The Duran Podcast - Russia Changes Its Nuclear Doctrine & Prepares for War - Sergey Karaganov, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Episode Date: October 21, 2024

Russia Changes Its Nuclear Doctrine & Prepares for War - Sergey Karaganov, Alexander Mercouris & Glenn Diesen

Hi, everyone and welcome. My name is Glenn Dyson, and I'm joined today by Alexander McCurice and Professor Sergei Karagno, who is an honorary chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy in the Russian Federation. And he has also been a former advisor of both President Yeltsin and President Putin. Sorry, President Putin. Welcome to the both of you. Well, I've never, yes, I'm happy to see you. though I've been advising even

writing speeches for Breznor or parts of speeches, of course, very small. But I've never been in any formal position ever with any of the leaders. I am completely quite independent. Of course, I was a member of the Preservation Council, but it was not exactly a position of an advisor. It was the highest council in Bodea during Yeltsin, but I resigned in protest in 88 when I saw that Yeltsin regime is getting absolutely a lot.

But anyway, but I'm helping the leaders of my country because I'm a responsible citizen. So the topic we really wanted to discuss with you today is, of course, Russia changing its nuclear doctrine by lowering the nuclear threshold. So, yeah, in other words, expanding the possible scenarios in which it's illegal on the Russian law to use nuclear weapons. And I guess you're the ideal person to explain why Russia has taken this dramatic step, given that you are also the person who has perhaps been pushing the hardest for a change in the nuclear doctrine. I read, I think, most of the articles and interviews you have done on this topic. And I remember one year ago when we were at this Evaldae meeting in Sochi, Putin addressed you personally and argued at that point that Russia was not ready to change his nuclear doctrine. However, one year later now, obviously a lot has changed. And Putin has obviously also changed his mind.

And he's now taking your advice, it would seem. So I'm looking forward to hearing a discussion. between the two of you next month as well. So, Professor Karagno, I was wondering, therefore, if you can explain this decision by Russia and by Putin to... I'm not in a position to explain the position of our president, though, of course, we communicated with him in our audience later and probably understand what he's thinking,

but I could give only my own understanding of the subject. So, let's go back. Russian nuclear doctrine was, and also the Russian military policy was based mostly on their ideas inherited from the 70. and 80s. It was absolutely outdated. And even I could not fully understand how come that our nuclear doctrine was so

counterproductive at best. Probably people want to just didn't think about that. I mean, and also they were some of them were willing to look nice.

to the outside world. But it was completely counterproductive from the point of view, both of Russian interests and interests of international stability. First of all, I mean the low in nuclear threshold and actually doing away with nuclear sector in our foreign policy, pave the way to NATO expansion.

People didn't understand that at that time. I was trying to persuade my competitors and including in the leadership. I mean, that that was, that we were on a dangerous path. I mean, openly I was saying that we'll get a war since, and publishing that since 87, I'm sorry. But, I mean, at that time there was still a belief that, I mean, we're dealing with decent people. and that the basic myths of that all nuclear age prevailed.

So the situation became absolutely untenable, when several years ago, when it was clear that we are heading for an open confrontation, and Russia made several mistakes. first it was late with issuing an ultimatum, second when issued an ultimatum, it was Russia probably was not ready to use all instruments it had. And so we got what we got, and that is a protected war with already more million, several maybe two million sacrifices on the part of Ukraine and a few tens of Russian soldiers dying.

I don't know the exact figure, but the Ukrainians are suffering, of course, a lot. And they were sacrificed by our Western now enemies absolutely cynical and just thrown into the fire. Now other Europeans are being prepared for the fate, hopefully we will avoid it. Also, the nuclear threshold and also somehow disregarding the nuclear factory in international affairs was growingly counterproductive because of the general trend, not only Russia-Western trends, the world, the world, the tectonic plates under the international system have shifted away. And so entering a long period of adjustment, which is automatically will bring a lot of tensions and wars.

And by evading the nuclear factor, we kind of paged the new wave of wars, not only between the nuclear. and the West. And that is, that was also irresponsible. And I openly, both in writing and more discreet in publishing, in the published articles that or in a more discreet ways, has been explaining that. So that is task, I think, for Russia to return nuclear factor into the center and to overcome their there was prejudic peritism which has

engulfed many in the world especially in the Western elite who just lost understanding what history is, what war is, and who are not afraid of war, not only nuclear war, but any war. They think that that is something different.

And we have an absolutely responsible and growing a responsible group of people in Europe, in elites. Americas are a bit better. They're more, but still, I mean, they're also going that way. Just to give you a very simple example, there are many. At one point, because when I at least the discussion, a year and half a go, something, open discussion.

