Sergey Karaganov argues Russia must escalate — including nuclear strikes — to win what he calls a new world war
Glenn Diesen interviews Russian foreign policy scholar Sergey Karaganov on Russia's strategic position, nuclear doctrine, and the future of the conflict in Ukraine.
Summary
Glenn Diesen interviews Sergey Karaganov, Honorary Chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy and one of Russia's most influential foreign policy scholars, who has advised Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin. Karaganov argues that Russia is engaged in what he considers a fourth world war — counting the Napoleonic invasion as the first — and that Russia has been far too restrained in its response to Western escalation. He calls explicitly for conventional strikes on European targets followed, if necessary, by limited nuclear strikes, arguing that a limited nuclear exchange could paradoxically save humanity by forcing Western elites back to their senses. Karaganov also argues that the "spirit of Alaska" negotiations are either a trap or a mistake, and that any ceasefire without a fundamental change in European leadership will simply lead to renewed war. He discusses the Baltic Sea shadow fleet confrontation and criticises his own government for failing to respond firmly to what he calls acts of piracy. He concludes with a broader civilizational argument: that Russia was never truly a European country, that its Eurasian identity is its authentic one, and that the time has come to decisively end Russia's 300-year European orientation.
Key Takeaways
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Introduction and the nature of the current conflict
Glenn Diesen: Welcome back. We are joined today by Professor Sergey Karaganov, the head of the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, and one of the most influential Russian scholars on Russian foreign policy. Professor Karaganov has written speeches for and advised Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and of course President Putin, and was also a leading advocate for changing Russia's nuclear doctrine. From what I understand, President Putin pushed back before eventually adopting a lot of these suggestions. Thank you for taking the time.
Sergey Karaganov: Thank you. It's a great pleasure. I have been following your podcasts for quite some time and also remember our conversations in Moscow and elsewhere. This is a pleasure.
Glenn Diesen: I wanted to ask you about how this conflict has evolved and changed, because over the past four years we've seen some incredible developments that were unthinkable during the Cold War. We've seen NATO countries participating in missile attacks on Russia. We see NATO countries backing the invasion of Kursk — again, Russian territory — and seemingly assisting also in the attack on Russia's nuclear triad as well as the early warning system. All of this used to be unthinkable, at least during the Cold War. So I was really looking forward to a Russian perspective on what you see going on and where we're all heading, because unfortunately in the West at the moment we don't really discuss the security concerns of opponents anymore, and there's not really much discussion about the direction and the risks that are being taken by going down this path. How are these developments assessed now in the Kremlin?
Sergey Karaganov: We have been procrastinating for too long, and I have been criticizing my fellows in the government for tolerating Western aggression for too long, hoping that we could find a solution. The solution is nowhere to be found at this juncture. So I am returning back to what I have been proposing since 2023 and 2024, and this time I hope my suggestions will come true, though not in full.
We have to escalate and to punish our — this time European — enemies for conducting an all-out war against Russia. There are different calculations. I believe that this is a fourth world war, if you take the Napoleonic War — with 25 nations joining Napoleon in invading Russia — as the first, then the First and Second World Wars, and now we have the third. The problem is not exactly on the muddy fields of Ukraine. The problem is that the overall systematic change of the world system is bringing about something like a second world war that has actually started now. It started first in Ukraine, when Americans were willing to undermine Russia and unleashed it, and then Europeans greedily went into the abyss. But now it is also the Middle East and South Asia and Southeast Asia, and we see that as a third world war. I have decided to write about that already in the open, and you've got probably one of my first articles, and several more will follow.
Glenn Diesen: I always argue that this is a very dangerous time, because whenever you see a massive shift in world order it usually leads to a lot of instability. So as the world navigates from this unipolar moment for the collective West towards a multipolar system, you would hope that a lot of countries would be very careful in navigating and avoiding war and conflict. This is why the absence of diplomacy has been concerning, to say the least. I did read your article on how to win a world war, and I was wondering if you could flesh out the argument. I hear this argument quite often as well — that we are likely in another world war now. So how do you see Russia's position in this world war, and how can Russia win it?
