Reprinted with permission from Benjamin Abelow’s Substack.
Why I’m Writing
I’m writing to recommend a remarkable discussion between John Mearsheimer (an endowed professor of political science at the University of Chicago) and the influential, religiously conservative, hawkish Russian nuclear strategist, Sergey Karaganov. The discussion was hosted and moderated by Professor Glenn Diesen (University of South-Eastern Norway).
You’ll need a bit of patience to understand some of Karaganov’s comments. His English is halting, and he sometimes mumbles — especially during the opening segment of the discussion. But it is well worth hanging in and attending closely. And all becomes perfectly clear as the discussion progresses. Mearsheimer does a good job of re-articulating and clarifying any points that Karaganov does not himself make sufficiently clear.
The discussion is fascinating. It provides deep insights into nuclear strategy and makes clear the great danger of the present moment for Europe — and all of us. Europe, if it continues on its current path, and Karaganov’s program is implemented, will be struck by a conventional missile attack from Russia, which then — after a conventional retaliation by Europe and/or the U.S. — likely will lead to a nuclear attack on Europe.
The Importance of Human Interactions
Mearsheimer does an impressive job of maintaining collegial, and even, at moments, warm interactions with Karaganov — an indirect form of personal diplomacy. I believe that this is extremely important, as human interactions can have a decisive influence, even in contexts such as this one, in international affairs. Humiliations that are inflicted at the level of individual interactions can lead to global disasters. Conversely, respectful interactions, even in exceptionally trying circumstances, can help both sides draw back from dangerously destructive conflicts, even at late stages. I found the human level of the interactions the most heartening part of the discussion.
What Karaganov Is Proposing
As Karaganov describes it — and I believe he is being forthright — this attack would be carried out not as an expansionist or intentionally aggressive strategy. In fact, for reasons described below, it could not function in this way. Rather, it would be an attempt to (as Karaganov describes it) “sober-up” European leaders. These leaders seem to have lost any fear of direct conflict with Russia, and they are increasingly seeking to confront Russia militarily, not just through the proxy of Ukraine. In other words, this very hawkish plan would be a Russian attempt to “reestablish deterrence.” Karaganov genuinely seems to believe that this approach is the best way to avoid a large-scale nuclear war with uncontrolled escalation.
You may not like Karaganov’s viewpoint or his strategy. But, I would assert, you must understand it — because it if European leaders persist on their current path, it will become increasingly posssible, perhaps even probable, that Karaganov’s plan will be implemented and that Europe will be on the receiving end of a nuclear attack.
Let me summarize my understanding of what Karaganov is proposing:
Step 1: Russia launches a limited conventional (non-nuclear) missile attack on selected targets in Europe.
Step 2: Europe (and/or the U.S.) respond in kind with a conventional missile attack on selected targets in Europe.
Step 3: Russia launches a nuclear attack on selected targets in Europe.
Step 4: In this scenario there is no Step 4. The conflict ends without further immediate exchanges, escalation, or military conflict of any sort. Europe does not respond with it’s own limited nuclear arsenal (in France and the UK) for fear of being utterly wiped out with a Russian nuclear response. The U.S. does not respond with its own nuclear attack on Russia because it knows that this would immediately trigger a strategic nuclear war, destroying the U.S. (and Russia, of course). So, the exchange ends with Russia’s limited attack on Europe. Deterrence is reestablished on Russia’s terms. Russia is not, however, incentivised to use its new position to expand or significantly coerce the West in other ways, because it knows that doing so is more likely to trigger a nuclear retaliation, and this heightens the risk for Russia. But we must be clear: Even a very “limited” nuclear attack on selected European military and industrial targets probably would kill millions, and quite possibly tens of millions, of Europeans.
The Lethal Blindness of Europe’s Leaders
This scenario is becoming increasingly likely, I believe, as European leaders seem almost willfully to misunderstand what is happening, why it is happening, and what Russia’s actual goals and concerns are. It has been clear from the start of this conflict — actually, from long before the start of the war — that Russia has not been acting as an expansionary power but rather has been responding to a decades long attempt by the West, especially by the U.S. and NATO, to weaponize Ukraine against Russia, and to do so right on Russia’s border. In a similar but reverse situation, the U.S. would long ago have gone to war to remove the threat.
But these European leaders appear to be entirely blind to this — or, since they are substantially responsible for the course of events, they are psychologically and politically motivated to actively deny the reality. Instead of acknowledging this reality — including the reality of their own terrible and ongoing failures — these leaders are doubling down. They appear to be incapable of changing course.
It is hard to know if these leaders are consciously aware of all this. Are they seeing what is happening and then making the decision to protect their reputation at all costs? Or are they psychologically incapable of even seeing it, because it is simply too painful and they don’t have the guts to be honest even with themselves? I don’t know. But either way, the result is the same: They are pushing Europe toward war and may well — if the Karaganov plan is implemented — provoke a nuclear attack on their countries. The European people and media must wake up to what is happening — without delay.
