Russia’s Proposed Nuclear Strike on Europe By Richard Miller (London)
A senior member of the Scientific Council under the Russian Security Council, Sergey Karaganov, has published an article on the Kremlin’s Website RIA Novosti. The proposal is that Russia is being left little choice but to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike upon Europe. Once more the idea is made, something not seemingly understood by the West, that Russia believes that not only is nuclear war winnable, but that contrary to the Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine, Russia’s policy of “escalate to de-escalate,” would involve destroying Europe to teach America a lesson. He argues that America would simply let Europe go to the wall, rather than risking a strike on its cities.
Yet, this game is dangerous, since there is no good reason why America, seeing the strike upon Europe would not expect a hit on it: the classic prisoner’s dilemma. And, before you know it, a full-scale nuclear exchange, and a real bad day for everyone.
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/26/7408686/
“Sergey Karaganov, a member of the Scientific Council under the Russian Security Council, has already published a second article that Russia will have to launch a nuclear strike on Europe.
Source: RIA Novosti
Details: The article was published on the Kremlin's main propaganda website, RIA Novosti. It was written by Sergey Karaganov, a "Doctor of Sciences in History" and a political scientist. The article’s full title is "There is no choice: Russia will have to launch a nuclear strike on Europe".
And this is not his first such material. Less than two weeks ago, Karaganov published a similar article, the essence of which boils down to the same thing – Russia "must launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Europe." It was published in Profile, a private magazine.
Quote from the new article: "I hope that we will never use nuclear weapons, but the fact that we refuse to use them in all situations, except in the event of a deadly danger to the state itself, seems frivolous to me."
Details: In his publication, Karaganov calls on the Kremlin to consider the possibility of a pre-emptive nuclear strike on the EU.
Opposition publication Meduza warns that these threats may be something more than the usual empty talk.
It is reported that Karaganov is a member of the Scientific Council under the Security Council of the Russian Federation.
In addition, he is one of the founders of the Russian Council for Foreign and Defence Policy (CFDP). This is an expert centre that cooperates with former military personnel, diplomats, current politicians, researchers and journalists.
In 2004, CFDP became one of the founders of the Valdai Club, where Putin regularly participates. Karaganov himself also attends these meetings.
Also, two Medusa sources close to the Putin administration called Karaganov a person who "can influence the opinion of Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev".
Meduza writes that in his articles, Karaganov uses rhetoric that is very close to Putin: the political scientist is clearly trying to match Putin's language. For example, in the text, there is a "gangster argument" characteristic of the president of the Russian Federation: in particular, when Karaganov explains that a pre-emptive nuclear strike on Europe is needed "so that the West simply ‘buggers off’ and does not interfere with Russia and the world moving forward." Karaganov did not forget to mention the "neocolonialism" that Putin has been mentioning at every opportunity for over a year and a half now.
At the same time, the author reassures his potential high-ranking reader who can hypothetically decide on the use of nuclear weapons: the United States allegedly will not stand up for Europe, no one will sacrifice "the hypothetical Boston for the sake of the hypothetical Poznań."
Karaganov supports this idea with another dangerous thesis: "Winners are not judged, but rescuers are thanked". Russia ultimately being victorious seems to go without saying.”
“Sergey Karaganov
For seventy-five years of mutual deterrence, nuclear weapons have saved the world, and people just got used to it. Now we see with our own eyes that nuclear weapons no longer stop, because the unthinkable is happening: the West has unleashed a big war in the underbelly of a great nuclear power.
The official history of the creation of atomic weapons is known, but, from my point of view, there is still a super-idea of its appearance. As if the Lord God saw that a significant part of humanity went mad, having unleashed two world wars during the lifetime of one generation, and handed people nuclear weapons - the weapons of the apocalypse, so that they would have them all the time before their eyes and frighten them.
And now people have lost their fear.
The United States is practicing a disarming strike on Russia
June 16, 08:00
Over the past decades in the States, Europe and even partly in Russiaspread what I call strategic parasitism: the belief that there can be no war and never will be. They got used to it, and it is on this soil that the modern Western ideology has grown. Plus, now there is absolutely unprecedented propaganda going on there, which was not even during the years of the Cold War. People are simply fooled, and people are afraid to even say what they really think. As a result, because of these 70 years of peace, the sense of self-preservation has ceased to work in society, and with the help of enchantingly vicious propaganda, this sense of self-preservation is further suppressed, as well as by statements that Russia will never strike at Europe. Official Western propaganda pumps the idea that the West can do anything, and Moscow will tolerate it all. And now it has manifested itself extremely convexly and brightly.
n recent years, Russia has begun to strengthen its nuclear deterrence, but so far the steps taken have been completely insufficient. At some point, we also calmed down, went in line with Western theories and recklessly raised the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons, which the West is now using for a reason. There all the time, semi-officials emphasize: no, the Russians will never use nuclear weapons. They want us not to even raise this question under any circumstances, as if clearing the way for them for an endless war in Ukraine . But given that their military-industrial potential is higher than ours, they just want to wear us out.
