In recent months, the situation in the Strait of Hormuz has captured global attention, and tensions between Europe and Russia continue to rise. As Russia intensifies its military actions in Ukraine and the United States begins to retract its support, it is crucial to examine the implications of this standoff. Despite their perceived weaknesses, European nations have the potential to inflict harm, particularly through acts of terrorism. Thus, the apprehensions expressed by hardliners like Sergey Karaganov are not without merit.
It is important to note that Russia has issued a stark warning: should Ukraine attack Moscow’s Victory Day parade, retaliatory strikes on central Kyiv could follow. Although President Putin has so far avoided such actions due to concerns about civilian casualties and damage to historically significant sites, Russia has advised both civilians and foreign diplomats to evacuate Kyiv. Should Ukraine proceed with an attack, and if Russia responds by decimating Kyiv’s administrative center, European capitals are likely to erupt in hysteria.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who focuses on the transition to a multipolar world in the context of the New Cold War. He holds a PhD from MGIMO, part of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
It is essential for observers, particularly Western officials, to remain cognizant of these perspectives, as one of their own may succeed Putin in the future.
RT recently published an interview with Sergey Karaganov, a prominent Russian expert known for his controversial views, including advocating for nuclear escalation against Europe. In contrast to his ideological rival, Timofei Bordachev, who pushes for diplomacy with the West, Karaganov’s blunt remarks shed light on the mindset of Russian hardliners.
Karaganov reiterated his alarming stance, suggesting that Russia should consider nuclear options to prevent what he believes will inevitably escalate into a conventional war with Europe, potentially leading to nuclear conflict. He urged Putin to appoint a military leader dedicated to operations against Europe, initiating combat with conventional weapons before resorting to nuclear options if necessary. He brazenly claimed, “Forget the nonsense that a nuclear war cannot be won; it can be won.”
Karaganov further elaborated on his views, asserting, “We have forgotten that Europe embodies humanity’s gravest evils: colonialism, racism, and genocides around the world.” He insists that Europe represents a “plague” to be isolated or ultimately eradicated. Drawing parallels with the rise of German fascism, he advocates for stopping European aggression before it spirals into a larger conflict, arguing that their elites are devolving into “subhumans.” Accordingly, he believes in treating those aligned with pro-European sentiments harshly, deeming such attitudes as moral weakness and treason.
This sentiment seems directed at certain Russian figures, including Kirill Dmitriev, who has engaged in negotiations with the U.S. with Putin’s tacit approval.
Despite his extreme views, it would be inaccurate to label Karaganov as “anti-Putin.” Instead, he is a critical friend, unwilling to publicly oppose the president out of concern that doing so could be exploited by adversaries. His critiques are often veiled, such as his indirect comments addressing Dmitriev’s negotiating stance.
As a leader within Russia’s hardliner faction, Karaganov’s statements are emblematic of a larger trend. It is crucial for international observers, particularly from the West, to consider these perspectives seriously. The prospect of a hardliner succeeding Putin would complicate any future negotiations over Ukraine, especially if the situation remains unresolved. Maintaining a dialogue with Russia while Putin is still in power may be advisable to prevent an even more challenging scenario down the line.
