Reflections on the Path to Victory

Sergey Karaganov at the Magazine, Russia in Global Affairs

Sergey Karaganov: Doctor of Historical Sciences, Distinguished Professor, Academic Director of the Faculty of World Economy and World Politics at the National Research University Higher School of Economics, Honorary Chairman of the Presidium of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy.

Russia has begun to win the fight against Western aggression in Ukraine . But it is too early and dangerous to calm down . The fight is only just heating up . Let’s calm down , let ‘s stop – “let’s snatch defeat from the hands of victory” . But in order to achieve victory, we need a serious modernization of many aspects of the previous policy , including the correction and clarification of its goals .

The strategic goal of policy, especially foreign and defense policy, during this period should be to prevent the looming Third World War . Many circumstances are pushing us toward it. I have already written a lot about them . But especially the desperate and, hopefully, final counterattack of the West. The goal should be to facilitate the beginning, maximally peaceful, withdrawal of the United States from the position of global hegemon, which it can no longer afford, to the position of a normal great power. “Great America” is a strong competitor, but it will not directly threaten the interests of our country and its friends. And in the future, it is capable of becoming one of the four leading builders of the new world – the United States was a relatively constructive power until the end of World War II.

Another strategic task is to push back Europe – the source of most of humanity’s troubles in the last five centuries, two world wars, aggression against Russia, colonialism, racism, genocides, monstrous ideologies (we are witnessing the latest wave of anti-human values ​​now) from the position of an important world player. Let it stew in its own juices. Perhaps it will recover and return to its best – rationality, enlightenment, humanism, high culture, casting aside neo-Nazism, ultra-liberalism, messianic democracy.

These goals will have to be achieved by strengthening nuclear deterrence and deterrence, but also by diplomacy. With its help, it is worth trying to avoid Washington developing the Weimar syndrome, which has already blossomed in Europe due to a series of defeats of their elites. No one imposed it on Europe; it appeared due to its own numerous mistakes.

The strategic goal of Russian policy is also that our victory should stop the world from sliding towards World War III. Victory over the West in Ukraine should be used as a substitute. The main instrument is a sharp increase in reliance on the nuclear factor in our combined power and strategy, and in international relations in general. Given the size of the economy, the small population, the accumulated lag in the scientific and technical field since the 1990s, it is not worth competing with rivals in general-purpose forces, in digital weapons, although they need to be strengthened. Nuclear weapons are an equalizer of power for relatively small ones.

This is why the US consistently strives to reduce the role of the nuclear factor in world politics. We have the opposite interest.

The crisis of the previous world system, which entered an acute phase in the second half of the 2000s and worsened with a series of defeats of the USA (Iraq, Afghanistan), the beginning of the global economic crisis, will continue for another decade and a half to two decades. During this time, Russia must solve a series of strategic tasks – overcoming Westernism and Western centrism, which are becoming a sign of mental poverty, the fastest (through the defeat and capitulation of the Kyiv regime) victory in the war with the West in Ukraine, modernization of the economy, restoration of its scientific and technical potential on a new basis, the final deliverance of the ruling class and society as a whole from compradors and the way of thinking inherent in them; the country’s turn to the East and South by shifting the center of spiritual economic development to the Urals and Siberia, including through the creation of a third capital there; the formation of an effective and leading ideology for everyone – from kindergarten, commitment to it should become a necessary condition for entry into the ruling elite.

It is also necessary to make a meaningful move toward a new model of socio-economic development of the country and the world, to ensure a real, relatively peaceful multipolarity. The goal, among other things, is for Russia to achieve the position of a balancer in the economic and political system of Greater Eurasia, to consolidate its status as one of the four great powers that determine the vector of development of world politics.

