The Soviet Union conducts military operations in Afghanistan, the USA, despite all protests from Moscow, supply weapons to its opponents. What's the difference with the current situation in Ukraine?
The difference is quite obvious. Vietnam was god knows where - very far from the USA. It's not Mexico. If Mexico waged a war against the USA and we supplied weapons there, it would be a completely different story. Or, suppose, Canada started a war against the USA, and we supplied weapons there.
As for Afghanistan, the Americans supplied weapons secretly, not openly. Moreover, Afghanistan was also very far from the areas where the core interests of our country's security are really concentrated.
Now we are talking about matters of life and death, those very fundamental issues of ensuring our security. This is a completely different scenario than what you just described. Therefore, I repeat my point: this was unimaginable before.
Have you done any calculations: how many people will die if, God forbid, Russia has to follow through on your suggestion and strike some Eastern European countries?
I believe this is the most extreme scenario. God forbid it ever comes to fruition! It's a terrible moral choice, it's a sin! Nuclear weapons should be used in the utmost cases – to prevent a really big war.
But a truly large thermonuclear war is looming - not only and not so much because of the situation in Ukraine. There are much deeper causes.
Now, regarding what I have been writing. I believe that theoretically, in the most extreme case, we will have to threaten to deliver nuclear strikes on several European countries, not necessarily Eastern ones.
And which countries are we talking about?
In one of my articles, I wrote that if the White House in Washington does not house a lunatic who hates the USA, then the Americans will never retaliate for Frankfurt, Poznan, or Bucharest, risking New York, Boston, or Philadelphia in the process.
But still: have you done calculations on how many people might die as a result of such strikes?
I have not conducted such calculations. Such calculations have been done many times. But they are either completely confidential or extremely unreliable.
But are you interested in such a figure?
Of course. But our Western partners, and then the whole world, must understand: playing with nuclear weapons - and weapons in general - in the modern world is not allowed. Wars must not be unleashed. We are entering a period when objective circumstances for unleashing wars will arise worldwide.
New continents are rising, new giants are emerging. Many sources of conflict are arising and will continue to arise. This can lead to a series of huge wars that will spill into a new world war.
Towards the Apocalypse
Why do you believe that a new global war is looming?
It's looming primarily because the West has launched a desperate counter-offensive, realizing that it is now losing its five-hundred-year domination based on military superiority. The Soviet Union posed a threat to this domination. This superiority was the basis for the political, economic, and cultural dominance of the USA-West, which allowed them to plunder the rest of the world, transferring global gross national product to themselves, if I may put it politely.
Due to the collapse of the 1990s, Russia ceased its mission of deterrence. And the West became enraged and committed a series of aggressions. Russia has recovered. And now we need to stop the furious counterattack of the West.
This problem will be solved. But the problem, expressed in old terms, of new imperialist rivalry, will not be solved. New great powers, new "imperialist" countries will emerge. We need to lay down safeguards now so that these inevitable frictions, which are already occurring—for example, the frictions between China and India over some tiny piece of uninhabited mountains—do not lead to irreparable consequences.
And there will be many more such conflicts. They are inevitable—simply because that's how the world changes. A new Israeli-Palestinian conflict is flaring up. This too is from the predictable series.
Suppose, according to your suggestion, Russia delivers a nuclear strike on NATO countries…
My suggestion is not to deliver a nuclear strike on NATO countries. My suggestion is to force NATO to retreat. NATO countries need to deal with their own affairs and their own problems, not try to unleash external conflicts to distract from their internal failures.
Suppose Russia does indeed deliver a nuclear strike on NATO countries. You've talked about how, in your view, the U.S. won't respond. Can you now talk about how they will respond?
I don't know. And I don't even want to speculate on that. The only thing I know and even wrote about in my article is that some American and then—on their cue—Russian figures talked about a supposed non-nuclear strike on Russian Armed Forces, on our territory.
But then there will be another wave of Russian nuclear strikes on Europe. And if the Americans still persist after that, there will be a strike on American military bases. Tens of thousands of American servicemen will die. Due to bases scattered around the world, Americans are orders of magnitude more vulnerable than us. And they should remember that. I don't think Americans are interested in the death of tens of thousands of their servicemen.