I was, of course, I started to look more attentively at what are the reactions from the West. And I saw somewhere in August or in maybe September last year, two pronouncements by President Biden and his Secretary of State.

He's the fourth person or the third to supplant the president or if she dies. So they both said more of us that climate change is in a few years

is worse than a nuclear war. That was, I mean, I did not believe, but that happens. And that brought me to understanding that we heading towards a disaster because the only reason not to go to multiple wars

and eventually to plunge it to a third world which basically is already studying is to restore nuclear deterrents and fear of hell. So that's why So that's why I started openly to this discussion, and I am happy to see that eventually my efforts and efforts of other colleagues are bearing fruits. I think what is being discussed here, it seems to me, is the reestablishment of deterrence. This idea that there are things that you cannot do if you're one of the.

the players on the international system. Because if you do that, if you go beyond a certain point and transgress to particularly the interests of another power, another great power, then of course you risk a war, a war which, if it becomes a nuclear war, you might not survive. Now, there was many examples of deterrence during the Cold War. And I just wanted just a list of you. There's one which everybody who is familiar with British history is very familiar with, which was in 1956 during the Suez Crisis, the Soviet Union. Marshal Bulganin, who was the Soviet Prime Minister at that time, communicated to the United States that what was in effect of Soviet ultimatum, the Anglo-French operation in Suez needed to be called off. If it was, it was a Soviet arm, you know,

wasn't, there was a risk of the Soviet Union intervening with nuclear weapons. Then there was the 1961 Berlin crisis in even more dangerous event. When, you know, the work began on what is called the Berlin Wall, there was a face-off between American and Soviet troops in Berlin. There was absolutely explicit warnings, again, from the Soviet side, because there was lots of talk, you know, during the Berlin crisis of the West intervening to prevent that happening and setting troops there, it didn't happen because, again, deterrence, nuclear deterrence, was effective. Then there was another episode, which I actually remember. I remember reading about it when it happened, which is in the early 1970s,

when during the Vietnam War, there was concerns about the fact that the Soviet Union was sending ships with weapons supplies to Haiphong in North Vietnam. There was some talk of attacking and bombing those Soviet ships. It was widely talked about at the time. It was understood that doing that would be an act of war against the Soviet Union, again, deterrence, nuclear deterrence, played a role and that idea was buried. And then, of course, in 1973, during the Middle East War, the October War that took place at that time, there was a moment again when Israel seemed to be advancing deep inside Egypt, west of the canal, deep into Egypt as well. And again, the Soviet Union at that time made absolutely clear to the United States

in what was in effect an ultimatum, that that really had to stop. And the result was a ceasefire and agreements to try to negotiate a resolution of the Arab and Israeli conflict through the peace conference in Geneva, which never happened, which is another story. But those were deterrence events and we can see that their overall effect was to actually reduce tensions. It meant that instead of the situation getting completely out of control in the Middle East in the 1956 and 73, in Europe with the Berlin crisis, in Vietnam, with the proposals to attack the Russian ships, the Soviet ships, going to Haiphon. What actually happened as a result of all of those events

is that we actually got de Téton instead. And we also got, I mean, I haven't mentioned, obviously, I think in Russia you call the Caribbean crisis, the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was perhaps another extreme example of deterrence, the closest we got during the Cold War to deterrence breaking down. But the point was that we actually got a period of de-tarmes develop out of all of these events,

because the two sides, the United States and the Soviet Union, understood that each side had that potential capability and that they each had red lines which they would defend and the important thing was to establish communication and dialogue and to work out where the red lines on each side were and that actually, for a significant period, secured peace in Europe. So I think this is what we're talking about. We're actually by talking about re-establishing deterrence,

we might find our way back to some kind of understanding and eventual peace. Now, am I being wrong in what I said? You're absolutely right. I would add to that that several other episodes, including Korean War when this issue was on the table, but they decided it's too dangerous. Dionnebian 2 in 1954,

through the French, desperately tried to persuade Americans to use nuclear weapons against the Biquetamese. Americans, again, didn't deal on that matter. So there were many other small issues. And the whole issue of deterrence is it has many functions. It has many functions. I count nine. So very soon, and I will publish an article in international affairs,

the name magazine of Minister of Foreign Affairs on that issue. I mean, a year ago, then I published. So all the articles on functions of deterrence. Very soon, I will send you I shall send you a book, a small book on a new theory of deterrence where all these matters are discussed. And also, we propose and also new theories and also new ways to strengthen deterrence. But it's not only, and what is very important was that, you know, the deterrence until recently, had a very, one of the most important functions was avoidance of war between great powers.

