Yves here. As many eyes, including mine, have been watching the global-economy-wrecking standoff in the Strait of Hormuz, tensions are escalating between Europe and Russia as Russia presses onward in Ukraine and the US starts withdrawing its security blanket. The fact that the Europeans are weak does not mean that they are incapable of doing damage, if nothing else via terrorism. So the concerns of hardliners like Karaganov do have a foundation.
Keep in mind that Russia has issued a threat that if Ukraine strikes at Moscow’s Victory Day parade, it will attack central Kiev fiercely, something Putin has refrained from doing because civilian casualties and wreckage of historically important buildings. Russia has told civilians and foreign diplomats to leave Kiev. If Ukraine proceeds and Russia flattens the administrative center of Kiev, the hysteria in European capitals will be off the charts.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
Observers, especially Western officials, should be aware of their views since one of their own might replace Putin someday.
RT shared a recent interview that top Russian expert Sergey Karaganov, who’s (in)famous for lobbying Putin to nuke Europe, gave to Russia 24. As was explained hereearlier in the year, Putin prefers to follow the advice of Karganov’s de facto ideological rival Timofei Bordachev, who advocates for reaching a deal with the West instead of destroying it at the risk of World War III. Nevertheless, Karaganov’s candid assessment of Europe shows the world what Russian hardliners think, which is informative.
He predictably reiterated his call for Russia to nuke Europe in order to avert what he’s convinced will inevitably be a hot war between them that risks becoming a major nuclear one if it’s not prevented. To that end, he called on Putin to appoint a commander-in-chief in the theater of operations against Europe, who’ll first attack it with conventional arms and then escalate to a limited nuclear war if it doesn’t surrender. In his words, “Forget the nonsense that a nuclear war cannot be won, it can be won.”
According to Karaganov, “We have forgotten that Europe is the embodiment of all humanity’s greatest evils: colonialism, racism, the most vile ideologies, and mass genocides across the globe. Not only the genocide of Jews and Russians, Soviets, but in Africa, and in India, and all over the world, peoples and entire continents were destroyed. So, we must understand that this is a plague from which we must isolate ourselves as far as possible. And if we cannot isolate ourselves, it must be destroyed.”
He elaborated that “now the Europeans are being turned into German fascists. That is why we need to stop them before they, having gone wild, plunge into a major, truly major war. They are waging war against us…Their elites are turning themselves into subhumans. Therefore, we must treat them accordingly.” On that topic, Karaganov also suggested that some of his fellow Russians be treated very harshly as well, particularly those who he believes are operating under European influence.
“Under the current circumstances, pro-European sentiment is a sign of mental weakness, moral corruption and treason. It is ‘Vlasovism’. We must treat people who are trying to negotiate with Europe once again in precisely this way. They must be driven out, by gentle means where possible, from our minds and from our ranks. And if gentle means fail, then harsh measures will have to be applied.” This seems to be a swipe at Kirill Dmitriev, who’s negotiating with the US, but with Putin’s approval.
Be that as it may, it would be wrong to describe Karaganov as “anti-Putin” since they’re friends and he even moderated the Q&A session with him at 2024’s St. Petersburg International Economic Forum. A much more accurate description is therefore that he’s a constructive critic, but he won’t directly criticize Putin due to his patriotic, reasonable concern that it could be exploited by adversarial forces. For that reason, he only makes indirect criticisms, such as his implied swipe against Putin’s envoy Dmitriev.
Karaganov is the leader of Russia’s hardliner faction, so his views should be considered as reflecting theirs. Observers, especially Western officials, should be aware of them since one of their own might replace Putin someday. That would then obviously make it much more difficult to reach a deal with Russia over Ukraine if the special operationisn’t over by then. They should thus compromise with Russia now while Putin is still at the helm instead of risk a no-deal scenario if a hardliner replaces him.
25 comments
Comments are closed.
Thank you Yves.
All this subtlety of course shows how stupid the “Evil Dictator Putin” propaganda is in the West.
First, it is obvious propaganda that dupes the masses. Well, fair enough..
