The danger of a nuclear war is acute and continues to grow. It is probably as high as it had been in the late 1950s.
Russian political scientist and historian Sergey Karaganov has been an advisor to Russia’s political elite for decades and sits on influential foreign and economic policy commissions. Multipolar spoke with him about the danger of a nuclear war, about his opinion of European leaders, as well as his proposals for Russia’s pivot away from the West and a stronger focus on Siberia. Karaganov’s statements are certainly hawkish and radical, but according to him, they are shared by 95 percent of Russia’s military and political leadership. Multipolar is publishing the interview to inform the public of the views held by this relevant public figure and the corresponding faction within the Russian elite, who considers Vladimir Putin’s approach toward the West too moderate. Karaganov’s statements also illustrate the kind of domestic political pressure Putin is facing and the type of decision-makers who may eventually succeed him in Moscow. The conversation was conducted by Éva Péli on October 30 in Moscow.
Multipolar: Sergey Alexandrovich, how acute would you estimate the current danger of nuclear war to be, and what factors—military, political, psychological—do you see as the main causes?
Karaganov: The danger of a nuclear war is acute and continues to grow. It is probably as high as it had been in the late 1950s—with the exception of the Caribbean Crisis, as we call the Cuban Missile Crisis, when we stood right at the abyss. Why? There are several reasons for this escalation. First, the change in the balance of power: the fastest change in the balance of power in human history, with new powers rising and old powers declining. Second, the loss of fundamental understanding: the loss of understanding of what is “good” and what is “bad” in international relations, as well as the absence of a moral basis for action. Third, the West’s counter-attack: the desperate counter-attack by the West, which is losing its 500-year dominance that had allowed it to become rich at the expense of the rest of the world. Fourth, the degradation of the elite: the immense intellectual and moral degradation of the elite, particularly in the West. That is what makes me so concerned.
Multipolar: You call for the restoration of the fear of nuclear weapons. How do you define, in practice, a “limited target” to be attacked in Europe that, in your opinion, would be justified without provoking a nuclear NATO response?
Karaganov: We must overcome the strategic parasitism that has formed over the past few years and has, above all, affected the European population. They have lost their fear of war, especially of a nuclear war. Ironically, it was precisely this fear that had been a stabilizing factor for the past 70 years. Europe, which historically was a source of major conflicts, of racism, and colonialism, could temporarily forget its responsibility and guilt toward the world thanks to the bipolar stability between the USA and the USSR. Now that the greatest threat emanates from Europe, we must remember that Europe has historically been involved in major wars. It does not necessarily require direct violence, but the restoration of the fear of war, including the revival of the fear of a nuclear war. This is a key element for leading Europe back to its geopolitical responsibility.
Multipolar: US physicist Theodore Postol warns, based on historical precedents such as the NATO maneuver Able Archer 83, that any, even originally limited, engagement of nuclear weapons would inevitably lead to an uncontrollable nuclear escalation. How do you assess the danger that even an intentionally limited Russian nuclear strike could still spiral out of control?
Karaganov: The use of nuclear weapons is a grave moral sin. However, the myth of unrestrainable escalation, to whose creation I myself partly contributed to prevent wars, is only a legend.
A nuclear war can be won, but God forbid it ever starts!
If it is absolutely necessary, the nuclear arsenal can be deployed, but aside from the risk of uncontrolled escalation, the use of nuclear weapons itself is a serious moral offense, and I sincerely wish that they not be used.
Multipolar: Your recent theses have been primarily interpreted in the West as a direct nuclear threat and not as a strategic signal for forced de-escalation or dialogue. Given the subsequent refusal of communication by current Western rulers: what concrete steps and measures do you find necessary to bridge the gap between your desired “catharsis” of the West and the current “closed doors” political response? What exactly is supposed to prove the persuasive power and effectiveness of your strategic plan?
Karaganov: We are dealing with people, especially in Europe, who are absolutely insane. The European elite, in whose circles I grew up and who now belong to the past, is degenerate. As far as I understand, in a number of countries, people with “hyena brains” are governing, who are completely unaware of the consequences of their actions. Therefore, dialogue with them is pointless. They only have one thing to fear—physical pain. However, we can negotiate with the Americans, who have preserved much of their human potential and their understanding of what war really means. I hope, however, that there are still such reasonable people in Europe. I just don’t see them anymore.