And say, even five, seven years ago, if you asked to Henry Kissinger or myself, or even as big to the Britsinsky, he's a war. in a century Europe possible against the nuclear power. All of us would have said, are you crazy? But that happens. And that is partially, I would say, we have to take part of the blame because we disregarded this issue. We, versus disregarded this issues and eventually did not act as a

as a responsible actor, thinking that some things will, I mean, somehow will dissolve. But they were building up everywhere. Also, I could get stress that avoidness of big wars, especially between nuclear powers, is a much more potent issue in the coming, say, two decades, because of these measures shifts in an international system with new people. powers, rising old powers, I mean, sliding away, going down, and there will be more, a lot of tensions. We already see, I mean, opening up of Pandora boxes in the Middle East, there will be new tensions in South Asia, of course we all know about China, South China,

and South China Sea, there will be tensions. around the new rising powers in Indonesia and so on. I mean, it's inevitable. So that is why it is absolutely important to restore the fear of nuclear weapons. And that was the major reason why I started to introduce this issue into the international discussion, which I opened up. It was not a Pandora box. I hope eventually it will help the human to survive if we do the right decisions. There was, of course, the Russian problem, and that is how to finish, how to win the war in the West on the territory of Ukraine without sacrificing too many of our best men.

But it is important, but it is, I would say, secondary. The main thing is to avoid the inevitable slighter of Third World War because of the neglect of all these tensions and neglect of the role of nuclear weapons. It was nuclear weapons. I'm a historian of nuclear strategy, and I could add to your list to you. Absolutely.

Many, many, in 81, I... could say that we, Soviets sent a powerful signal to the raid of the administration that they're preparing. The Soviets were believing that the Americas were preparing for a nuclear attack. I mean, after that, I mean, most of their people, in one or two years, most of their hoax in their administration were dismissed and supplanted by more responsible and reasonable people and Reagan started to calm down. And eventually it brought up in Reagan-Gorbach-Mitts meetings, which had of course

debilious meaning, but nevertheless, I mean, people, things were under control. But now we have to do something because I do not believe in their in the ability of humanity, and especially in the ability of the Western elites, which are collapsing, and to act responsibly, because what is happening is unbelievable. I mean,

the war, a big war on the border of nuclear power, and talk about winning that war is something, I mean, it's more idiotic, crazy. I don't know how to use how many words. It's absolutely impossible.

The question is, I mean, how people just think about what are they going or what they're doing. And that's why I have been persuading my own people and others that we have to lower the nuclear threshold. to put nuclear issue back on the table and to persuade our western enemies, or if they still have any brains, to back away, to acknowledge defeat. And before, it is too late for them.

There are two basic reasons of woods of big war and finishing this war in Europe which has been unleashed by the West. I've very much agreed that the nuclear peace definitely seemed to have collapsed, as Alexander pointed out. There used to be a time when we would call on the limitation of nuclear powers given that nuclear weapons

made it necessary to de-escalate, but we don't hear this anymore. Any talk about de-escalation? Instead, what we hear is, you know, we shouldn't reward nuclear blackmail. We shouldn't reward nuclear sabral rattling. We shouldn't reward, you know, this overall, what else you call it? Anyway, so all of this is seen as, we're effectively selling it now as being immoral to accept this nuclear peace. So if you accept deterrent, that means it becomes an immorality.

So it's a very strange thing and absurd, I guess, to reject the entire nuclear peace, which we depended on. But I wanted to ask you more specifically about the last interview you did, because it made me think about how climbing up the escalation ladder. In this interview, you argued that if the NATO countries support using drones against the Kremlin again, And then, yeah, Russia should do a strike on Reichstag or alternatively, if there's strike deep inside Russia to strike facilities in NATO countries, the logistics which fuels the war going into Ukraine, the weapons going into Ukraine. Now, my first thought was that, you know, this seemed hawkish.

But I do also accept, on the other hand, that as you argue, that Russia's timid response following the last time the Kremlin was attacked, it obviously damaged a turrent. And this seems somewhat undeniable. I see our media as well, where Russia's restraint or limited response was interpreted as weakness. And, you know, we can see Joe Biden himself. He one point said, we can't send F-16 since World War III. Now, the rhetoric is Russia doesn't dare to respond. So let's continue to escalate.