It is clear that the main focus of state policy should be on internal development – ​​spiritual, educational, scientific and technical, economic, spatial – through the already mentioned shift to Siberia and the East and South, including through the creation of a third Siberian capital. The concentration of the main human, industrial, scientific resources in the European part of the country is an increasingly anachronistic thing. Achievements in this part must be preserved. But in combination with the targeted “Siberianization” of Russia. It is to Siberia and the Urals that people from the reunited and border territories must be attracted, primarily by improving living conditions, romance and prospects, and by building new scientific and industrial clusters there. The main goal of policy should be the development – ​​spiritual, educational, physical, moral – of all residents of our country, regardless of ethnicity, since they all constitute a single community, the unifying element of which is Russian culture in the broad sense.

Moving forward, we must take into account the main macro-trends that will determine the development of the world in the next two decades of transition to a new world system.

Global Macro Trends

1. The exhaustion of the currently dominant model of socio-economic development – ​​liberal global capitalism-imperialism. The emphasis on endless growth of consumption for the sake of profit inherent in this model is beginning to undermine the foundation of human existence – nature and man himself, who is objectively and subjectively deprived of his essence, turning him into a soulless, brainless and unrestrained consumer. This model also requires geographical expansion – hence the expansion of NATO, the incitement and provocation of wars and conflicts. Lenin’s theory of imperialism, like Spengler’s theory of the decline of the West – Europe, turned out to be prophetic.

2. The rise of new powers, the revival of great civilizations that had been suppressed for five centuries. This is to a decisive extent the result of the fact that the USSR, then Russia, which had recovered from a severe crisis, knocked out the foundation from under the dominance of the West in politics, economics, culture – its military superiority. Russia liberated the world, but its transition to a new state will inevitably be accompanied by aggravations, frictions between old and new powers.

3. A desperate counterattack by the West, trying to maintain its position in the world system, allowing it not only to dominate and impose its rules and culture, but – most importantly – to siphon off the world’s GNP in its favor. Its current relative wealth is to a decisive extent the result of colonialism, neocolonialism, and more recently through more sophisticated systems of resource siphoning. Including through the dominance of the dollar.

The counterattack is being carried out through multilateral pressure on China and other new countries, but in the near term – through an attempt to weaken or undermine Russia, the military-strategic core of the rising global majority, through waves of sanctions, the outbreak of war in Ukraine, and other crises.

If the US is acting a little more cautiously – trying to drag Russia, taking advantage of its indecisiveness so far, into a long, bleeding conflict, but trying to prevent its escalation, then the European elites, having lost the last of their reason and sense of self-preservation, are directly driving societies to a major war (closing their eyes to its monstrous consequences for Europe). However, the defeated liberals in Washington, towards sunset, gave the order to strike at Russian territory, hoping to prolong the war.

4. The unprecedentedly rapid redistribution of forces in the world and the rearguard battles of the West have created an acutely pre-war situation that will persist in the foreseeable future.

5. Most of old Europe has entered a severe existential crisis. Its elites, either explicitly or subconsciously, see a way out in war, for which they are preparing their citizens. The western part of the subcontinent, as more than once in history, is becoming the main threat to international peace. Over the past decades, most countries have lost their sovereignty. There is no way out of the crisis in sight. The United States is also in decline. Its elite also needs an enemy. But they are embarking, albeit hesitantly, on the path of national revival and nationally oriented policies (Trump). This makes them more likely partners in the long term. Washington needs to be contained as firmly as possible, and helped to get rid of the illusions of hegemony.

6. A new military-technical revolution has begun – through the proliferation of relatively cheap drones, and the cheapening of missile weapons. So far, it has been possible to limit the use of bioweapons. But the threat is growing. Together, these and a number of other factors make conflicts and wars much more destructive and “accessible.”

7. There is an erosion of the former institutions and concepts that regulated the behavior of world powers. The degradation of elites is growing, especially in the West, which still plays a major role in the world economy and politics.

8. The gratifying rise of new powers and the restoration of old civilizations have not yet filled the vacuum of controllability of the world system. It has entered the usual chaos, but at a qualitatively higher level of interdependence.