Multipolar: Which specific political, professional, military, or civil groups in the West—apart from the current rulers—would you highlight as those who would actually perceive your threats as a final impetus for the necessary dialogue to prevent a global catastrophe and reshape the security architecture, and who would actively participate in this process?
Karaganov: This question is directed not at me, but at you. You come from the West; I am here in Moscow. The West has isolated itself from us. Europe, in particular, in order to prepare its population for war. We currently have no channels for cooperation with the West, except the official ones at the highest level. The West has cut itself off from us. That is why we are forced to negotiate with it only from a position of strength. Although, of course, we would wish that there were still reasonable people there with whom a constructive dialogue would be possible.
Multipolar: Many observers believe that Western sanctions and military aid create an escalation dynamic forcing Russia into a predicament. Moscow therefore faces a choice: either demonstrate its effective deterrence capability or risk slowly being drained. How do you view this strategic dilemma?
Karaganov: This dilemma exists. I criticize our leadership for its indecisiveness, but I think my words will be heard. I believe that if an economic war is waged against us, we must respond militarily. It is war. Therefore, sanctions must be retaliated with military strikes. The scope and nature of these retaliatory strikes must be carefully considered individually. The seizure of Russian assets worth billions is nothing more than robbery and banditry. For this, up to a million people in Europe must risk their lives. Otherwise, they will suffer devastating blows. I consider this to be a correct and unavoidable step, although I sincerely hope that it will not come to this. I am fully aware that such a scenario is a great sin associated with the death of countless innocent people, and I wish it remains merely a warning.
We must issue a decisive ultimatum to the West, demanding the following: First: The immediate cessation of all military support for the conflict in Ukraine. Second: The complete and unconditional return of our sovereign funds.
Multipolar: The EU has passed the 19th sanctions package, and President Trump has announced new US sanctions against Russian companies like Rosneft and Lukoil. According to Seymour Hersh, US officials believe that the Russian economy is already severely weakened and can be finally “brought to its knees.” How effective does Moscow assess these latest sanctions?
Karaganov: The Russian economy cannot be brought to its knees. We are living very well. You know it yourself, as you are in Moscow, one of the most beautiful cities in the world. I just returned from Siberia. It is so beautiful there. But we must finally respond militarily to these blackmail attempts. The key element of our response must be the concept of asymmetry. The vulnerability of US foreign assets is many times greater than ours. We must be prepared for direct, tough talks that transition into a phase of destruction of the opponent’s accumulated capital in response to sanctions.
Multipolar: Apparently, there are voices in Russian society that expect a stronger reaction from Moscow to the West’s policy. How do you assess this, and what could a possible reaction look like, that avoids the war spreading beyond Ukraine’s borders?
Karaganov: What had seemed radical a few years ago—the necessity of pre-emptive strikes or even nuclear retaliation—is now the prevailing opinion. My earlier statements, which had caused concern, now reflect a broad consensus: In my estimation, up to 90 percent of the population and 95 percent of the military-political elite share this view. I cannot repeat it often enough: The use of nuclear weapons remains a grave moral decision and a great sin against the innocent. However, if an extreme emergency arises, the objective of such a step is to bring the insane to reason and to force the enemy to end the escalation. Therefore, I am convinced that in the event of an actual necessity, Russian society will unreservedly and completely support such strategic decisions. Furthermore, I am confronted daily with criticism from citizens. They accuse me of a lack of perseverance and inconsistency: Despite my public declaration that the use of the nuclear arsenal is necessary, I have allegedly not succeeded in having the leadership activate it. I want to emphasize: I do not want our leadership to use it.
Multipolar: How could a pan-European security architecture be designed in the aftermath of the Ukraine war, one that incorporates Russia’s security interests and thus excludes future military confrontations?
Karaganov: I assume that there will no longer be a European security order. Should the need for such a structure arise at all—which I doubt—it will have to carry a common Eurasian character. As for the narrow European framework, I consider it imperative to establish a complete demilitarized zone for the remaining territories of Ukraine, ideally with a no-fly zone. Military activity in Russia’s border regions must be reduced, and reciprocal de-escalation would be required. Regarding our Finnish neighbors: It is in our interest that they are eliminated in the event of war. They would therefore be well advised to drastically reduce their military presence on their national territory. We may eventually reach an agreement, but the European security system has ceased to exist. It has perished along with Europe. Europe is in decline, and we no longer have any need for a European security structure. Our considerations are within the framework of a Eurasian order. Europe is merely an obnoxious, western outgrowth of Eurasia.