But what I was wondering, once you, what you said that seems to suggest is Russia should be prepared to go up the escalation ladder. I mean, it's either you do direct attacks on NATO countries, but then if NATO responds again and end up in a large conventional mutual strikes, you feel you also argued that there should be a nuclear strike, limited nuclear war, but you advocated striking the Europeans before the United States. I was wondering if you could say something about this nuclear ladder or escalation ladder, as you see it. Well, so, I mean, even this debate, which we have unleashed, is already having somewhat calming influence on the hot heads. At least in Washington, Europeans, European elites simply have lost their minds. I mean, a year and a half ago, they were talking that Russia would never use weapons. then after the start of this debate, they started to talk about avoidance of nuclear escalation. Of course, I mean, a lot of pandits, especially in Europe, who do not understand anything

that are still saying that Russia would never use, that his bluff, etc. But Americans are getting much more cautious. I hope there are still there are some people at least in the military and etc. elsewhere who understand them in the realities of this world. However, one of the reasons why I started to introduce

this issue and putting it on the table is that we see a very rapid deterioration of Western ruling elites. So if we do not do something now, In several years we'll have a situation which is much worse. So we have to climb the lateral of escalation as soon as. And we have started already. We are preparing for we deployed long-range missiles and bellows.

We conducted several types of nuclear exercises. And we announced preparation for a rest of restoration of tests of nuclear weapons. And there will be several other steps. I will send you our book

very soon. There are some description of these letters, but I do not want to speculate on that because it is the matter of highest authority, which of the recommendations or recommendations of others

to use. But of Of course, we still have several steps, I think, 10 or maybe 12, to climb up to the letter of the nuclearized collection. If it doesn't work, but I hope it would work, because Americans, and at least Americans understand what will be the reality. Even if a limited nuclear strike happens. not only, I'm not speaking about the possible escalation to a total nuclear war and

modern civilization as it is. But even a limited nuclear strike say on the character of the United States would bring a collapse of the United States the country with 650 million weapons and hence

of the population. Imagine what will stop there. It's one of the elements. Europeans simply not understand that, unfortunately, and I hope that there are some people still in Europe our Americans will persuade them when they understand their inevitability of going up the letter.

But I hope still that we will not have to go to the actual use of nuclear weapons because it's a terrible moral sin. Even if Europeans deserve to be done away with, because they have unleashed two world wars in the previous century and now are trying to unleash a third world. I just imagine it's unbelievable. even if they deserve their children and many decent people there. So we would very much prefer not to use weapons.

And also because it could use nuclear weapons even very successfully. And we could use nuclear weapons very successfully. And NATO would collapse. Governments would fall apart, et cetera. etc, etc., etc. I mean, it will open up a Pandora box. These weapons will become usable. And before, I mean, 10, 15, 20 years ago,

in discussions of all these issues with senior thinkers in the West were saying it, telling each other that, I mean, the worst scenario is that India-Pakistan exchange nuclear blows and the world will not collapse but then this psychological threshold will be overcome

so I do not want to overcome this threshold first for moral reasons and second because it would open out it could open up and in the Pandora Box and third of course there is a possibility of of escalation up to the level of

nuclear exchange, though I believe that the chances are very limited. Americans would never come, would never use nuclear weapons against Russia. As Americans, never even thought of using nuclear weapons in defense of Europe against Soviet Union in the in the 56th, 70s and 80s.

I mean, the whole the whole nuclear strategy of NATO is a complete bluff. When even theoretically they were discussing this issue, there was the use of nuclear weapons against Soviet time columns, I mean going towards La Manche on the territory of Germany. And I spoke to a German chancellor and is now well no fact that German, the chancellors, when they were faced with this possibility, just ran out of the communications center so they would not be blamed to think about using nuclear weapons on territory of Germany.

And there was never anybody seriously discussed in the place of the possibility of nuclear strikes against Soviet Union, territory of the Soviet Union, maybe but people remembered war. Now they forgot war and there is a general deterioration of Western elites and that is very dangerous. And of course

we also have the growth of elites in a new powerful countries with inevitable tensions between them So we have to reintroduce this nuclear fuse into the system. Unfortunately, or other barriers on the way towards, I mean, age of wars, as I call it, or not working for the time being. What I wanted to say is that I think anybody who's,

body who's listening very carefully to what you're saying understands that the purpose of what you're discussing is to secure peace. That the reality, I say that because the way it's been presented in the West is that this whole discussion in Russia is somehow menacing and threatening. It is not menacing and threatening. It is intended to try and find a stable framework to re-establish peace and as somebody who lived through the 70s, I can say for a fact that I never felt more secure than I felt secure at that time. During the period of detente, the idea of a nuclear war between the superpowers was actually unthinkable. It was everybody I remember at that time spoke about a very stable situation which existed in Europe. And this is why I want to come to

the Europeans because I think you're making this distinction between the Americans and the Europeans. The thing that has happened is that, and by the way, Glenn has written, I think, in a superb book about this, is that with the Cold War ending, it wasn't just the fact that Russia's nuclear doctrine remained frozen in the world of the 70s and 80s. It was also a perception that grew that Russia was no longer an important factor in international relations. So the Europeans in particular said to themselves, right now we can do whatever we want. We can reorganise Europe. We now don't have to think about the Russians anymore.

