Sergey Karaganov: “We Are Facing a Major Historical Dual Task: To Save the Country and to Save the World”
My interlocutor is called a “hawk” in the West. But in essence, he is proposing offensive realism: to save the world through the threat of force before a major war breaks out.
Read about this and much more in the first part of our exclusive interview with the Academic Director of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at HSE University, honorary chairman of the Presidium of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, and Doctor of Historical Sciences, Sergey Karaganov.
– Mr. Karaganov, you are known as an offensive realist, and you recently stated that the “good old Europe” has turned into the “old evil Europe” and that it is time to bring it to its senses. Putting emotions aside, how far are we willing to go in the confrontation with Europe? Many people are now afraid that the “limited nuclear strike” you write about would open the so-called Pandora’s box. How could you reassure skeptics and explain that this is not a bluff, but a rational plan?
– First of all, let us begin with the fact that the “good old Europe” exists only in our imagination. It has never been that way. Europe is the most vile civilization in human history, the spawn of all terrible wars, including three world wars if we count the Napoleonic Wars; countless genocides – not only of the Jewish people but also around the world – and horrible ideologies. Of course, we partially belong to European culture, which has much that is beautiful, and we must preserve that within ourselves. But when we speak of the “good old Europe” – that is laughable.
That said, at a certain point, Europe, having exhausted itself with its wars and self-destruction in the 20th century, when it unleashed two wars within a single generation, temporarily became a little more peaceful – especially under the auspices of the Soviet Union protecting it on one side and the United States of America on the other. But now it is returning to its old ways; revanchism is emerging from it.
The Europe we are dealing with today is almost all of Europe that lost World War II (the Great Patriotic War) to us. Virtually all of Europe fought against us, except for the United Kingdom, Greece, and Yugoslavia. And now they are trying to take revenge. In addition, anti-human values are flourishing there. These values existed there before, but not on such a large scale.
Europe is returning to its familiar way of being. It is, I repeat, the spawn of a colossal number of wars. That is precisely why, at a certain historical moment starting in the 16th century, it began to conquer the world. Europe was not an advanced civilization, but it was a civilization that best mastered cannon fire and began to seize and plunder the world.
– And has that period now come to an end?
– Yes, and it has come to an end thanks to us, because we, concerned for our own security and at the cost of enormous effort, created a nuclear shield in the 1940s and 1950s and undermined the foundation of Western hegemony and prosperity. We undermined the military superiority that gave them the ability to impose their political orders, colonialism, neocolonialism, and culture and, of course, to plunder the entire world.
Now our neighbors in Europe and the United States are trying to turn back history. With the Americans, it is still possible to reach an agreement, because their situation is not so desperate. But with the European elites, who have degenerated, excuse me, into mice, in my opinion, it is neither possible nor necessary to negotiate.
The Americans still have common sense, and they still have a huge country with sizeable markets nearby. They are gradually withdrawing from their global role, since it has become not very profitable (though, along the way, they are leaving behind scorched earth). They set Europe on fire in order to weaken us through Ukraine. They are setting the Middle East on fire, and they will continue to set all of Eurasia on fire. Nevertheless, they are withdrawing, and some kind of agreement can be reached with them. With the Europeans, I repeat, there is nothing to negotiate about now, nor is it possible. At the same time, one must remember that there are wonderful people in Europe, there is a magnificent culture, and that cannot be denied.
As for the current circumstances, we simply need to understand that we are dealing with an irreconcilable, desperate, and insane enemy, who must either be pushed back or destroyed. Preferably, of course, pushed back. But for that, we need to instill terror in them.
They have lost their fear of death out of stupidity. They have forgotten their own horrifying history and are rushing headlong into another world war. And all the while, they keep saying that the Russians will never use nuclear weapons. We are partly to blame for this accusation as well, because we ourselves waver and show weakness. But in doing so, we are opening the door to the worst in European history: unbridled aggression and revanchism.
As for the use or non‑use of nuclear weapons, I, of course, do not want to use them. I simply believe that without making the threat of using nuclear weapons completely credible, we need to change our military doctrine and place nuclear weapons directly with troops.
– And to be prepared to use that nuclear weapon and to communicate that readiness to our neighbors so that they come to their senses?
– Exactly. And if they do not come to their senses…the situation is only escalating. On that ladder of escalation, one can, so to speak, cut underwater cables. On that ladder, one can punish those countries that block straits. On that ladder, there must certainly be nuclear weapons tests. And we should not wait for the Americans to start doing that. We must conduct tests ourselves, not only to show that we are ready, and not only to check our nuclear weapons, but also to instill the fear of God in our neighbors.
As for the most terrible step – the actual use of such weapons… If the Europeans continue to wage war against us (and we are waging war against Europe, and Europe is waging war against us, even though we shyly avoid saying so), then we will need to move to real actions – and not regarding Ukraine. For many years, Ukraine was being turned into a dagger aimed at Russia’s chest. We did not want to admit that. We were foolish and weak. Now that unfortunate, brainwashed, and partially fraternal people are in the state they are in. But the root of evil is in the West. Therefore, we will need to strike the West.