The above factors require a serious reorientation of the Russian state policy. The line of increasing the well-being of the people must certainly be maintained. But the provision of defense capability and the moral and spiritual tone of society and the elite should be brought to the forefront. The economy should turn from the mistress of politics into its effective servant for this time. The state of mind, the cohesion of the nation, the development of man and military force come to the fore. Leadership positions in society should be occupied not by economists and businessmen (although we cannot do without them), but by officers, scientists, especially natural scientists, philosophers, teachers, and clergy.

Internal factors

The war with the West in Ukraine allows for the resolution of several strategic tasks of internal development.

Reorientation of the economy and thinking of the elites and society to the tasks of internal development – scientific and technical, spiritual, territorial – from the long-outdated and unprofitable Western centrism. A real rapprochement with the potentially extremely profitable markets of the East and South has begun.

We are rapidly getting rid of the “fifth column” of compradors and the type of thinking associated with them.

Economic growth has begun, albeit still unstable – both through import substitution and through the priority growth of the military-industrial complex. Without war, it was not possible to achieve economic growth – we sat in stagnation for fifteen years.

Its meritocratic strata began to come to the forefront of the elites – not the comprador businessmen, but the military, industrialists, scientists (so far very slowly), honest and patriotic officials.

The spiritual and moral revival of society begins. From the late Soviet cynicism and disbelief, the early Russian throwing and loss of moral guidelines (money defeats evil) to the values ​​that are traditional for Russia and saving in the modern world – first of all, the priority of the spiritual over the material, love for family, fellow citizens, the Motherland and the desire to serve them. Faith in God is returning to society, although for now this often has rather superficial manifestations.

Very important . All these and a number of other positive shifts in society and the country are just beginning. To continue them, we need a targeted state policy and, alas, a continuation of the confrontation with the West – although, we hope, less bloody and dangerous.

History proves that without an external threat, our society, which grew up in opposition to it, does not develop. And even degenerates.

The confrontation also brings enormous costs – first of all, the death of thousands and thousands of the best men. But also the distraction from the movement towards oneself – and therefore, towards the Urals and Siberia – the sources of existence, the spiritual strength of Russia for five centuries, and towards the East and the South – where the world development is rapidly moving. A slowly ongoing war inevitably leads to increased fatigue in society, a potential weakening of support for the leadership and unity around it.

The conclusion is obvious. The phase of direct armed conflict must be ended. But there is no need to strive to end the confrontation with the West. Especially since this is impossible, given the current vector of development of Western, especially European elites.

Time and targeted policy are needed to reform the thinking and orientation of our society and elites towards the goals of national, sovereign, spiritual and economic development and promising external economic, cultural and political markets. And they, we repeat, are primarily in Central, Southern and Eastern Eurasia. In the foreseeable but distant future, a limited restoration of ties with some countries of Europe is desirable, which in the next five to eight years will begin to disintegrate. With regard to its parts, a joint policy with the PRC is needed, which is currently absent. And, of course, an acceleration of rapprochement with Africa, where there are also promising markets.

In educational policy, there is an urgent need for an accelerated shift in favor of studying and teaching schoolchildren and students the situation in the countries of the world majority, their history, culture, languages. Especially oriental studies. Its rise will contribute to internal development, the restoration of our indigenous identity. And it is not in Western Europe, but in Byzantium and Asia (Siberia).

Finally, modern civilization requires a conscious policy to preserve the Human in Human, the best in our civilization, its cultural, religious and national openness, “the global responsiveness of Russia.” It is necessary to put forward a new Russian idea – a common state ideology, first of all for ourselves. And then to present it to the world. Defensive-offensive in the best Russian traditions. Defensive – from harmful influences, offensive – through offering ourselves as one of the new moral and political leaders of the future world. We need a Russian idea-dream – a common goal of national development.