We have all kinds of issues with the Russians, which some European countries do. Not all of them. I'm from a country, Greece, which doesn't have issues with Russia. But Britain undoubtedly does. I don't understand why, but they do. So they thought they could do all kinds of things in Europe. And now horror of horrors, the Russians are back. It turns out that they're far more powerful and far better organized,

much stronger than we thought they were. And I think that this is the cause of all the crisis and tension and anger that we see in Europe now. Because the Europeans have suddenly discovered that they've lost that or that they're losing, that time and space that they thought they had when they could do all sorts of things to rearrange structures in Europe, the geography of Europe, the economic relationships in Europe, and ignore what the Russians thought and in fact, to some extent, adapt the Russians to their purposes. Now, that brings me to the other point because, of course, Russia, as I said, is reestablished, itself definitely as a great power. That is the big story of the last three years, in my opinion.

The second is this change in doctrine, the doctrinal change, which is, I think, connected to this. Can you explain what in Russian terms, why you need to have a nuclear doctrine at all? because the sort of popular view in a place like London, if you ask people, is that, well, you know, it's all decided by Putin. He makes a decision all by himself. When you tell the Russians have a doctrine and that they have ideas about when nuclear weapons can be used, it comes as a surprise. Is this nuclear doctrine? Is this doctrine actually a law? Is it something that is intended to communicate to the Western powers when Russia will use nuclear weapons?

Or does it have some normative effect within Russia itself? Does it shape decision-making in a crisis so that when the president has to make a decision, he does so within a particular framework, which the doctrine sets out. That's a question. I appreciate I might be coming very close to asking a question about things that might be sensitive and which Russians might not want to talk about too much, because decision-making processes of that nature might, I mean, for I know, even be classified. But nonetheless, I ask a question.

Well, first of all, I mean, I completely agree with your argument, but I would add as to my understanding of the positions of Europeans, it is the hate and is much deeper. They start to understand, and Americans too, but to the less extent, that what Soviet Union and then Russia has done is that they undermine their sweet. 500 years of their dominance in the world system, which gave Europe and the West a possibility to suck juices from the whole humanity. And I would say it was a military rant. Europe and the West has been predominant for 500 years, colonizing, raping, the world and then

establishing neo-colonial ways of siffening of resources from the rest of the world now our European neighbors have to understand that they have to work for

living at last and that is unpleasant and I understand them by the way but I have no sympathy with them. Yes, Russia is to be blamed. It undermined the positions of bandits and robbers. I mean, bandits and robbers,

even if they believe that they're distant people do not like when they are cut off from the sources of their wealth, which were, I mean, mostly, of course, sucking the juices from the outside world. As to rule of nuclear doctrine, it is not only to persuade our enemies, or potential enemies, by the way, and to civilize international relations now and in the future,

but it has, of course, has to do a lot with preparations with deployment with decisions which weapons to build and to deploy to the to the whole

thinking mechanism of the military if they are not saying that they would not use nuclear weapons on them the unbelievable circumstances they are morally and technically are prepared to use them

but now probably they're already preparing for actually use. And also, I am sure the decision has been made to deploy new types of nuclear carriers or missiles and some others. And that our military will be prepared and will prepare. and will prepare for actual use in case of need. But I hope that this case will never come. So neutral doctrine is very important. Also, there is, of course, it's a tip of the iceberg. The problem, I mean, there is a long,

the problem is that the tip was, I mean, suppressing the iceberg. Now, I mean, the tip will develop the iceberg. And that is why it is important for us. And also it is important for their highest leadership of the country. If they were professing and actually believing in the idea that Russia should use nuclear weapons on the most unthinkable circumstances, they were more prepared. Now they're getting more prepared. in case. And that

helps the turns. I hope again that that even that this moral preparedness which you see happening just in front

of our eyes will never bring us to the actual use because as I've said I think it is immoral and also relatively dangerous in terms of long-term, well peace even if we we could win this war easily. But we have to change also our minds. And that has happened.

