A Russian Political Scientist Describes the Good that Nuclear Weapons Do

12 March 2025, by Eric Zuesse. (All of my recent articles can be seen here.)

I have discussed elsewhere what I believe to be the only realistic plan for constructively getting rid of nuclear weapons, FDR’s plan, which Roosevelt planned for the post-WW2 world but Truman scotched it on 25 July 1945 in order to set the U.S. onto the path of ultimately taking control over the entire world — the world’s first-ever all-inclusive dictatorship, “hegemony”; the first-ever worldwide empire. (For which purpose, Truman and his hero when Truman became President, General Eisenhower, set up the “military-industrial complex” and its ‘Defense’ Department and CIA, as well as NATO.) However, since we still are in the world that Truman made, not yet (if we ever will be) in the world that FDR planned, I am posting here below an excellent exposition by Russian political theorist Sergey Karaganov regarding the impracticality of eliminating nuclear weapons in the existing (i.e., the Trumanite or “neoconservative,” or purely zero-sum-game) international environment. I think that this article by him deserves to be considered in The West, but is unlikely to be, because (Though Karaganov was popular with America’s billionaires before Putin came into power in 2000, they now oppose him — as he opposes them — and the CIA-edited and written Wikipedia (which blacklists (blocks from linking to) sites that aren’t CIA-approved) selects, for its article about him (some of whose ‘quotations’ from him don’t actually track back to anything he has published), nothing but hostile articles in hostile media, so as to ‘document’ their allegations against him.) But, anyway, here is Karaganov’s article about a good thing that nuclear weapons have achieved — they’ve made much less likely another World War:

https://www.rt.com/russia/614051-sergey-karaganov-russia-trump/

“Sergey Karaganov: Russia must not fall into Trump’s ‘honey trap’”

Western Europe might be led by ‘pygmies,’ but the Americans are smarter operators, the political scientist believes

11 March 2025, By Ionna Kovaleva, correspondent for MK.ru.

As Washington revives talk of nuclear arms reduction, renowned Russian political scientist and former Kremlin advisor Sergey Karaganov dismisses the idea as a strategic deception aimed at weakening Russia while preserving American military dominance. In an interview [March 7th] with Moscow newspaper MK, Karaganov argues that nuclear deterrence remains Russia’s best guarantee against war, warns against repeating ex-Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev’s mistakes, and ridicules French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal for a Western European “nuclear umbrella.” He also outlines how Russia’s nuclear posture has already forced a shift in US strategy — pushing Washington to quietly retreat from its earlier hardline stance on Ukraine.

Below, Karaganov explains why he believes Russia must reject denuclearization, how nuclear weapons remain the ultimate equalizer, and why Western European leaders, in his view, need a reality check.

MK: If nuclear weapons are to be reduced, perhaps all members of the “nuclear club” should do so, not just Russia and China, which are designated as enemies of the United States in its military strategy?

Sergey Karaganov: These proposals, which I have been hearing from American strategists and experts for decades, elicit a good laugh and an unfriendly one at that. The US, with its dominant scientific, technical, economic and military potential, with its strong all-purpose armed forces, especially the navy, and with its advantage in space systems, is interested in reducing nuclear weapons. That’s because these weapons make their gigantic investments in all other military fields ultimately pointless, and balances out their economic and scientific-technical advantages. Also their demographic edge over us. By dragging us into trilateral and even multilateral negotiations, the Americans want to drive a wedge into our relations with a friendly China.

But many people in our country also believe that the fewer nuclear weapons, the better. This comes from the American logic of strategic thinking. Yes, we don’t need a surplus of nuclear weapons. But we do need a sufficient number of nuclear weapons so that no one would ever think of starting a war against Russia and its closest allies, or any major wars for that matter.

“At some point in history, we ourselves have forgotten many of the functions of nuclear deterrence, which exists not only to prevent nuclear aggression but also to prevent any war.”

It cancels out all advantages: demographic, economic, military-technical advantages of any adversary.

We have just seen that by not using nuclear deterrence in the early stages of an armed conflict we got what we got in Ukraine.

But thanks to the intervention of the most talented members of our expert community, we activated our nuclear deterrent capabilities, changed our doctrine and began, albeit not actively enough, to move up the so-called ladder of escalation of nuclear deterrence.

Read more: Sergey Karaganov: Peace in Europe requires breaking its imperialist legacy

MK: What is behind the change in our nuclear doctrine?

Sergey Karaganov: At the beginning of last summer there was a discussion about the need to increase reliance on nuclear deterrence, and then we changed our nuclear doctrine and moved up a few rungs on the ladder of escalating nuclear deterrence. This convinced our adversaries of our willingness to use nuclear weapons. The continuation of the war began to threaten the Americans with consequences where they would not be able to use their economic and other advantages.