But, I repeat, God forbid. I keep saying: it's a terrible scenario. I bring it to the agenda so that people wake up, move away from strategic parasitism, come out of the lethargic sleep we've been in for thirty-forty years.
We have forgotten what peace is and what war is.
Isn't Russia, in your view, so weak in the sphere of conventional weapons that it can't handle the Zelensky regime without using nuclear weapons?
Russia is capable of dealing with the Kyiv regime without using nuclear weapons. But, first of all, I feel sorry for our men. Even if we are talking about people who go to war for money, these are still brave and courageous people, the pride of the nation.
Secondly, even if we win, but don't decisively push back the West, a lower intensity war will continue. And we won't solve the problem of peace in Europe. We need to force the West to fundamentally retreat, negotiate a new status quo, sign a peace treaty, create a demilitarized zone from the remnants of Ukraine, reduce the level of military confrontation in the center of Europe, and thus solve its problem. Europe is the progeny of all the main miseries of humanity. We must close this problem.
But a mere victory in Ukraine won't solve this problem—or will only partially solve it, postponing it. This problem might reappear in another form. It will arise in other regions. Conflicts will arise all over the world—including around Russia.
Do you have grandchildren and great-grandchildren?
Yes.
What is their age, if it's not a secret?
They're young.
How do you think: will they live comfortably in a world where Russia has used nuclear weapons?
No. That's what I'm saying: it's a terrible moral choice, a terrible moral damage that Russia will inflict on itself. But if it is not capable of credibly threatening those who have lost their senses, we will act carelessly and inhumanly towards ourselves and the rest of the world.
I, by the way, raising this banner, have attracted a monstrous wave of criticism and hatred. But I did it consciously, knowingly drawing fire onto myself. I do this because I consider myself a patriot of the country and a responsible citizen of the world.
Since you brought up the subject of your motives. There's a very cynical but widely held version: you wanted to get some publicity and draw attention to yourself. What do you say to that?
Listen, I am quite well-known, and everything that can be achieved in this world, I've achieved many, many times. I act because I believe I am morally obliged to act.
There's a famous Chekhovian saying: if a gun hangs on the wall in the first act, it must inevitably fire in the last act. Maybe it's better not to introduce the "gun" of nuclear weapons onto the stage, much less wave it around?
It's already hanging there – everywhere. There are dozens of "guns" that are either already starting to fire or will inevitably fire. We need to make people much more cautious. People, as I have already said, have fallen into strategic parasitism, they've lost their fear of war. And this paves the way for new world wars that, under current circumstances, could destroy humanity.
You say that nuclear deterrence no longer works. But is that really the case? If nuclear deterrence truly did not work, NATO countries would have long ago sent their troops to Ukraine.
Nuclear deterrence has many functions. One, even the main one, is to prevent a nuclear attack.
The second function is to prevent a direct non-nuclear attack. But it's already really happening. NATO doesn't send its soldiers. But it throws our Ukrainian neighbors – in the past and future our brothers – into the meat grinder, destroying them as cheap cannon fodder.
The war, undoubtedly, is already being waged. Previously, as I repeat, such a thing was considered absolutely unthinkable. But the boundaries of the unthinkable will have to be further narrowed.
Nuclear weapons are meant to - and once effectively worked - as a civilizing factor, weeding out reckless and brainless adventurers from the elites. This worked in America. I can provide many such examples. It worked for us too. There are fewer examples here. But one of them is Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev. He was removed largely because he started the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Now we've seen that this civilizing role of nuclear weapons has stopped working. U.S. Secretary of State Blinken recently said that nuclear war is no more worrying than global warming.
And this is coming from the fourth person in line for the U.S. presidency!
And President Biden himself says that global warming of one and a half degrees is more worrying than nuclear war. What he's saying is terrifying. These people need to be ousted. Although we do not interfere in the internal affairs of other states, in my article, I directly say that the American deep state, the American oligarchy, must realize whom they have brought to power and replace them.
The Heart of the Idea
In your opinion, what would constitute a military victory for Russia in the event of using nuclear weapons? Some believe that as a result of such use, the military situation for Russia will only worsen.