How Russia can win — and why escalation is necessary
Sergey Karaganov: The problem is that we have to win, and we have to win for two reasons. One is to stop this bloodletting war in Ukraine, which goes nowhere but towards more and more victims on our side and five to ten times more on the Ukrainian side, and it is endless. Sooner or later it would and should escalate. But the second element of this war is the prevention of horizontal escalation, which has already started — because, as I said a couple of months ago, our American partners, enemies, whomever they are, following all predictions, started to destabilize South Eurasia, and that is the Middle East. It is not about Iranian nuclear weapons. It is about destabilization of a huge area starting from the Maghreb and going down through Southeast Asia, and they have started to do that, and we have to think about how to stop it.
On the Ukrainian front it is relatively clear to me. But it is a much more deep and profound task as to the whole international system.
Glenn Diesen: Throughout this conflict, or at least over the past four years, there has seemingly always been a dilemma in Russia. As the NATO side escalates — and the NATO side did recognize it escalated; I always point out that Joe Biden once argued that sending F-16s would mean World War Three — we kind of crossed all these lines. But for the Russians, I guess they always had to choose: keep things stable, or risk world war by retaliating, or not retaliating and essentially emboldening the other side and then seeing further escalation. You've argued for the need to actually use nuclear weapons in order to restore deterrence. Is that correct?
Sergey Karaganov: Yes. This war has brought a lot of benefits to Russia. It has recuperated from its idleness. We have restored our soul and our honor. We have started to value those people in our society who are truly valuable — meritocratic elites, scholars, doctors, officers — and the country is becoming healthier. But for that we are paying with too many bodies.
So my advice to my government at this juncture is that we should stop this war, at least in Europe, by going up the ladder of escalation — first attacking by conventional weapons certain symbolic or logistical points on European soil. We do not need an inch of Europe, as you might understand. And then if they do not succumb, we should follow with nuclear strikes of relative measure, with of course offering some kind of ultimatum. If they did not succumb, well, some of the countries of Europe should perish. That is my suggestion, though I pray to God — and I am a believer — that that would not happen. But I believe that these people have lost their minds, lost their sense of history. These elites are totally irresponsible and they should be punished.
That is why, in addition to many other things, I propose that our military nuclear doctrine should concentrate not only on deterring attacks against Russia proper, but should concentrate on punishing European elites — including with special munitions which would do away with their bunkers — and the first waves should go there. The European elites which are senseless, which are responsible, should suffer first, not the European peoples. We are debating this issue, and sooner or later this debate will come to a decision.
Glenn Diesen: I remember you made these arguments a while back already. Do you get a feeling that the mood in the Kremlin is shifting now more towards your arguments, or has it not moved that much?
Sergey Karaganov: I am not here to talk about the mood in the Kremlin. When I started three years ago to put the idea on the table, I was the proud voice of a minority. Now I am a voice of an overwhelming majority — both in the military, in the political circles, and in society. But again, I am not calling for massive nuclear strikes, as I know that they would take away — but the problem is that we have to stop this war, at least in Europe.
As I've said, the war is already expanding and it is engulfing South Asia and Southwestern Asia, and then it will spread, because the attack against Iran was predictable. It brought about not only curtailment of oil transactions, but also curtailment of the flow of fertilizers and many other things. It was absolutely predictable. And that means that we will have a new wave of instability also in the so-called third world.
I must say that from my point of view, what is happening is that the historic West, which has been losing its historic predominance in culture, politics, and economics — which allowed it to rob the world for 500 years — is on the decline. Europeans don't quite understand what they're doing, but Americans, I think, do. And Mr. Trump, with all his jolts and jerks, looks to be a fine person — he leads his country, as he has been told to, exactly in the direction of a historic retreat. We will not allow it.
The negotiations and the "spirit of Alaska"
Glenn Diesen: I wanted to ask about this as well, because it seemed for a while that the United States was looking to — as the Ukraine war wasn't going their way — unload it or at least outsource it to the Europeans, and attempt to improve their bilateral ties with Russia. But this hasn't really moved much forward, and indeed the negotiations over Ukraine haven't really moved forward either. What do you make of the negotiations now, and what they refer to as the spirit of Alaska?