Multipolar: How exactly do you envision Europe’s integration into the planned Eurasian system of security and order?
Karaganov: Some European countries should be included in Russia’s new system of cooperation and security. I am almost certain that after overcoming the current difficult phase, numerous Central and Southern European countries will join the common Eurasian security architecture. I am not sure if Germany and the countries of Northwestern Europe can ever join. But then again, why not? Perhaps they may eventually change their minds.
Multipolar: In the West, it is said that the Russian president is unwilling to negotiate, which is why pressure must be exerted in the form of sanctions and arms deliveries. However, Vladimir Putin has repeatedly announced that he is ready to negotiate. How do you assess this contradiction?
Karaganov: Our constructive possibilities for cooperation with the West are completely exhausted. President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin has done everything to maintain dialogue. Now, our only task is to reawaken the animalistic, instinctive fear of inevitable doom in our Western partners. Only this feeling can form the basis for further talks. We remember very well what European aggression means: We remember the invasion of Napoleon’s army, which consisted of 24 European languages. We remember the atrocities of the European invaders during the Civil War in the aftermath of the First World War. We remember that almost all of Europe, with the exception of Greece and Yugoslavia, fought against us under Hitler’s banners in the Great Patriotic War.
This history must be terminated. We are obligated to wean Europe from its hideous habit of waging wars.
Multipolar: Sergey Alexandrovich, you insist that Russia must “rekindle an animalistic fear in Europe” to force it to be peaceful. However, such rhetoric, which includes considerations of a possible “ultimate action” involving the use of nuclear weapons, is met with an extremely negative response in the West. How do you assess this situation: Will your strategy, aimed at instilling fear, not lead to a critical and uncontrollable escalation rather than forcing the West “to come to its senses”?
Karaganov: Russia needs absolutely nothing from the West. We are interested in neither a square meter of its territory nor in any of its resources. We demand and wish for only one thing: that the West fails. The West is, as always throughout history, a source of moral, political, economic, and military threat. Today, this threat has perhaps taken its most concentrated and acute form. I repeat: My task is to completely separate Russia from this Western plague—be it militarily, politically, or morally.
Multipolar: When and how do you think the war in Ukraine will end? What do you see as Russia’s ultimate goal in this war?
Karaganov: A segment of the territory that was formerly called Ukraine will become part of the Russian Federation. An absolutely denazified, demilitarized zone must be established on the remaining territory. Control over this zone requires a neutral peacekeeping contingent, for which it is sensible to exclusively use forces from Asian or African countries. The basic condition: European forces are categorically excluded, because their presence represents a direct threat and would inevitably lead to the resumption of the conflict. This zone must be free of heavy weapons. Furthermore, a no-fly zone is required to exclude the presence of drones. Our goal is to eliminate the hysteria surrounding NATO expansion and to create a buffer between the ascending Russia and the disintegrating Europe. We must eliminate the causes of this war. This means that the hysteria surrounding NATO’s expansion must be quelled. I do not call for the immediate disintegration of NATO—although I hope that this will happen on its own. Consequently, a small part of Ukraine will become part of Russia, while the rest will serve as a buffer zone—as a security cushion that strategically separates the rising Russia from the warmongering and inevitably disintegrating Europe.
Multipolar: You often speak of Russia as a special, “God-fearing” civilization whose mission is to protect genuine values from the “Western consumer cult.” However, if one follows the logic of civilizational development, hasn’t the spiritual and moral aspect of the struggle already been lost, when military force must be used?
Karaganov: We proclaim that spirit, honor, and conscience must be the highest and unchangeable values of our society. As for the use of force, it is undoubtedly necessary in specific cases. If we are dealing with a Satanic creature, we must wage war against Satan. And today’s Europe, in its current form, is a Satanic creation, and this is a holy war.
Multipolar: You call for a strengthening of Russia’s Eurasian orientation and describe the Eurocentrism of many Russians as “backward.” What does this specifically mean for Russia’s cultural, economic, and political identity in the future?