I believe that we should not use nuclear weapons. We need to force the West to retreat. A nuclear war can be won. But it would be a monstrous moral loss. Moral - as well as political and psychological. In any case, this victory would be largely Pyrrhic. But, if we do not take decisive actions, then our loss will be even more monstrous.
And still: if Russia uses nuclear weapons, what will be its military gain?
I don't fully know. And nobody knows. But I think that NATO will collapse, and they will all run in different directions.
Are you sure about that? Earlier in our conversation, you acknowledged the high probability of a retaliatory strike (not necessarily nuclear, not necessarily from the USA), but still a strike on the territory of Russia.
They are threatening that. I suppose, brazenly bluffing.
But can you guarantee that such a strike won't happen?
Nothing can be guaranteed. I would like to avoid such a scenario. But strikes are already happening. They are already flying and hitting.
Despite all the fierce hostility towards North Korea, I haven't heard about drones striking Pyongyang. And you know why they don't strike? Because in Seoul and some other neighboring countries, they know that the retaliatory strike will be monstrous.
It's about restoring the effectiveness and credibility of deterrence, not about using nuclear weapons. But for this deterrence, prevention of wars, attacks, and provocations to work (and there certainly may be more provocations because new types of weapons have appeared - for example, drone srawms), it must not appear to be a bluff. We must be really ready to fulfill our promises. Then deterrence should work, and the opponent will sober up.
But in the event of Russia using nuclear weapons, the response will consist certainly not of individual drones and even not of a swarm of drones. Have you thought about how many people in Russia might die as a result of such a retaliatory strike?
I think there won't be such a strike. But we shouldn't tempt fate. I know the American strategy. I know their experience. I studied it. I know that Americans want to sit out across the ocean. But they, of course, can sacrifice Europeans - let them die! - just as they are now sacrificing Ukrainians.
Therefore, I suggest they consider the theoretical scenario in which a retaliatory Russian strike would be inflicted on hundreds of their bases abroad.
The fate of American bases abroad concerns me much less than the number of potential victims inside Russia.
Understand this, if we don't stop this madness now, something will keep hitting us. We should discuss not just this terrible scenario. We're already several years late in demanding the cessation of NATO's expansion to Ukraine. I've been saying for twenty-five years that such expansion will inevitably lead to war. I don't want my predictions to come true this time either.
We and the world have at most a few more years to prevent a slide into a global war.
Using nuclear weapons is probably the main political taboo in the world. If we violate it, won't we turn into a global pariah - even for those countries with which we now want to be even closer friends?
Possibly. We might suffer moral losses. But what concerns me the most right now is what we ourselves will feel guilty about - towards ourselves, towards God. And if we don't do it or aren't ready to do it, then we will commit an even more terrible sin, even a crime against ourselves and humanity.
Will the "unlimited friendship" between Russia and China withstand such a strike, do you think?
I hope that our friendship won't be subjected to such a test. But I have a fairly good idea of the movement of strategic thought of our Chinese colleagues. Of course, they lag behind in this area. They are "ahead of the whole planet" in many other directions, but in this, they lag behind. But we need to deeply discuss this issue with them. And this is already happening. Including here, at Valdai.
Recently, I witnessed you manage to do something nearly impossible: unite representatives of India and Pakistan, India and China on a single platform - the platform of rejecting your ideas. Does that not disturb you?
No, it doesn't disturb me at all. Everything is going according to plan. In the corridors, it's largely different.
And whose plan is it, by the way? Why did you start advocating for lowering the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons? Is this your personal initiative or a suggestion from any of your numerous acquaintances and friends in the Russian elite?
I never do anything on command.
So the former is entirely your personal initiative?
I never do anything on command. And overall, I consider myself a responsible member of the Russian elite and should act in a way that aligns with our country's interests. But I don't represent any official position.
Who's Gone Mad
You say the West has gone mad with hatred for Russia. But maybe it's not madness, just a tough, yet rational, competitive struggle?
There is an element of competitive struggle. But the West has simply gone mad because it's losing moral standing, economic standing, all standing in the world after five hundred years of dominion and after a dazzling fifteen-year period of victory that happened at the end of the 1980s.
