Karaganov: Russia must be prepared to use nuclear weapons

By Professor Sergey Karaganov, honorary chairman of Russia’s Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and academic supervisor at the School of International Economics and Foreign Affairs Higher School of Economics (HSE) in Moscow

The debate on the use of nuclear weapons has moved into the practical realm, so while NATO is discussing the Russian Foreign Ministry’s warning of a full-spectrum response in the event of an attempt to blockade Kaliningrad Region, Russian experts are discussing nuclear deterrence and President Vladimir Putin’s speech at the Valdai Forum last week.

Russia must be prepared to use nuclear weapons in cases of extreme necessity.

Responding to questions about nuclear weapons, Putin recalled the saying that if a gun is hanging on the wall, it will eventually go off, but the Russian leader called for such a scenario to be avoided.

“At the heart of this escalation lie arrogance and overconfidence. This is a path to the brink of the abyss. All the more so today, when the arsenals of the world’s leading powers contain weapons capable of destroying all life or, at the very least, reducing the Earth to a catastrophic state. We are all familiar with the well-known saying: if a gun is hanging on a wall somewhere on stage at the beginning of a play, it is bound to go off eventually. We must bear this in mind,” said the president.

As Putin emphasized, Russia understands that in the event of a direct attack by NATO countries, “the enemy will be twice as numerous and have far greater economic potential” and Russia’s competitive advantage lies in the fact that no one else in the world possesses such weapons of destruction, he noted.

“How can we stand up to an aggressor? We are not a threat to anyone. We are simply saying that we do not have all that many means of defending ourselves. We will have to use our competitive advantages in this struggle,” concluded Putin.

Why do we need nuclear weapons?

Tensions and conflicts between countries are on the rise worldwide and the West, particularly the EU, having suffered a strategic defeat, is desperate for revenge. Nuclear weapons are necessary to prevent major wars, but this only works if the threat is taken seriously, and at present far too many people have forgotten what a nuclear war entails, so they treat the matter lightly.

Many, particularly Western European politicians, want war; they are actively whipping up military hysteria in their own countries. For the time being, they are acting through the Ukrainians, but they have also begun actively stirring up their own populations.

The Western European elites must be punished for their aggressive policies, meaning Ukraine must be crushed and demilitarized, while the purely Russian regions must be reunited with Russia and an EU that has lost its mind must begin to truly fear.

Without the active use of nuclear deterrence, this can’t be achieved. Now, I hope it will never come to that, but Russia must be prepared, in the event of absolute necessity, to use nuclear weapons effectively and victoriously.

How effective is nuclear deterrence?

Nuclear deterrence has weakened considerably. First, decades have passed not only since the US first used nuclear weapons in combat against Japan, but also since the last known tests. Secondly, the Americans have for a long time deliberately downplayed the role of nuclear weapons in order to emphasize their advantages in other areas of armaments.

Furthermore, people’s mindsets and public sentiment have changed, given that we, the older generation, particularly in Russia, are more acutely aware of the threat of nuclear war, and of war in general, and have therefore been seriously committed to the cause of peace. In the past, it was almost considered improper even to speak of the possible use of nuclear weapons.

Now circumstances have changed significantly and that’s precisely why we need to step up nuclear deterrence and intimidation to the point of being genuinely prepared, God forbid, to use nuclear weapons to prevent a larger-scale war.

Seeking peace through non-nuclear means alone could prove far too costly for Russia and it would be a shame to sacrifice the health and lives of our men simply to quell the aggression of those same Western Europeans.

What would be the consequences of using nuclear weapons?

The reaction of the international community would have to be disregarded because it makes absolutely no difference what the rest of the world thinks or says.

Nevertheless, it would pose a huge moral problem, as the use of nuclear weapons is a grave sin, but, unfortunately, there is very little hope that these Europeans will come to their senses without coming face to face with the threat of nuclear annihilation.

If we refuse to use nuclear weapons, as many are calling for, including here in our own country, we will deprive ourselves and the world of the most effective tool for preventing war and give aggressors free rein, but they can only be restrained by the threat of their use.

If nuclear weapons were used, there would be other negative consequences as even a limited and effective nuclear war would remove the taboo on other countries using nuclear weapons in their own regional conflicts, so I therefore continue to regard such use as a last resort.

Why is the European Union preparing for war with Russia?

There are two reasons for the aggressive anti-Russian sentiment in the EU. First, Western European elites have deteriorated significantly during the period of relative peace in the second half of the 20th century, although we hope that not all of them are complete madmen.

And secondly, they are trying to stir up military hysteria in order to distract their peoples from widespread failures and thereby retain power.

Under these circumstances, it would be sensible and rational for us to strengthen our reliance on nuclear weapons and modernize our arsenal, particularly the part of it aimed at other European countries. At the same time, it is important to continue dialogue with the US in order to avoid a global nuclear conflict.

Nuclear weapons have safeguarded us for 80 years since the end of the Second World War. Nuclear deterrence is the main reason why, throughout these decades, the states of Europe, and subsequently the European Union, have remained relatively peaceful. Throughout their history, they have repeatedly attacked not only Russia but also a vast number of countries across the globe, and they are the primary cause of many of humanity’s misfortunes, such as racism and colonialism.

Western Europe is now returning to its usual state, which is a belligerent one and this means the time has come to remind these Europeans once again who they are and what their belligerence leads to. If the current Ukrainian or German regime, or any other non-nuclear country in Europe, were to acquire nuclear weapons, we would be obliged to launch a preemptive strike because we’d have to stop them. It would be a short war, as a result of which these countries would cease to exist.

Is it possible to win a nuclear war?

It’s possible to win a nuclear war in Europe because the US will never risk its own territory for the sake of the Europeans. If France or the UK continue to stick their necks out, a preemptive, devastating strike could be launched against them. But, I repeat, God forbid.

I hope Western Europe comes to its senses and that this can be avoided. In the meantime, much of Europe should be placed behind a security cordon and a security system should be built within the framework of Greater Eurasia, excluding the Western subcontinent. That said, it will be possible and necessary to cooperate with individual European countries if they shake off the rule of the current madmen in Brussels and Berlin.