I hope that we never use nuclear weapons, but that we refuse the possibility of using them in all situations, except in case of a mortal danger to the state itself, seems to me frivolous.
Thus, the States tie the hands of Russia and hope in the long run to blow it up with this long war. Well, and, as a result, to radically weaken its main rival - China , which, in which case, will be alone. This is a strategic intent that is absolutely understandable. Well, in parallel, the Americans, having already thrown the Ukrainian people into the furnace, are pushing Europe there, destroying the positions that it has occupied for five centuries. They are thus solving another problem - they are destroying the Old World as a strategic player and potential strategic competitor. In turn, the comprador European elites are driving their countries and peoples to the slaughter.
I want to believe that our opponents will come to their senses. Because if not, then the military-political leadership of Russia will face a terrible moral choice and the need to make a difficult decision. But I believe that our president must at some point project his determination to use nuclear weapons.
However, the question arises who can and should be the target of such an attack. The Americans, as we all know, shamelessly lied, saying that we were preparing for strikes against Ukraine. This is a monstrous senselessness, malicious, because, of course, the Ukrainians are an unfortunate deceived people who are being driven to the slaughter. But still, these are our people, we will not hit them. If it comes to nuclear strikes, then we should talk about a number of countries in Europe that provide the greatest assistance to the Kyiv mercenary regime.
Fortunately, we have begun to take steps up the ladder of nuclear deterrence. But we need to move faster and more decisively, although, of course, the use of nuclear weapons is a monstrous step, it should be avoided if possible. But, as the vector of development of the West, its elites and society, their movement towards anti-human and post-human values shows, all this clearly indicates an objective approach to a big thermonuclear war. We must interrupt this process and thus save the world - if possible, of course, avoiding super-tough actions.
We have time, but we need to understand that it is quite short. We must use these few years ahead to solve the problem of the West, to force it to step back and mind its own business, because now it is trying, without solving its problems, to start wars around the world.
The Americans invented their own "Motherland against Russia"
June 7, 08:00
The launch of a special military operation was a significant and, of course, the right step, although, from my point of view, we should have done it earlier. A number of other measures can be taken. In particular, it is worth conveying to everyone in the West that any strike against Belarus is a strike against Russia and will entail appropriate consequences.
Also among the possible Russian measures may be redeployment of missiles, testing of our strategic missiles at closer ranges, as well as psychological actions and even breaking off diplomatic relations with countries that play the most active Russophobic role. It is also possible such a measure as a warning to all Russian speakers, all citizens of the former USSR, all people of good will to leave places that could be potential targets for a nuclear strike. This, too, can be possibly the most powerful instrument of deterrence. Moreover, all these people do not have to go to Russia: let them go to other countries where there are no military installations and which do not help the mercenary Kiev regime, do not supply it with weapons and money - there are a lot of such countries. People should return to Russia not out of fear, but of their own free will.
Europe will pay dearly for the death of the CFE Treaty
May 30, 08:00
When discussing the topic of a hypothetical nuclear strike on Europe, the question arises: how will the United States respond to it ? Virtually all experts agree that under no circumstances will the Americans respond to a nuclear attack on their allies with a nuclear strike on our territory. By the way, even Biden let it slip openly about it. However, Russian military experts believe that massive retaliatory strikes with conventional weapons may follow. This can be pointed out that in response to a massive non-nuclear strike, even more massive nuclear strikes will be delivered. And they will do away with Europe as a geopolitical entity. Which, of course, we would not want, because, nevertheless, we are Europeans to a certain extent and, to use the words of Dostoevsky, the old European stones are not alien to us.
When discussing such scenarios, the topic of China and its position inevitably arises. Our strategic goals are the same, but the operational ones, of course, diverge. And if I were Chinese, I would not be in a hurry to end the conflict over Ukraine, because it draws the attention and military power of the United States and the West away from China and gives Beijing the opportunity toaccumulate strength. This is a completely normal, I would say, respectful position. And of course, I would not want nuclear weapons to be used. Firstly, for moral and ethical reasons: I think that here we are united with the Chinese. Well, and secondly, because the Chinese still have a small nuclear potential, the movement of military-political competition in this area is now undesirable for him. In ten years they will have a first-class nuclear potential (and even in five or seven years the situation will change), and then the best option to prevent a major thermonuclear war will be one in which a more powerful China will stand at the forefront, and Russia will prop up and cover its like now the Chinese are propping us up.
I perfectly understand the moral anguish of people who say: under no circumstances is the use of nuclear weapons unthinkable and unacceptable. To which I answer them: my friends, I respect pacifists, but they exist and live in this world only because soldiers fight and die for them, as our soldiers and officers in Ukraine are fighting now.”
Comments