Sergey Karaganov: The spirit of Alaska is a joke. At some point in the course of this war we could agree to a truce, some kind of truce. But it would not be peace. Peace could be achieved only when and if at least European elites are thrown away by their peoples and by their deep states, because they are mad and they are leading their countries towards a big war.
Glenn Diesen: I was wondering what you thought about what I initially said — about the invasion of Kursk, and were you surprised by the very open support it got, at least rhetorically, but as we know also in terms of weapons and intelligence? As I said, this would have been unthinkable during the Cold War. How do you see this development?
Sergey Karaganov: This was my criticism of my own government and my own political class. We did not understand what kind of conflict we are in. We hoped that it was superficial — that it was about Ukraine, et cetera. It is a world war. And it is about an attempt of the old West to — well, it would be futile, because all the West will be destroyed if it continues, or the world will be destroyed, but hopefully not. We were thinking about how to avoid, how to agree, how to find peaceful solutions. We played with the Minsk processes for three years, which was an annotating mistake. Now we are talking about this spirit of Alaska. I'm smiling — the spirit is about nothing — because if and when we agree to something which is close to what President Trump proposed in Alaska, then that would mean that in a year or so the war would be resurrected, and in full scale, and of course with nuclear dimensions. So the spirit of Alaska is a trap on one side, or a mistake on the other side. I do not trust the spirit of Alaska, though I hope that eventually Americans and Russians would agree on some rules of behavior towards each other. But Europeans would not be a part of that game.
Glenn Diesen: Well, at least that's something — the US and Russia trying at least to improve relations, although I have limited optimism for how far this can go. I was speaking two days ago with Professor John Mearsheimer, and he told me I should ask you something he had been wondering about — the attack on the early warning radar system of Russia, the ones essentially used to detect a nuclear strike, something that would give Russia some time before a retaliatory strike. This seems like it's in everyone's interest for each side to have some warning time, unless you're planning a first strike, of course. And then also in June of last year, the attack on Russia's nuclear deterrent, which I heard from the FSB was assisted by British MI6. How are you reading this? It's a very concerning development.
Sergey Karaganov: They are pushing to the limits. The Russian government wanted to avoid confrontation, and I think we made a mistake. We should start to punish our enemies full scale, hopefully without unleashing an all-out nuclear war. But first, of course, these crimes which they have committed — which have been unheard of even in the worst days of the Cold War — should be punished, and there are many ways and we are planning them.
First, of course, attacking serious targets on the territory of Europe. But let me remind you that we don't need an inch of Europe — we have to be as far away from Europe as we could be. But before that, of course, probably we have to crush the regime in Kyiv, and without climbing the ladder of nuclear escalation, that looks to be impossible or too expensive in terms of spending our human material, our best manpower.
So my advice — which is fully supported — is to escalate first by striking with conventional weapons symbolic and also important targets like logistical centers or military bases. And then if they do not stop, we should go nuclear with a series of limited strikes. Before that we have to change our doctrine, which is outdated by 40 or 50 years.
Let me remind you that our nuclear doctrine believes that there will be no victories in a nuclear war. That is stupidity. There will be — there could be — a victor in a nuclear war. I beg the Almighty that it will not happen, especially in Europe. I think that eventually we could even produce an ultimatum to some of our European neighbors, especially in the northwestern part of Europe, so that they will succumb and surrender. But before that we could probably look for possibilities for limiting casualties on the European side. But we are tired of spending our best men on this — and I'm sorry, you are European and I am European too — on this junk which is called Europe.
Nuclear doctrine, arms control, and delegation of authority
Glenn Diesen: In your article on how to win a world war, you did advocate for many policy changes for Russia — to essentially change course and begin to restore the deterrent which has slipped gradually over the past four years. One of them was to walk away from arms control as well. How does that fit into the wider argument?