External environment

For now, despite all the difficulties created by the West’s sanctions policy, Russia is finally developing positive relations with the countries of the global majority (MB), which are beginning to play an increasingly important role in the global economy and politics. What happens next largely depends on the dynamics of the conflict with the West in Ukraine. Its prolongation due to indecision or, perhaps, “incomplete victory”, and therefore victory of the West, will slow down or even partially reverse the rapprochement. Freezing the conflict on the current borders without a decisive victory will dispel the image of Russia as a victorious country, which is worth focusing on and with which it is worth being friends. The diversion of resources to the dead-end Western direction will continue. In addition, the confrontation will almost inevitably resume and on terms less favorable to us. This is understood in the countries of the global majority, which for the most part sympathize with Russia, but are not ready to decisively go over to its side.

The likely increase in US pressure on China will strengthen Russia’s position in relations with Beijing. But under no circumstances should further strategic rapprochement with China be questioned. It must remain the primary goal of Russian policy for the foreseeable future.

The majority of the world’s countries have different attitudes to the key issue for us – the activation of the nuclear deterrence factor in the foreign policy of the Russian Federation, in particular in the conflict with the West in Ukraine. In this environment, anti-nuclear sentiments prevail, although not everywhere, including due to the past segregation of most of these countries in the designated area. The United States is trying to actively use these sentiments to put pressure on Russia, threatening its isolation in the event of the use of nuclear weapons, acting including through comprador circles in these countries. But at the same time, the majority of the elites and especially the population of the majority of the world’s countries would like the defeat of the West. With a proper explanation, which, alas, is not yet available, they would be ready to agree with Russia’s increased reliance on nuclear weapons up to their use. For now, we have left the initiative to the West. In-depth discussions with Chinese experts have shown that they are receptive to the thesis of the need to achieve the defeat of the West in Ukraine at any cost.

It is a source of great satisfaction that in November 2024, albeit with a delay, the presidential decree on the approval of the Fundamentals of the State Policy of the Russian Federation in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence was published , changing the nuclear doctrine almost revolutionary, decisively bringing it closer to the needs of the time. Our opponents should have no doubts about our ability and readiness, in extreme cases, to use nuclear weapons and win the war.

The United States is the most important player on the world stage for the foreseeable future, but it is beginning a long-term withdrawal from a position of global hegemony that is no longer so advantageous due to the West’s loss of the basis of its dominance – military superiority. This process must be stimulated and directed (within the framework of existing possibilities and with increasing reliance on a coalition strategy with the countries of the world majority). In relation to Ukraine, this means a deliberate increase in the costs of confrontation, first of all, danger. So far, this war is very advantageous for Washington, it ties its hands, potentially weakens Russia, and allows it to plunder Europe with redoubled energy. But the United States can plunder without war – they have already achieved one of their main goals – preventing a potential union between Europe and Russia.

Trump will offer to ease the pressure on Russia (which he cannot deliver) in exchange for abandoning his close alliance with China. He will remain the main enemy of the American ruling elite for the foreseeable future. He was before, but in recent years the United States has tried above all to undermine Russia in order to indirectly weaken China and the global majority. They have failed to achieve this goal, too.

The Trump administration will offer a deal, alternating threats with promises. Threats – above all, a temporary increase in support for the Kyiv junta – are unpleasant, although the US already understands that it is impossible to win. Threats must be responded to with counter-threats, above all, an escalation of the conflict against the most important assets of the United States in Europe, their bases around the world. The new nuclear doctrine is a powerful step in this direction. But appropriate military-technical measures are also needed, strategic forces exercises, possibly the deployment of a new complex of medium- and shorter-range missiles. The US can (and is threatening) to do this regardless of our actions. But this step is not beneficial to them. They strengthen strategic ties with Europe and, accordingly, the vulnerability of America itself. After all, an INF strike on Russian territory will inevitably be followed by a response on American territory. And such a blow to a country with a low tolerance for casualties, two hundred and fifty million firearms in the hands of its citizens, would mean the end of the United States, even if the attack were limited. But, I repeat what has been said many times: I would be very reluctant to use the weapon of God, even against the insane.