Very. Before, you mentioned Belarus, and I think, yeah, this seems to be, have also a key component of this changes in the nuclear doctrine, as this was mentioned as being one of the areas. And it reminded me a bit about discussion that me and Alexander had with Belarusian ambassador, Dimitri Mironcic, and he was effectively arguing that one of the reasons back then why Russia had transferred nuclear weapons to Belarus was because they were seen to be a possible step on America's nuclear escalation ladder. That is, to get to, instead of attacking Russia directly, which would likely cause a total nuclear exchange, it's a good way

of getting to Russia and punishing Russia by simply attacking an ally. Now, it seems well, in the West, like an outlandish accusation given, we would like to think we would never do such a thing. But he pointed us to this interesting article from the Atlantic actually,

where it was based on a report in which Obama officials, they had established an advisory group to how the US would respond to hypothetical Russia's Russian of a NATO country and how then the US should proceed up the escalation ladder. So what did this, what did they recommend? But as I said, the US in this scenario, they didn't want to attack Russia directly with nuclear

weapons, as they didn't want to end the world. But they reached the decision of striking Belarus was a good scenario. And again, I found this quote as well, because I thought it was quite interesting from the article in terms of why the United States should attack. And this was from the National Security Council Principles Committee that recommended a nuclear attack on Belarus. And it argued, yeah, a nation that had played no role whatsoever in the invasion of a NATO ally, but had the misfortune of being a Russian ally. So in terms of even if Belarus does nothing wrong, it's not a participant of a conflict, it would still be considered to be struck with a nuclear weapon simply as a way of escalating to, again, to Russia. So it does seem quite dramatic as a step up the escalation ladder. But I guess it

begs the question, what do you expect to see in this new nuclear doctrine of how Belarus is shifted? And Lukashenko now he is expressing more and more concern that NATO might extend the war into Belarus, then accuses the Polish. But do you see this as likely? Have Belarus becoming another front in this war? We see a lot of signs that NATO is preparing for a larger war. A new basis or a movement new bases are being built in countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Poland. even, I think,

Macedonia and others. So then they will be recruiting local forces in preparation for a possible long conventional conflict. I don't think that they are ready as of yet, but Western elites, especially European elites, in such an unbelievable colleague, I mean, they have lost all moral

and political rationalizations for their rule, that they could unleash a war in order to save their own positions. So, and before the declaration, which was made by our President recently, it was believed that Belouts has 100% umbrella. Now, we know that it has a 100% of nuclear umbrella and that any attack, not only nuclear but convention on Belarus will be returned with a nuclear strike. As actually, people like myself have been proposing that any attack on Russia should be returned by at least should could be returned

by a nuclear strike but we shall see we do not want to tie the hands of our decision makers including the president he has there is such thing as

strategic ambiguity he has to have their moral political and right and technology and technological capacity

to use nuclear weapons, if anybody, by any means attacks Russia. However, he has to have the possibility and flexibility of using nuclear weapons only in case of need. And, of course, for the take of returns, so that people like these idiots in Britain and Britain or in most of other Europe would understand that if they cross some threshold, or even if they continue this war for too long, they will get a nuclear response. And that is obvious. But I hope that they will yield and retreat with dignity rather than having Afghanistan plus. I mean, you mentioned a tax on Russia. Of course, there is actually a proposal to do that, and it's

being backed by the British government. The British Prime Minister went to Washington and lobbied for it. President Zelensky of Ukraine is going to lobby for it again at the Ramstein meeting on the 12th of October in a couple of days' time, in other words. And this is to launch missile strikes into Russia itself. Missile strikes, which the president, your president has said, if it happens, they can only be conducted with the actual direct involvement of Western military people. And that would be an act of war against Russia, which, by the way, I understand legally it would be, and that Russia would consider itself to be at war with any states that were to do this,

incredible thing. Now, there's a number of things I wanted to say, which is, again, you've studied the Cold War. We both lived through the Cold War. I can't say I've studied the Cold War, but I've lived through it. I cannot remember a single occasion during the entire Cold War period, a period when, as we said, deterrence was strong and underpinned the whole international system, where either superpower I ever even considered doing this sort of thing against the other. I mean, I can't imagine the Soviets helping the Vietnamese to launch missile strikes on the United States, for example.

I cannot imagine the Soviets assisting the Cubans, perhaps more practically, to launch missile strikes against the United States. I don't remember the United States in the 1980s, helping the Afghan war jihadine to launch. strikes into the Soviet Union. I never remember anybody ever talking about doing such an incredible, irresponsible, astonishingly reckless thing. And yet we have lots of people advocating it. Every day I read articles in the media here in Britain of people advocating it. They say that what the Russians are saying is bluff that we can go ahead and do it and that they won't result in anything and when the Russians say that we will be at war, we will, you know, we can just disregard that because they don't mean it for real. I mean, what do people in Bosco

think when they read all of this? I mean, first of all, is what your president said? Is it a bluff? I get the sense, by the way, that the United States, or plebeical in the United States, the Pentagon is there they are taking it very seriously. But what is the perspective of all of this in Russia? I mean, how have we got to this position? I mean, back in the early 70s, as I said, it was ruled out, even striking out Soviet ships delivering weapons to the North Vietnamese in Haiphon. And now we're talking about not just attacking Russia, We're talking about attacking Russia itself. That is the degree of recklessness that we reach now.

