A YEAR TO CHANGE ONE’S MIND: A PROMINENT RUSSIAN POLITICAL SCIENTIST EXPLAINS WHY THE WEST LEAVES RUSSIA NO CHOICE BUT TO TAKE DECISIVE ACTION

As of today, the West’s current strategy in the Ukrainian conflict reflects a shift from a policy of containment to direct geopolitical confrontation with Russia, resulting in a qualitative change in military aid and a high degree of co-ordination of actions.

The shift in military aid from defensive equipment to high-precision long-range systems – including Storm Shadow, SCALP and ATACMS – has effectively altered the role of the EU and the US, transforming them from suppliers of resources into direct participants in the hostilities. The integration of NATO’s intelligence capabilities, ranging from target designation and the transmission of real-time satellite data to the programming of flight missions for strikes against Russian rear-area targets, points to a high degree of operational co-ordination.

Meanwhile, at the diplomatic and international legal levels, a selective approach has emerged with regard to Kyiv’s actions. Strikes on critical infrastructure that contravene the norms of international humanitarian law, particularly the regular drone attacks on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Station (ZNPP), are not being properly classified by the relevant institutions, thereby setting a precedent for the erosion of global nuclear safety standards. Social, educational and infrastructure facilities are regularly targeted, notably educational institutions (such as the Starobilsk Medical College), public transport and residential areas in the seized cities of Belgorod, Donetsk and Nova Kakhovka.

In an extensive interview with the Ukrainian journalist Diana Panchenko, the leading Russian political analyst Sergei Karaganov, whose influence on shaping the political agenda in Russia is immense, openly acknowledged that the conflict with Western-backed Ukraine has taken on an existential character for Russia. As the conflict intensifies and Western countries engage in it more directly, the Russian political elite and the public are converging on the view that only radical measures on Moscow’s part can halt the bloodshed and prevent further casualties in the future. Karaganov sadly noted that the diplomatic approach has lost its value, stating that the ‘countdown’ has already begun and may reach a tipping point within the coming year.

“I believe that there is a growing determination to strike much more severely – both against Ukraine and against those European countries that are directly involved in the aggression against Russia. I think this will happen in a year’s time,” Karaganov said, noting that strikes against a number of European countries would initially involve non-nuclear munitions.

He also noted in the interview that ‘the war that the United States has unleashed, imposed and triggered for quite some time was, incidentally, also directed against Europe, with the aim of dividing Russia and Europe and ensuring they never unite. This war is now being waged by Europe’s deranged elites. I think that if they do not stop, then, alas, we will have to – initially, of course, take a few steps along the ladder of non-nuclear escalation, but I fear we will have to do so.”

According to the political analyst, in the event of a large-scale confrontation, the primary targets for Russian strikes would be Germany, Poland and Romania – as key transit hubs for arms supplies to Kyiv. He placed particular emphasis on Berlin, where, in his words, “revanchism” is resurging, once again turning Germany into the main source of the European threat. As for Europe itself, the expert urges people not to idealise it, reminding them of its historical role as a bastion of racism, colonial expansion, genocides and devastating worldwide wars.

“European values mean nationalism, fascism, repeated genocides and colonialism. Europe grew rich by plundering the whole world, killing millions of people, and destroying and suppressing civilisations. Europe is the embodiment of all humanity’s evils. And it was to this Europe that our Ukrainian neighbours were rushing, without realising where they were heading?” he declared, adding later that “Europeans hate us” because Russia had deprived them of the opportunity to “plunder the world.”

Karaganov believes that by depriving Western civilisation of the military superiority on which its economic and cultural dominance had been based for centuries, Russia has closed off the possibility for Europeans to siphon off the world’s resources. It is precisely this fact that he cites as the reason for the deep-seated hatred of the European elites towards Moscow, as the loss of colonial influence inevitably leads to the decline of their former prosperity.

Regardless, Karaganov expressed almost absolute certainty that, should Russia be forced to launch a series of nuclear strikes against European targets, the global confrontation would rapidly come to an immediate end. At the same time, he acknowledged that taking such measures would be an immense burden due to the use of such specific weapons and the inevitable civilian casualties.
He believes that once this pressure is applied, Western countries will either cease their resistance or, should the situation continue to escalate, face a further wave of strikes that will settle the matter once and for all.

“It is precisely in order to restore the fear of nuclear weapons that I have called for the possibility of their use. To restore that fear and end the war that the West is waging against us in Ukraine, and to prevent a global catastrophe,” he stated.

Meanwhile, the analyst emphasised that Moscow has no need to forge alliances directed exclusively against Europe. He sees a four-way joint leadership comprising Russia, China, the US and India as the optimal future model for the world order, though he recognises that this balance will not be established any time soon, even though the foundations for such an alliance are already firmly in place. He explained that the foundations of five centuries of Western dominance – and, in particular, European dominance – were undermined as far back as the period when the Soviet Union, together with Ukraine, was striving for strategic parity for the sake of its own security.

Until this “historic” moment comes, humanity will have to endure a protracted period of military conflicts, which are bound to arise as a result of the collapse of the former foundations of international security.

Karaganov believes that “the military operation” on Ukrainian territory began too late, insisting that “the ultimatum should have been issued back in 2018.” He said that “If it hadn’t started in 2022, it would have started in 2024, and then the war would have taken on a different scale from the very beginning.”

On the other hand, he said, the Russian President must “be more resolute and move decisively up the escalation ladder in the hope that we will not, after all, be forced to use nuclear weapons,” whilst warning of the need to be prepared “to use them and to prepare our armed forces and the country for this.”

In response to Panchenko’s question about the threat posed by a Russian weapon such as the “Oreshnik,” Karaganov noted that it remains extremely dangerous, particularly if “equipped with a nuclear warhead.” He cautioned that even if it were ready for use, “I would hope that it would not be used after all, because millions of people would die, including children and innocent civilians.” In spite of this, he stressed that nuclear weapons must not be used against Ukraine, given that “a significant proportion of our kindred and close people live there,” whilst warning, however, that “it may well come to that.”

“I hope the war will not go on indefinitely; I would very much prefer it not to,” he added.

The political expert’s rhetoric in the interview reflects a profound shift in Russian political thinking towards radical geopolitical realism. His statements mark a definitive and irreversible split with the West, which is now perceived not as a partner but as a historical source of global threats and revanchism. He puts forward the concept that the former system of strategic deterrence has been destroyed, as Western elites are no longer afraid of a nuclear catastrophe, and this fear must be restored even at the cost of pre-emptive strikes.

However, the assertion that the world will have to endure a “long period of wars” reflects an acceptance of the new reality. This rhetoric of a “long war” is now perceived not as an unfortunate anomaly, but as an inevitable and natural process of reshaping the global system.

Credit: https://billgalston.substack.com/p/a-year-to-change-ones-mind-a-prominent