Naturally, half-hearted deals are not worth it. America is an unreliable partner in the foreseeable future. A radical normalization of relations with the US cannot be expected in the next decade. It is better, of course, not to be rude, and even smile sometimes. It is necessary to strictly restrain, to continue the planned line, not to give in to promises, and to respond to threats with threats. Even preemptively.

Trump’s hands are tied by years of escalating Russophobia on the part of liberals. The inertia of the Cold War is powerful, and anti-Russian sentiments are strong among most Trumpists. The military actions in Ukraine, until we decisively climb the ladder of nuclear escalation, do not threaten the United States in any way, but are extremely beneficial to them. And most importantly, the ruling elite, even its more nationally oriented part (Trumpists), is not yet ready to completely abandon the role of world hegemon. This will take time. And at least one more defeat (in Ukraine). We must try to make it not humiliating for the United States.

I repeat, a radical improvement is not only impossible for now, but also unnecessary. Otherwise, we will relax. The quiet compradors and Westerners will rush forward again. We have not completed the Eastern and Siberian turn . Halfway there, the technical modernization of the Russian economy will slow down, science, which is only just beginning to revive, and the structural reorganization of the economy from raw materials and services primarily to production will slow down. But cosmetic, atmospheric adjustments are desirable – to avoid a direct clash and expand the field for maneuver in relation to other players. We can even go for disarmament negotiations, which are meaningless in the current political situation and the situation in the military-technical sphere.

Europe is naturally diverse, but at present it is dominated by militant anti-Russian sentiments. It is not the US, but it, as it happened several times during the last Cold War, that is leading in escalating tensions (Churchill’s speech in Fulton, initiated by the Europeans, the deployment of medium-range missiles in the 1970s, and so on).

The roots of the hostility of the European liberal-globalist elites are extensive. This is, first of all, the need to cover up and justify their almost universal failures of the last two decades. This is the desire of the Brussels-oriented elites, and they are still at the top, to bind the crumbling body of the European Union, the basis of their domestic and economic positions, with the ties of hostility. This is the strengthening of the Eastern European border states in the Euro-elites, hostile to Russia. This is the desire to preserve NATO – an extremely profitable instrument that allows saving money on security, shifting them to the United States (which is becoming increasingly difficult).

The European military-industrial complex is also interested in the escalation. An important role in the unleashing of Russophobia was played by the unusually strong comprador elites in Europe, bought up en masse by the Americans. Washington is reaping the harvest from many years of investment in the Euro-elites. True, Europe is seen as an ever greater burden. Therefore, they began to shamelessly rob it, taking advantage of the fact that the elites are bought up and non- or even anti-national. It is unclear whether Europe will be able to get out of this impasse. Although pieces are starting to fall off. But this is a long process with an unclear outcome.

In Europe, which has gone further down the path of moral degeneration (the newest values) than the United States, hatred of Russia is very strong also because it acts as a bastion of normal, European values, and represents a visible alternative. In Europe, the level of “strategic parasitism” – the absence of fear of war – is much higher than in the United States . The remnants of strategically thinking elites have died out or have been firmly pushed aside. The anti-meritocratic nature of modern democracy has manifested itself there especially powerfully. In most countries, the level of the ruling elites is unprecedentedly low. All this is superimposed on the centuries-old Russophobia that is traditional for Russia’s Western neighbors.

There is also frustration over the failure of the Ukrainian scenario of weakening Russia and a fear of our country, which is sincere among many and powerfully swayed. This is the shadow of its numerous victories. There are also strong revanchist sentiments for the defeat in World War II, when almost all of Europe fought on Hitler’s side. The desire to take revenge for past defeats is especially strong in Poland, Sweden, and Germany.

The modern European ruling elite (and this is very important) is not only fiercely anti-Russian, but is also increasingly clearly preparing its people for war.

This is evidenced by military preparations. And even more so by the level of anti-Russian psychosis. Europeans are forbidden to communicate with Russians, those who advocate reasonable policies or even strive to maintain human contacts are persecuted.