Can you provide evidence?
Just look around! Why do I need any more proof. Everything is crumbling for them! Their leadership is full of idiots. Line up the contemporary European leaders and compare them to the leaders of the same European countries from fifty or forty years ago. They are different people - physiologically. And what are they talking about?
So, you're suggesting making decisions about the life and death of millions based on the facial expressions of contemporary Western leaders?
No. Unfortunately, there is significant degradation of elites in the West and some other regions of the world, but especially in the West. This is dangerous for the whole world.
But what specifically does this degradation entail? Is President Biden stupider than President Lyndon Johnson, who for some reason escalated the Vietnam War?
It wasn't Johnson who escalated. The Vietnam War was escalated without him. But President Biden is indeed incomparably stupider than Presidents Kennedy and Nixon, let alone Johnson. Although Biden is still not the worst among the current Western leaders. He's still a man of the old school. He's just very old now. Although he too says that nuclear war is no more worrying than global warming.
But we see what's happening around him. We see the entire American elite. I once knew it. But now only remnants remain. And in Europe, there are hardly any serious thinkers left. I knew a significant part of the European strategic elite. One could disagree, argue, even fight with them. But they were people. Now they're gone.
Why do you call Biden stupid? Let's look at the situation from the perspective of American goals and interests: Russian energy resources are expelled from Europe, Europe obediently listens to the U.S...
The American policy aimed at achieving these objectives started long before Biden. The situation in Ukraine was deliberately stirred up to prevent the rapprochement between Russia and Europe, which seemed real at the beginning of the 2000s.
In this sense, the Americans are indeed acting very rationally and are winning commercially. They are trampling the European economy. Now they have fewer opportunities to extract resources from the countries of the global majority, so they are extracting all the resources from Europe.
The conflict in Ukraine is relatively beneficial to them. They spend mere pennies on it by their standards, causing us serious strategic damage.
And where is the stupidity here?
The stupidity lies in the fact that they are strategically risking the destruction of themselves and the entire world, Europe first and foremost.
I recently read one of your 2011 articles in "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" with great pleasure. I would like to quote one part of it: "Moving away from Europe threatens us with further loss of our country's identity, socio-cultural degradation. Either we will get closer to Europe, or we will become barbarized. Russian civilization - with all its uniqueness - is still part of European civilization. And without it, it cannot exist as a civilization."
Unfortunately, we will have to delink. I remember perfectly how I had the viewpoint you quoated. And to a large extent, it will be a loss. However, fortunately, European civilization will remain with us. Everything that needed to be taken from there has already been taken - quite a long time ago. And we will survive and remain, perhaps, the last European culture.
Humanism once came to us from Europe. But now there's an absolutely insane "abortion of values" there: post-humanism, post-humanity, anything you like. We cannot afford that. We are returning to ourselves. We are, after all, an Asian country that at one point gave itself a powerful European inoculation. We have received a lot from Europe. We should be grateful.
Without Europe, we wouldn't have Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Gogol. And without Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Pushkin, and Gogol, there would be no Russia. We would be nobody. Or, excuse me, we would be Ukraine.
But if the earlier position, as it turns out now, was incorrect, naive, and miscalculated, maybe your current position is also not quite correct?
I disagree with your logic. I do not renounce my previous position. I believe it will be a loss. Actually, in the early 1990s, I was one of those who insisted that we join NATO. I believed that if we joined NATO, NATO would become a pan-European security system. But that didn't happen. Accordingly, we need to act against NATO, for the disintegration of NATO and for the destruction of NATO.
And still, you admit you were wrong. Maybe your current position is also wrong?
That's possible. I am not God. Though, as they say, even God sometimes makes mistakes. But I believe that based on my experience, my knowledge, my moral sense, I should do exactly what I am doing now. Though I derive very little pleasure from it.
According to Putin's response to your question at the Valdai Forum, he believes the current Russian nuclear doctrine is quite adequate. Does that mean, from your point of view, the president is not vigilant enough?
I am a scientist, not a politician. It's my duty to speak the truth. And, as far as I understand, the president hears me. He said so.
Thanks for your translation.