But what do people make about this? And presumably this is being widely discussed in Russia now, presumably, not just as expert levels. Anyway, just over to you on this. Well, obviously, what I would say that is, as a result of this strategic parietism and I would say degradation of

their intellectual ability of most of the Western elites and I'm saying that it is a process which is progressing. I'm sorry it's of course it's a regress and so we have to stop this process

one or this regression regression one way or another or else I mean we're do it. Now, so, but I believe that, I mean, we waited for too long. And actually, there have been already strikes on the Russian territory by drones. And people were killed. And I think that it already causes belly. And we, but we have all kinds of debates. Where is the threshold? My belief is that if people in Belgorod are

Belgorod or one who are attacked, I mean, there should be a devastating attack on the sources of that attack and that is on nature. First, non-nuclear. If there was a return, then it should become nuclear. The Americans have been bluffing that if Russians deliver a strike on Europe, they would immediately devastate our military forces in Ukraine or Russian fleet in Crimea. but we send

signals that then they would have a second wave and if they will continue there will be a third wave and that would mean I mean killing 100 plus thousand

American soldiers in Europe and all over the world Americans are better well work I think American are starting to understand that their their over extension is also vulnerable.

That's why they're gradually retreating from Europe, but on the way out they igniting Europe so that if we do not control that lamp, let it be burning. That is happening with Ukraine.

That will happen with the other European countries if they do not stop on this way to disaster. They are not only now being robbed by Americans who have imposed on them extremely interesting economic conditions, whereas they have to import American expensive fuel instead of Russian inexpensive view and also by the fact that now Europe is considered to be not a safe place

for investment and so a lot of investments are running away from Europe, towards the United States and production lines. So, I mean, so Americans instead of now they're losing their capacity to rob

their world majority or the global south as they used to. So they have another option and that is Robyn Gurr. But Europeans are over there, I would say, they're elites which are completely compared all. Now, I hope there will be changed sooner or later. They would start to understand that they are the victims. The first are Ukraine, the second are Europeans.

The third are Russians, because we have to lose good men and also lose a way of waste money on this camp. But the biggest losers are poor Ukrainians, poor, stupid Ukrainians, and not yet poor, but very stupid Europeans. Yeah, yeah. I don't really have any more questions. I just wanted to make a remark. Because I remember back in the, what was a decade ago, I was teaching nuclear strategy and the deterrence in Australia. And I remember making the point that we sent all the wrong signals

when, for example, countries that gave up, weapons of mass destruction programs, be it Iraq and Libya, those were destroyed, while countries who were able to develop it be Pakistan or North Korea, they were then safe. So this kind of sent wrong signals that, you know, just develop weapons of mass destruction and it will be good. But now it's a whole new level that they feel like the signal now is we are increasingly rejecting nuclear deterrence. We're rejecting the principle of nuclear peace. But this only makes it more likely that one would

use nuclear weapons. And also it puts pressure on countries to actually, like Russia, to lower their nuclear threshold. It does seem like complete madness. And I guess with old optimism we had after the Cold War, it's such a tragedy that this is where we are now, where we're actually preparing direct war to destroy each other. It's a great tragedy. I agree with you, but I do not want to blame only our Western partners or enemies for that. I must say that we relaxed for a while and forgot that

basically the peace in the world and also the peace, especially the peace in Europe, which is the worst place in terms of unleashed wars and the worst fractured struggle wars in the history of humanity and also the worst ideologies that we have decided that we do not need to deter it. And it was our mistake, and I would say even sin.

But I hope we shall come back. I am partially seriously, partially metaphysically, saying that nuclear weapons have been given us by the Almighty, who saw that Europeans in one generation have been killing each other twice to make them same. And for a while it worked. But now we see that they are losing their sanity. So I am calling openly on President Putin that it is his duty not only to the Russia and the world, but even to the Almighty to restore us fear.

I would doubt that it was also a massive undertaking by the Soviet Union to achieve nuclear strategic parity. I mean, anybody who understands or is familiar with the history at that time would know the resources and the intellectual energy and commitment that was invested in achieving that. and the enormous way it changed the entire international landscape from about the mid-1960s when it was achieved. This is just to say, I mean, it's, and it does seem surprising, actually. But if I may say so, not entirely out of character with Russian, as far as I can see, that, you know, having achieved all of that, having achieved a certain stabilization in Europe, they said to them so as well, you know, we've achieved that, we brought the people there to their senses. Now let's turn our swords into plowshares and a press ball with peace and try and be friends with these people all over again.