Second, it looks like the elites actually believe it. That is not so good.
Third, in the balancing act that he performs it shows, in recovering Russia from neo liberal serfdom in the 90s, what a gigantic figure Putin is.
Balancing all these forces and curbing oligarchic excess without getting killed (which would definitely happen in America) also shows how stable the Russian system is.
Quite admirable really if you want strong anti oligarchic government like Michael Hudson constantly recommends. And, raising the standard of living of your most important constituency, your citizens!
St. Putin still wants to do business with Europe once the war is over. 🤡
When will He understand they just want to kill Russians? 🤔
As Marshal Zhukov said, “We have liberated Europe from fascism, and they will never forgive us for it.”
I find it hard to blame Putin considering the business that did exist before the Ukrainian coup in 2014 by the Usual Suspects of America.
“Balancing all these forces and curbing oligarchic excess without getting killed (which would definitely happen in America) also shows how stable the Russian system is.” In Russia, the stavka looks to be more interested in the strength of the state and as such is at odds with the new oligarchy. In the US, the MIC has been working since the times of Andrew Mellon, who ended up in jail… From the founders, the US is the creation of oligarchy, the state has always been theirs, so killing a president for not conforming would be par for the course…
Sergey Karaganov is European.
How d’you figure that?
Wiki says “Born 12 September 1952 (age 73)
Moscow, Russian SFSR, Soviet Union”
Moscow is located in Europe. Approximately 75% to 80% of the Russian population lives in the European part of the country.
And European Russians outnumber the population of any other European country.
“Karaganov is the leader of Russia’s hardliner faction .”
That’s questionable.
Btw, here’s a notable passage from Karaganov’s 2023 call for limited nuclear strikes on Western Europe:
> “Karaganov is the leader of Russia’s hardliner faction”.
That’s questionable”
ditto.
To my knowledge Karaganov (henceforth K.) has never held any high-level government post.
He is a typical Western-style academic pundit who first and foremost is selling himself and his “narrative”.
Yesterday Glenn Diesen with Mearsheimer alleged that K. had major influence on Putin and the revision of the nuclear doctrine via Valdai. I highly doubt that.
As 99% of Western commentators on Russia, including those who are visiting Russia at the Valdai e.g., Diesen seems to have very little understanding of the huge apparatus of serious military, economic and political strategists who have actual power and influence as actual employees and officials of Russian state institutions. However almost none of these people are known in the West.
K. is a projection of what Euroeans believe to be the case in Russia. He does not embody serious insight into Russian elite societies as a whole.
Just regarding the importance of the General Staff and Russian military professionals before and after 1945 in Russia as a land power and everything that means for the Russian military and industrial complexes, K. is imho completely overblown in our media reporting.
Even a Ted Postol, being trained as an actual nuclear physicist and politicially only a “cog in the machine”, in the US had probably more material input on nuclear strategy than political economist and historian K..
Political analysts/historians in the West should stop projecting their views on Russia highlighting other political analysts/historians in Russia. Perhaps in some areas of the US (mainly post-1991 think tank USA I assume) political narrative-creators have a weight. However even with Iran when push came to shove so far, actual military professionals prevailed.
But when it comes to real decisions and plans, like nuclear strategy based on physics, math and medicine (nuclear fallout e.g.) real scientists and engineers and not some flimsy “thinking” are of actual relevance. Russia I assume is still operating this way which used to be formative in the US too.
In this I would really give Andrei Martyanov credit, stressing the influence of cadres in Russia totally ignored in the West.
To suggest as K. does, RU should drop a few nukes, is utter nonsense. I just cannot imagine any Russian military commander would take that seriously for a second. Those people are not novelists (like Karaganov), creating some self-serving fiction, but serious, responsible adults.
Keep in mind these are the armed forces that have conducted the biggest war in Europe since 1945. May be I am being unfair but I really doubt K. has any qualification that would allow him to participate in those plannings staffs.
It would be really interesting to hear what people with actual influence and standing in Russian ministries think about K.
All this again is another one of those Western misunderstandings.