Karaganov: We are striving towards the future, based on our true nature: Russia is a Eurasian country. Our “European journey,” which lasted three centuries, was excessively long; it should have been ended at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century. Our spiritual heritage came from the South: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Buddhism came from there. Our political culture was largely adopted from the Great Mongolian Empire—the Horde. Peter I, who wanted to overcome the backwardness after the Mongolian period, brought us military technology and science from Europe. We preserve these European achievements within us and will absolutely not become anti-European. On the contrary, we are becoming true Europeans, as today’s Europe rejects all of the fundamental values that had once made it a pioneer of human civilization. Thus, we preserve what they now reject.
Multipolar: You propose a massive development of Siberia, emphasizing the need to settle the region with millions of people. Given Russia’s demographic challenges, how realistic is increasing this region’s population to the extent required?
Karaganov: We are conducting serious and extensive programatic work involving thousands of people. We do not have to equate the demographic or economic indicators of Siberia with those of the European part of Russia, as Siberians, on the average, are more efficient. Furthermore, there are state-of-the-art technologies today. The main task we are working on is making Siberia modern, interesting, and attractive. Siberia is not a penal colony and not a backward place, but the land of the future. It is magnificent. I travel there regularly and return each time with an overwhelming feeling of fulfillment. The future lies precisely there. Siberia borders the region of the future, namely Asia. Our strategic orientation is not only eastward but also southward. Thanks to its competitive advantages—huge energy reserves, arable land, and its water—Siberia can and must become the “granary of Asia.” We will use this potential for the benefit of Russia and all Eurasian humanity.
Multipolar: You warn against repeating the same mistake after World War II and disproportionately directing reconstruction funds to Ukraine after the war. Why do you hold this view, and where should Russian resources flow preferentially instead?
Karaganov: Of course, we are obliged to restore the living conditions of the people—including housing, gas supply, and other infrastructure—for those who remain on the former Ukrainian territory. This applies particularly to the regions that are, and will become, part of the Russian Federation. These new regions must become important agricultural centers that contribute to the development of the entire country. However, given Europe’s very bleak future, Ukraine as a whole is not a great country of the future for us. We must focus our strategic investments and plans on more promising regions—above all, Siberia and the Urals.
Multipolar: During my stay in Moscow, I heard from some that people in Russia still tend more toward the West than the East due to their historical and cultural experiences. Given this cultural conviction, how do you intend to overcome skepticism and convince a large segment of society—especially in the European region of Russia—that the strategic shift to the East, including investments in Siberia, is actually the most important and only real alternative for the country’s future?
Karaganov: Siberia is the concentration of the best Russia has to offer. We must be clear about this: We are “not going to China,” we are going to ourselves—to our best, concentrated essence. Siberia is the quintessence of the Russian character. As one of my colleagues said, Siberia is the breeding ground for all the best that Russia has to offer: openness, energy, entrepreneurial spirit, and healthy collectivism. That is precisely why we are “not reorienting ourselves,” but are simply returning to ourselves. China is a great and very interesting culture, but it is not close to us. At the same time, it is not dangerous for us either. We will actively cooperate with China, maintain friendly relations, and study its culture, but we will never become Chinese. The Chinese themselves, incidentally, do not demand this either. In contrast to China, it is the Western culture, in its currently degenerate form, permeated by transhuman values, that has proven to be dangerous. Western Europeans always wanted us to become “Western Europeans,” but that contradicts the essence of Russia and degrades us. We cannot and must not be Western Europeans. Our way is to be ourselves.
Multipolar: According to your thesis, in the future Russia should be more democratic than many modern Western countries. What exactly do you mean by that? How can the specific Russian model of the future society be described, which is supposed to differ from the Western, liberal model?
Karaganov: You have misinterpreted my statements. I did not intend to make Russia more democratic. Especially since I have repeatedly stated in my works that democracy is the worst form of government for complex societies—surpassed only by bloody dictatorship.
History proves that democracies have always perished and will perish. We do not need democracy in its current European form—it is doomed to fail. History is full of such examples.