They would be faced with either an ignominious defeat or nuclear strikes on their allies and their overseas bases.

At first they said that Russia would never use nuclear weapons, so they could continue the war to the last Ukrainian and to the exhaustion of Russia. Then, after receiving signals from Russia, they stopped talking about that and started talking about the need to avoid World War III, the need to stop the escalation. This was at the end of the Biden administration in the US, although in the end it tried to impose the continuation of the war and to pass the responsibility for it on to the next administration. We and Trump did not fall into the trap, he just took up the baton to get out of a lost war.

It’s a pity we didn’t launch the nuclear deterrent mechanism earlier, then we would have achieved victory sooner.

Read more: Sergey Karaganov: Russia’s European journey is over

MK: So the situation changed under Biden?

Sergey Karaganov: Yes, they realized that they could not win the war. We are restoring our economic and military-technical potential, but we are still seriously backward demographically and economically. That is why we have emphasized nuclear deterrence, which should prevent any war, make it unlikely and make its cost prohibitive for the aggressor.

We can talk about limiting certain types of weapons, such as biological weapons, which are now being widely developed, space weapons, or long-range missiles and drones – they will increasingly threaten normal human life. The scientific and technological revolution that has made missiles and drones possible puts people at great risk. They can also be used by terrorists.

But nuclear weapons cannot be reduced under any circumstances. We have a number of people who have been brought up in the American ideological framework and who are in favor of any disarmament, who will take Trump’s words at face value. But they are a deception. They are a honey trap. An attempt to repeat the [Ronald] Reagan trick with the dim-witted [Soviet leader] Mikhail Gorbachev. Although he was a good man personally. And I hope that our American adversaries, and hopefully in the future our partners, will realize that there will be no positive response to their proposals.

MK: Are Europeans afraid of nuclear war?

Sergey Karaganov: One of the unfortunate consequences of the relatively peaceful period since the early 1960s (although there have been localized peripheral conflicts) is the loss of fear of nuclear war. The Americans propagandized that it was not scary until very recently. In Western Europe, ‘nuclear parasitism’ – the lack of an existential fear of war – is most deeply rooted.

Read more Sergey Karaganov: Here’s why Russia has to consider launching a nuclear strike on Western Europe [This article and its links — especially this, which is linked-to there — present his case that the U.S. empire and the EU especially are so insane with hatred against Russia so that “We must force the West to abandon its attempts to turn back history, to abandon its attempts at global domination, and to force it to deal with its own problems, to manage its current multifaceted crisis.” He writes from the standpoint that “the West” — actually the billionaires who control it and who profit from these wars — are psychopaths who can be constrained in no other way than by being decisively defeated.]

We need to use nuclear deterrence to push the Western Europeans as far away as possible, as fast as possible. Or defeat them completely.

MK: Is French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposal for a “nuclear umbrella” for the EU realistic?

Sergey Karaganov: I will not insult the great country of the past. But the possibility of extending the ‘French nuclear umbrella’ to other countries provokes Homeric laughter. I have written many times, and American experts have never contradicted me: under no circumstances will the United States use nuclear weapons against Russia in the event of a war in Europe. This is an axiom. Although American doctrine provides for such use, it is a 100% bluff.

What Macron is saying is humiliating stupidity for a great France. I have often written and said that no American president, unless he is insane and hates America, would use a nuclear weapon to ‘defend’ Poznan and risk Boston. What now – the French president is going to sacrifice Paris for the sake of Berlin? It seems that it is time for the French ‘deep state’ and the French people to get rid of idiots from important positions.

But no one is attacking Western Europe. We are responding to NATO’s long-standing military and political aggression. The best way to ensure broader European security is to respect Russia’s interests and even to be friends with it. But so far the pygmies at the top of Europe have failed to realise this. It is time to change or defeat them.

.

——

The reason why Karaganov is concerned especially about “Western Europe,” instead of about America, is that ONLY by means of Western European countries can the U.S. regime position its nuclear missiles close enough to Russia’s central command in The Kremlin so as to possibly decapitate it so quickly that Russia won’t have enough time to verify the launch and then press the button to release its nukes against the U.S. empire.

If you want to see the documentation (in an article whose links can bring you to the primary or root-source evidences documenting) that the U.S. Government is the actual aggressor that started the war in Ukraine, click here. That disproves all the lies. Karaganov is right to despise the collective “West” and to view it as being obsessively imperialistic and thus an enormous national-security threat to all other nations.

——

PS: If you like this article, please email it to all your friends or otherwise let others know about it. None of the U.S.-and-allied ‘news’-media will likely publish it (nor link to it, since doing that might also hurt them with Google or etc.). I am not asking for money, but I am asking my readers to spread my articles far and wide, because I specialize in documenting what the Deep State is constantly hiding — what the ‘news’-media ignore if they can, and deny if they must. This is, in fact, today’s samizdat.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.