Of course, not all countries and not all forces in Europe are fiercely opposed to Russia. And they should not be driven into the fold of the totally unfriendly. Propaganda and politics should distinguish between peoples and elites, and prevent them from uniting on an anti-Russian basis, which the current ruling circles of the West are seeking. It is not worth playing along with these circles by limiting contacts “in response”. But the truth is also the other way around – the USSR and especially Russia have forgotten that it is necessary to constantly remind the Germans of their monstrous crimes against humanity, our country. A more nuanced policy is advisable, separating the ruling elites from society. But societies are also affected.

And most importantly, the European elites, in their despair and loss of reason and sense of self-preservation, are pushing Europe and the entire world toward a major war, which will almost inevitably develop into World War III.

Conclusions

The primary and main goal of the current war must be the decisive defeat in Ukraine of the revanchism rising in Europe. This is a war to prevent World War III. To prevent the return of the Western yoke, the West’s ability to plunder and suppress the rest of the world. If the West suffers another decisive defeat in Ukraine, Europe will crumble faster. The United States, with all its hesitation and convulsions, will speed up its departure from the position of global hegemon (which in the new world is ultimately beneficial for America itself). But no less important, the likelihood of World War III will decrease.

Victory in Ukraine is and should be presented in propaganda as the most important prerequisite for stopping the world’s slide towards World War III, which has been going on for several years now, “a war to prevent a global war – a worldwide catastrophe.”

The goal of policy in the Western direction should not be to split Europe away from the United States. This is currently costly and unlikely. It is worth giving the Atlantic community a chance to self-destruct. The goal, in addition to those mentioned above, is to facilitate the transformation of the United States into a normal great power and, in the long term, to draw a significant part of the western edge of Eurasia into the Greater Eurasian Project.

I repeat once again, it is very important not to allow the confrontation in the Western direction, which has little prospects in the coming years, to continue to distract from the intensification of the turn to the South and East, from the shift of the center of Russia’s spiritual, economic and political development to the Urals and Siberia.

How can this be achieved? I will not go into details of military strategy in a published article. Besides, I do not have sufficient information or special knowledge, but the outline of the policy is clear – rapid specification of the nuclear doctrine: military-technical measures, deployment of new systems, acceleration of movement up the escalation ladder, redeployment of nuclear forces, demonstration of capabilities and readiness to use them in the most extreme case to curb those who have lost their minds. It is necessary to continue the offensive, but without active use of the nuclear factor the war cannot be won (or it is prohibitively expensive – we must protect our best).

A clear definition of strategic goals (I have outlined my own set) and consistent movement towards them without hesitation, although with possible diplomatic maneuvers – partners and friends must know about our determination to achieve the goals set. And that these goals correspond to their interests.

Negotiations are possible. But only to ensure the necessary pace and intensity of the offensive. And to avoid escalation getting out of control. It is time to finally stop trailing behind the West’s escalation and start setting its pace. The goal is not so much the overthrow of the Kyiv junta and complete capitulation, but demilitarization, possibly with a no-fly zone, of the territories that will remain part of the Ukrainian state. The goal is to break the will of the West, especially the brutalized Euro-elites, to continue the war and stop the slide toward World War III.

If we are decisive and consistent, victory will remain ours and the majority of humanity, which wants to live freely and not be thrown into the abyss of world war because of the stupidity and greed of Western elites. The initial negotiating position is obvious, declared and should not be changed – NATO’s return to the 1997 borders. Further options are possible.

Naturally, Trump will try to raise the stakes. We need to act preemptively. And then the “deal” that will end the war and, hopefully, the acute confrontation in the west of Eurasia will take place. There is no point in listening to the Europeans for now; they have undermined their sovereignty and subjectivity with their own hands. They should simply be removed, showing what the threat of their reckless and suicidal desire to unleash another world war is. We will have to wait for them to sober up. I sincerely hope that before the most extreme measures are taken.