Going all the way back to the 1890s, Tsar Nicholas, I remember, was already proposing all kinds of peace summits and disarmament conferences. This is very much a characteristic, I think, of Russians. I'm going to just ask one very last question. This is a very last question for me. What is the moves in Moscow now? This is just about the war and about the general situation. In the West, there is despondency when even publications like the economist admit that the West is losing in Ukraine, which they are.

They've said that explicitly. They use that word losing. everybody can see that the Russians are winning in Ukraine. I'm going to suggest that all of these latest ideas that are floating around in the West, deep strikes into Russia, accelerated entry of Ukraine into NATO. They are all the last gasps of people trying to come up with some kind of plan to turn around what is now an irreversible situation. But what is the mood? Is it euphoric? Is it realist? Are there any expectations we're going to get back to a relationship, a stable relationship with the Europeans in the future? Are people very disillusioned? What is the mood?

Our calculation is that about if we survive with this crisis and Europe is not... done away with. Hopefully, not totally, but in a way, if it gets few nuclear strikes, it is done away with. Then there will be a change after a crisis, a change of our generations of leaders. And now they're called populists, right or left,

but they're mostly reasonable people. I mean, understanding, I mean, what is the real world. And that generation would come in about 15 years, and then we could restore some of the relationship. Of course, it will be not extremely cordial, and also because now Russia has turned and is turning very rapidly, towards where it is and it is Euras.

And I'm so happy about that, because we have finished our European journey, which I think should have been finished 100-plus years ago before we were infected by Marxism, which was in this worst sense, because there are a lot of Marxism and Leninism, which are perfectly sensible, but we got the worst of that. We should have stopped that about maybe at the beginning of the previous century, before the war.

But, well, unfortunately, the agony of living Europe have been prolonged and we suffered for that a lot. But now we are becoming truly Eurasian and we are getting back to where we should be. Russia was born as a partially European country, but with very few connections with Europe. The main connection with Europe was Christianity, which came from Byzantine, which was not quite Europe. and that time, the best of the Christian civilization. That's why Russian pagans took Christianity from Byzantine. But then from the 16th century, our positions in the world have been built up on our development,

and conquering and development of Siberia and engulfing all the cultures and all the genes from Siberia. Russia has been a very unique colonial power, which has been integrating the nation, the ethnic ethnicists. It's conquered or integrating with them. That's why it becomes so multicultural and open. open to the outside world. So we are turning back to where we are,

where we should be. And that is, that's why my next project will be Siberization of Russia. But that will be the subject of the next several articles, hopefully when I finish this work with nuclear matters. And it is much more pleasant, I believe. I've just returned from a trip to cyber.

That was a former capital of Siberia, which is called Ptmorsk, a beautiful place. Fantastic. And I love Siberia. It is exactly, it is the future of humanity, future of Russians. We will move there. But hopefully, with the change of European elites, we saw some of our relationship with Europe and we'll have a correct relationship with some European nations. And Europe will probably also become several Europe's,

because, of course, the European project was built since late 40s, early 50s, is done away with it. So we'll see what will come out of it. Hopefully, Europe will not come back to the European normal situations. where everybody fights everybody. But we'll see. But anyway, we'll be happy that

Europeans would return to us. We are two Europeans. The better Europeans will return to Russians, who are Eurasians, but also two Europeans. You sound a bit like Dostoevsky. I think he said something like that. No, I was just thinking, Yeah, Dostoevsky wrote about the ungrateful Europeans and the soul and future of Russia will be in the east.

I was just thinking about the same exact things. Absolutely, absolutely. And that is, I mean, we could talk and we meet about that because I'm just, I will finish with official. I've been reading Dostoevsky now after understanding that he was born as a great, thinker and the writer. When he was in hard labor, he was a revolutionary and sent to hard labor. But one of the previous generation of revolutionaries gave him Bible. And he, for four years, he read only Bible. And from there, he became the one of the greatest thinkers and writers of the world. And you could not understand his works without reading Bible now. And he

I have a special edition with explanations of the connections of his faith and his work. It is unbelievable. We have a lot to discuss there because I'm a great, great, very interested in Dostegov. Just to say, Westerners do not understand him at all, just a second. I'm not pleasant than discussing nuclear strikes, country, etc etc. Okay, thank you. Anyway, that's my, that's me.

Thank you very much, Professor. Thank you very much for here discussing this very. And so I've sent you this book there, this book on a new study of deterrence. It is a small book for 50 pages. It has been already out of print. I think it will be. will bring it to the voluntary meeting.

But when it is official out, it will print it in several days. We shall send to our friends the translation, which is also ready. It has been translated also several times already in China because we have exchanged the Chinese before. Right. Okay, take care. Thank you very much. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Thank you.