Bottom-line: This is K. creating hot air to discuss mainly: K.
e.g.
Russian wiki on K.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%90%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
p.s. Glenn Diesen announced an episode with Karaganov later this week.
This K. phenomenon reminds me a bit of a conversation Ian Proud had with a former KGB Intelligence Officer in the American Department of First Chief Directorate.
I had hoped to learn somthing about SMO. But it turned out the man either kept his views and knowledge to himself or is, as I assume, clueless.
It turned out that he is knowledgeable on US films, literary history and political history – unsurprisingly.
K. too is a specialist on US/Europe views on Russia. According to the Wiki CV that´s what most of his work has covered.
That´s why we like him so much. In a way he provides confirmation of our bias.
There is certainly a grain of truth in saying that world leaders have become callous about the impossibility of nuclear war, but calling for a “demonstration” is nothing more than outrageous hyperbole. Maybe one day we in the West can forgive the Russian people for being the victims of Stalin. Providing confirmation of our well-known bias against them will get you eyeballs and clicks in our international 24-hour news cycle. There is no downside for being a Karaganov. Crying “wolf” and saying outrageous things simply puts more meat on your CV.
R.I.P. Ted Turner…
Agree. This is better than my short comment that got eaten in moderation.
“For many years I have studied the history of nuclear strategy”
Did he come across the idea of nuclear winter, I wonder?
“Russian hardliners” merely serve as the “bad cop” necessary to make Putin appear reasonable and moderate as a negotiating partner. Decisions about which countries to go to war with and whether to use nuclear missiles aren’t made on a whim by the president alone. Therefore, even if an extreme nationalist were to become president, Russia would still be unlikely to act recklessly.
Others like Martyanov have suggested that a few oreshnik strikes on European decision making centers would preclude the need for a nuclear demonstration. He has been warning for weeks now that Russian patience has about run out and Russia may respond to drone overflights.
And recent comments on Iran by Professor Marandi apply equally well, I think, to the claims by Doctorow and Helmer and others that Putin faces revolt. To paraphrase the professor: Iran has 93 million people and therefore 93 million points of view about events. In government circles there are many disagreements about the best policy to pursue. Disagreement does not mean division.
exactly
The Iran war might be part of the “problem” here, or rather Iran’s response to US-Israeli strikes, which was to immediately strike any US base within range along with (more importantly) the US vassal states hosting American forces, contrasted with what is viewed by a lot of pro-Russian commentators as Putin’s doveishness and unwillingness to strike decisively against Russia’s enemies and those aiding Russia’s enemies along their borders. I don’t think the two wars are at all comparable (Russia has to carefully manage nuclear war escalation risks otherwise we all get vaporized), but there is certainly a palpable frustration amongst this crowd who are observing Iran’s performance and asking “if Iran directly strikes American bases and vassal states without issues, who are obviously complicit in the war on Iran, why the hell don’t we do the same?”.
I think the notion that Iran is a model for more aggressive responses by Russia misses that Iran has been showing calibrated restraint and carefully managing escalation.
The Iranian equivalent of “tossing a few nukes” would be to destroy the energy (and desalination capability) of one of the gulf monarchies, say UAE.
Bottom line, war should be conducted without emotion, based on options that have been thought through in advance.
Curtis Emerson LeMay … Russian version LOL
Will the threat of a massive Russian retaliatory strike deter the Ukrainian leadership from sending drones to Moscow on Victory Day? Unlikely.
Zelensky pays no attention to what Washington thinks. He takes his orders from London, and they want to see an escalation of the conflict.
He may pay attention if he’s told his bunker will not withstand an Oreshnik strike.
Karaganov’s view makes sense in the context of contemporary – as well as historical – European politics. A few little nukes on key cities and other sites to avoid big nukes later by making Europe, and I include the UK, a nuclear free zone and leaving these obsessed, deluded and dangerous twerps to get back to subsistence farming, developing their skills in wattle and daub, and throwing spears at each other. It would also provide a basic and highly memorable lesson in the need for good manners in international dealings to the world.
Russia would abandon its nuclear arsenal?