Think of the demise of the Greek republics, the transformation of the Roman Republic into an Empire, the transition of the Italian republics to monarchies, the collapse of the republics of Pskov and Novgorod. The entire so-called “democratic” Europe surrendered to Hitler without a fight and rallied under his banners. Instead, we need effective local self-government and what I call “leadership democracy.” Essentially, this is a classical aristocratic republic at the highest level, supplemented by a strong democracy locally, where people can manage their local affairs themselves. But by no means a European democracy. I repeat: Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from a bloody dictatorship. I do not want democracy for Russia.
Multipolar: Sergey Alexandrovich, your statements concerning the end of the European order and the necessity of “animalistic fear” are extremely radical. How do you respond to the fact that these ideas are often completely ignored or dismissed as unacceptable rhetoric in Germany? Do you believe that your message is even reaching the Western audience?
Karaganov: The fact that our Western neighbors, including Germany, are shutting themselves off from the truth is a terrible sign: They are preparing for war. Their actions are not only a sign of weakness but also a direct preparation for war. That is why I call on our leadership to fully prepare for a war and the destruction of Europe, which has once again embarked on this path. If the German media and the establishment want to wage war again, then I guarantee you: There will be no more Germany, ever. As a country, it will cease to exist. Germany has already inflicted immense damage on Europe, humanity, and itself. If, as it currently appears, it is again seeking revenge, I will continue to publicly assert: Germany must be destroyed.
Multipolar: How do you briefly assess the US-Russian relations?
Karaganov: We will maneuver and play, while the attempts of the Americans to undermine Russia will fail. This is due to the enormous number of strategic mistakes they have made. I highlight three crucial mistakes. The first and most important: The rejection of the Russian elite’s desire to integrate into the West in the early 90s. I was astonished by this immense stupidity at the time. Second: The support for China’s development—initiated by the Americans, as the European “friends” no longer had any strategic thinking at that point—in the naive hope that it would become democratic and adapt to American politics. That was pure idiocy. Third fantastic mistake: With their shortsighted policy, they have turned Russia and China into an unbeatable tandem. Together, we are much stronger than the entire West. We do not want war, but if, God forbid, the West should decide to provoke one, we will win.
Multipolar: During the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the West, in addition to official negotiations, informal or “secret” communication channels were often used to prevent crises. Do you believe that such an informal, confidential channel exists in the current confrontation between Russia and the West, or that it is urgently needed to control the risk of escalation?
Karaganov: In fact, there are currently very few such informal channels. We are trying to build such channels with the Europeans, but that is basically pointless. We used to have interesting and clever discussion partners in the European Union. However, the current European elite is so degenerate that there is no one left with whom a meaningful dialogue could be conducted. With the Americans, dialogue is maintained at various levels, although this is quite difficult.
Multipolar: Against the background of growing disagreement with the prevailing politics of Brussels, tendencies toward the formation of an alternative agenda can be observed in Central Europe—especially in Hungary, Slovakia, and Czechia. How do you assess the probability and the chances of these countries organizing and leading an influential bloc within the European Union that could oppose the “mainstream” in EU politics?
Karaganov: I believe that if we succeed in avoiding a Third World War, which Europe is currently actively pushing for, most countries in Central, Eastern, and Southern Europe will unite and join Great Eurasia as the European sector. We will naturally welcome this process. Furthermore, we must not forget that the Hungarians are among the most important Eurasians. Their historical roots and nomadic heritage make them, alongside the descendants of the Mongolian Empire, natural founders of Great Eurasia.
Multipolar: But Hungary and Czechia will most likely remain members of NATO.
Karaganov: Let’s wait and see what happens in five to ten years. In this short time, the situation will fundamentally change: Europe will either break apart or be involved in a major war. I sincerely hope that we can avoid a major war. However, if a major war breaks out, Europe will simply cease to exist. Most likely, Europe will go down the path of disintegration.
Multipolar: A major war—that is a nuclear war.
Karaganov: Yes. A major war cannot be non-nuclear. The idea that a comprehensive conflict in Europe could remain conventional is, please excuse me, idiotic. What does a nuclear war in Europe mean? It means that most European countries will become a desert. They will simply cease to exist. Even the most basic common sense defies what those who speak of a war against nuclear-armed Russia are actually provoking. They are condemning their own peoples to doom. Unfortunately, the European leadership has not only lost its sense of history but also the elementary, physical feeling of fear.