Sergey Karaganov: Now we have to change our policies in many directions. One — which I have not yet mentioned — is of course that we have to change our doctrine of using nuclear weapons. Now we should put there a dictum that if we are attacked by a group of countries which have a preponderance over us in economic, technological, and demographic potential, we not only have a right — we have an obligation to use nuclear weapons.
The second proposal which I have pushed forward is that the commander-in-chief should delegate some of his authority to the commander-in-chief of the European theater — a general who would be supported by officers and generals with field experience — and that he would be responsible for the possibility, when necessary, to use all means including nuclear weapons against certain European countries which have unleashed and are continuing to unleash an aggressive war against Russia.
I don't want Europe to be eliminated, because I am culturally a European. But I am reminding my own compatriots that, unlike many of our dreams, Europe is the source of all evil — of all wars, of all genocides, of everything worst in human history. It is returning back to its normal situation, and I hope that we will be able to prevent that for the sake of Europe, for our sake, and for the sake of European peoples. But Europeans have to understand that their leaders are leading them possibly to destruction.
The role of Germany, the UK, and the path to diplomacy
Glenn Diesen: That's one of the things I usually have difficulty understanding — it seems like this escalation, if we follow a clear track over the past four years, is leading us very predictably into all-out conflict with Russia, which would likely involve nuclear weapons. Yet there doesn't seem to be much discussion or effort to have any course correction. Indeed, there is a demand for consensus around one policy, and everything else is dismissed essentially as taking the side of Russia if one calls for some restraint or recognizing the security concerns of the other side. A colleague of mine, Jeffrey Sachs, often puts a lot of the blame for the Ukraine war on Germany and the United Kingdom, in addition to the US of course. You also tend to focus more on both Germany and the UK as being the leading aggressors against Russia. Can you elaborate on how you see this?
Sergey Karaganov: This war against Russia has been unleashed by the United States — you will read a series of my articles from 2002, 2003, 2004. Then it escalated. Then Europeans jumped into this game. Now the Germans and the Brits of course are playing the usual game, and that is igniting war in Europe to weaken their continental neighbors and ruin them. That has been their bad habit for several centuries.
Now unfortunately we in Russia have not yet understood that we are turning back to the worst times in our history. And as for Germany — when a German chancellor calls for the strongest army in Europe, that means he is calling for the elimination, the total evaporation, of Germany. And German burghers — and you know we have common German friends — they should understand that.
Glenn Diesen: You mentioned that the spirit of Alaska is a joke and is dead, but do you see any other possible pathways to a diplomatic solution? A year ago when the Trump administration returned, there was some talk from the United States that we had to find peace — they recognized that expanding NATO up to Russia's border had been a mistake. They argued for a neutral Ukraine. They argued for accepting territorial concessions. But again, this seems to have gone nowhere. Indeed, it appears to have been walked back to some extent. Is there still any pathway to a diplomatic peace instead of this war?
Sergey Karaganov: Of course, let diplomacy have a chance. But from my point of view, the end game should be the elimination of the Kyiv regime. First, second, the restoration of our lands in the south and east of Ukraine. We don't want to take and should not want to take all of Ukraine, because it is a breadbasket. But the main thing now, in addition to what has been proposed, is to break the will of European elites for aggression. They have started an aggression, they have conducted an aggression, and they should be punished for that — all eliminated by their deep states, hopefully, or by their peoples.
When the president of France calls for extending French deterrence to other countries, he is not only a blatant and stupid liar — he should be treated by the French as a traitor, because that means he is ready to sacrifice Paris or Lyon for the sake of, say, Berlin or Warsaw. These people, who have lost their sense of history and their basic senses, should be either punished or eliminated — better the latter. That should be done not by Russian missiles or troops. We will not invade Europe under any circumstances, because there is nothing we need there. But by European peoples, who have also lost their sense of self-preservation. They are led by mad leaders. Hopefully Europeans will be able to throw them away, but I am not trying to intrude into the internal affairs of European countries. It is up to you to decide.