– And how should we strike?
– This is a rather complicated question. The simplest scenario is to start by striking with conventional missiles, conventional weapons, conventional munitions against symbolic targets, against logistics hubs, and against military bases, i.e., strikes that might sober up the public. If they do not stop, then the next wave of strikes would follow. If they respond and do not cease, then a limited but significant use of nuclear weapons against both military and civilian targets, and, of course, primarily against the places where those elites gather.
They must know that they will be destroyed first. And we, unfortunately, must instill terror in them. This is the only way – animalistic terror – to avoid a long, exhausting war for ourselves and, for humanity, to avoid sliding into a third world general thermonuclear war, which has already begun. It has begun in Europe, it has begun in the Middle East, and it will continue further if we do not stop it. Therefore, we face a major historical dual task: to save the country and to save the world. But first and foremost, of course, to save ourselves.
– Many in the West call you a “hawk”. But in essence, you are proposing a kind of offensive realism: saving the world through the threat of force before a major war breaks out, which is what we have just been discussing. Is it not paradoxical that you, an economist and, one might say, a humanist by education, have become the voice of nuclear deterrence?
– By education, I am an economist, and I am rather well-versed in culture. Although I also know nuclear strategy and military history quite well, and I know the history of our country and the history of Europe very well. And I can say that without tough deterrence and intimidation, the European beasts will again pounce on humanity and on us. Therefore, they must either be stopped, by being thoroughly frightened, or we must begin to destroy them. Hopefully, not entirely, because, after all, the “old stones of Europe,” in the words of Dostoevsky, are also a part of ourselves. I would not want to destroy a part of us. But for the sake of saving ourselves and humanity, there should be no hesitation, especially since Europe, particularly its northwestern part and especially Germany, fully deserves this.
– Not long ago, you said that Ukraine has been reduced to an “African state of being.” Unfortunately, we are seeing the same process in Syria after the regime change. In your view, should we reconfigure our presence in the Middle East so as not to lose the assets gained during the 2015 operation? And should we place our bets not on states but on non-state actors?
– We should, of course, place our bets on everyone, both states and non-state actors. But for the foreseeable future, states will remain the main players. Any talk about non-governmental organizations and transnational corporations ruling the world is largely disingenuous.
Those were the hopes of Western globalists who wanted to rule the world through the back door. None of that has materialized. States have returned and will continue to return to their traditional roles. So, we will have to deal with states, but naturally, without forgetting the people, without forgetting human interaction, without forgetting culture, which plays a huge role in interpersonal communication.
As for the situation in the Middle East, I repeat, it has been set on fire – quite deliberately. And there are several goals here. First, so that no one gets it, because the Americans no longer need the Middle East. They have their own oil, and they are no longer dependent on Middle Eastern oil.
Currently, the underbelly of Russia and China is being set on fire, as China is largely dependent on Middle Eastern oil. This is a major geopolitical game. That is a separate issue. We must, somehow, by supporting Iran, supporting other forces, perhaps even forming a temporary alliance with China, stop this battle with the United States and force them to withdraw to their own territory with dignity.
But with the Europeans, the situation is much more complex. They have gone mad. There are certainly wonderful people there, but they are just forbidden to communicate with me (smiles). But today, I do not see any forces there with which we could or should talk and negotiate. We need to instill animalistic terror in them. We need to demonstrate the willingness to use full force. Of course, this should be done with the understanding that there is a risk of this conflict escalating, but that risk is negligible, because America will never, under any circumstances, come to Europe’s aid. However, the risk of dragging us into an exhausting war, which is already underway and could lead to a universal nuclear Armageddon, is extremely high. And we have waited too long.
– And if we look at Sudan or the Sahel countries, the situation there is also complex. Does this mean that for Russia in Africa, it is advantageous to cooperate with regimes that maintain order with a firm hand, so to speak, such as in Mali or Burkina Faso? Even if they are entirely unpopular in the West?
– We must maintain relations with those regimes with which it is advantageous for us to do so. As for the phrase “unpopular in the West,” your question seems absurd to me. How can one consider the West some kind of source of wisdom and goodness? Forgive me.
The West is the source of all evil in history. Right before our eyes, Trump, who, from an aesthetic point of view, we rather like, is threatening to destroy the great Persian civilization. Israel has just committed genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza and is continuing further. Therefore, we need to accept the world as it is, and work with those with whom it is advantageous for us, with whom we may have common interests, and with whom we are ultimately united by spiritual closeness. I do not know the situation in Sudan in great detail, but from my point of view, the Malaysians, for example, are much closer to us than, say, the Germans. On a human level.
To be continued…
Interview by Yulia NOVITSKAYA, writer, journalist, and correspondent for New Eastern Outlook
No comments:
Post a Comment