The Baltic Sea and the shadow fleet confrontation
Glenn Diesen: It seems to me that one possible avenue for escalation into a massive direct war would possibly be unleashed in the Baltic Sea. Over the past months we've seen blockades on Venezuela and Cuba, hijacking of Iranian tankers, and of course it began first with referring to Russia's civil fleet as a shadow fleet, and then efforts at boarding them. Now we see talks of a naval alliance — the UK plus nine others — whose task is essentially to confront what they have labeled Russia's shadow fleet. Do you see this as a possibility?
Sergey Karaganov: In our internal discussions, I am criticizing my government for being so soft on these acts of piracy. If and when the Danish channels could be closed, then it would simply mean there will be no Denmark anymore. But I love Denmark — it is a nice country, and it is close to your country and also to Sweden. We should be serious about returning these idiots back to their senses.
Glenn Diesen: Again, I'm hoping there will be a way of restoring deterrence, as you said — God forbid — without any nuclear exchange.
Sergey Karaganov: Well, a limited nuclear exchange, if it happens and if it brings these mad dogs to their senses, could be a saver of humanity. Because overall we are living in a world of multiple crises, where many underlying notions of our life are crumbling. Modern capitalism has exhausted its life. Now we see that modern capitalism plus the information revolution is undermining and dehumanizing the human — but that is very deep. Now we are going to the geopolitical level. On the geopolitical level, that is being reflected by the rearguard action of the West, which tries to restore its previously prevalent position in the world — which allowed it to rob the world. But it will never happen. Hopefully we could somewhere along the road arrange a world of multipolarity, of mutual respect, and a world which is much more peaceful. But we are in for 20 years of wars.
Russia's civilizational future — turning away from Europe
Glenn Diesen: Just my last question: how do you see Russia's future after this war? Since Peter the Great, the past 300 years, Russia modernized by looking West, and indeed Gorbachev had this greater European home idea as well. But as you said, with the rise now of the East, modernization is no longer monopolized by the West, and Russia has all these partners in the East as well. How do you see Russia's future after this?
Sergey Karaganov: First of all, I am of course a historian of Russia too. Russia has never been a European country. Originally it has been a Eurasian country from the beginning. We took our external cultural roots not from Europe. We took them from Palestine, from the brilliant Byzantine civilization, from the Muslim world, and from the Buddhist world. And the political and external political core of our society and of our culture came from the great Mongol Empire.
Now, the Western, European journey of Peter was useful, because at that juncture we were lacking technological progress and technological knowledge, and our army was not that well organized, because Europeans were much better organized. But the European journey of Peter the Great had to be stopped at the end of the 19th century. By that time we had taken everything positive which we could have taken from Europe — both in military organization, though in terms of artillery and military tactics we had become the first country in Europe by the end of that century. We had also absorbed great European culture. Without Europe we would not have had Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, and so on. But we should have stopped the journey at the end of the 19th century. After the end of the 19th century we continued unfortunately with the journey and got two world wars and communism from there.
We have to finish our European journey — most of it. Beethoven and Shakespeare are our writers and our composers and they are very deep in our souls, but Europe should be thrown away from our history, though kept as a very interesting and useful element.
Glenn Diesen: As you mentioned Dostoevsky there, I was thinking you sounded a bit like Fyodor Dostoevsky, because in the second half of the 19th century he was making a similar point — that the Russians had for too long attempted to mold themselves into being like Europe and Europeans, and they only gained the contempt of the Europeans. So he essentially said the Russians should look East.
Sergey Karaganov: I am going further than Dostoevsky — and though he is my most favorite writer in Russia, though of course I love Pushkin — I am saying that Europhiles and Westernizers in Russia now, after what has happened, are either intellectually impotent or morally corrupt. It is an idiocy. You have to be an amoral idiot in Russia to follow the European way.
Glenn Diesen: Well, thank you for taking the time. I appreciate your views.
Sergey Karaganov: Absolutely. However — yes, Professor Diesen, you know that I have a lot of friends in Europe and I cherish our friendships, and I do not want to totally cut our ties with decent Europeans. There are some still — they are brainwashed — and I hope that some of the connections could be restored. But Europe for Russia is something we should keep at a distance. We don't need an inch of Europe. The farther we get away from Europe now, the better it is for Russia and its future.