The German Connection
Karaganov wants a Russian attack to pay specific attention to selected military and weapon-producing industrial targets, including especially facilities in Germany that could potentially produce nuclear weapons. He deeply believes that Germany must not be allowed to produce or control nuclear weapons. His specific concern about Germany is based on the massive destruction inflicted on Russia as a result of the German invasions of Russia during the two World Wars. During these wars, German invasions led to the deaths of over 15 million Russians — with roughly half of these civilians. We are speaking here of the death of 15–20 percent of the entire Russian population. In short, Karaganov wants to entirely preclude the possibility of yet another mass death of Russians at the hands of Germany.
Karaganov’s Proposal Is Not as Crazy as It Sounds
One of the most important parts of the Karaganov-Mearsheimer discussion pertains to the plausibility of the Karaganov strategy. By this, I mean that it might actually be used because it probably would not lead to a Western nuclear retaliation against Russia. In technical jargon, there is good reason to believe that Russia would maintain “escalation dominance” in this scenario — as I described above under “Step 4.” The Russian nuclear attack on Europe would be the final “round” in the acute conflict. And this means that Russia might not be deterred from taking the steps Karaganov is proposing.
Karaganov’s Concern About ”Sin”
Karaganov says that the only thing that gives him pause about his plan is a concern for “sin.” He is referring to a religious scruple against using nuclear weapons that likely would, even with a very limited attack, kill millions of European civilians.
Personally, I really do believe that Karaganov is motivated, in part, by his understanding of religious morality. He also expresses a concern that the use of nucler weapons in this context could ultimately encourage other countries to obtain and use these weapons, which would harm Russia in the long run. Which of these two factors is playing the largest role in his thinking I don’t know; though I suspect that both are important.
Whatever one thinks of Karaganov’s argument, there are some compelling aspects to it from a purely geo-strategic and military point of view for Russia. Although some may view Karaganov as a madman, and highly immoral, the reality is that his thinking is very much informed by a deep and lifelong engagement with nuclear strategy. He is engaged in precisely the kind of thinking that has motivated both American and Russian nuclear planners since the dawn of the nuclear age. I think most people understand the accuracy of what I’m saying, but in case you don’t, just read this book and you’ll see what it’s all about.
But It’s Not a Good Plan
But none of this means that — even from the blinkered perspective of a Russian nuclear planner — it is a good or usable plan. Regardless of its promising theoretical features, pertaining to escalation dominance, I believe the risk of uncontrolled escalation is simply too high. There are too many imponderables. These include the complex interactions among human psychology, the possibility of human and technical error, and the possible (or likely) disruptions of command and control due to electromagnetic pulses from nuclear blast. The risk is too high that the plan would eventuate in an uncontrolled escalation and mass destruction of Europe and Russia, and perhaps the U.S. as well. In short, I don’t think it is a sane policy, regardless of simplified theoretical appearances. Nonetheless, the theoretical aspects of the plan are appealing enough to Russia that it remains a plausible option — especially if Russia fears it could be on the receiving end of a third World War — and one that the West has a profound interest in preventing from being implemented.
Try to Watch the Whole Video
The video is 1 hour, 48 minutes. Yes, that’s long. But if you possibly can, watch the whole thing; it’s really worth it. It is crucial to understand what is happening.
The Discussion — Links
Here are the links for both Rumble and Youtube. One advantage of watching on Rumble is that you can back up the video by ten seconds, should you want to at any point — as you likely will — whereas this can’t be done on YouTube.
Rumble:
YouTube:
You also can view the discussion directly on Glenn’ Diesen’s Substack (you may have to be a subscriber to view it here; I’m not sure).
Read Glenn Diesen’s Commentary
To gain deeper insight into this situation, I strongly recommend — after viewing the video — reading Professor Glenn Diesen’s June 14 post on X about this discussion. I’ll copy the full text here, with my bracketed insert filling in a typographical error in the original:
I received several reactions to the discussion I hosted about how nuclear weapons may be used against Europe to restore deterrence. To be clear, this is not a normative argument about what I think should happen or what I think is just. My argument is what I think will happen. [The Europeans have b]ecome so deeply involved in the attacks on Russia that the Kremlin is under great pressure to restore its deterrence.
Once Russia retaliates with conventional weapons against European targets (weapons facilities, logistics centres), the Europeans will more forcefully attack Russia. At this point, I believe that it is more likely than not that Russia could launch a limited nuclear strike (with tactical nuclear weapons, not strategic). This should not be a controversial prediction. NATO countries are doing the war planning; their intelligence agencies are doing the targeting; their contractors are pulling the trigger; they are supplying the long-range weapons; and they are also using NATO territory to strike Russia. This will only escalate as the Europeans are talking about mass-producing long-range weapons for “Ukraine” to strike deeper and deeper inside Russia, and are setting dates for when Europe will directly attack.
Our political leaders are obsessed with defeating the world’s largest nuclear power, which considers itself to be fighting in a war for its existence. It should worry us that our political leaders did not define what a NATO victory looks like in this scenario, and we should also be worried that our political leaders have incrementally become so directly involved in attacks on Russia and still pretend it is merely a war between Russia and Ukraine. Our political leaders sabotaged both the Minsk peace agreement and the Istanbul agreement, and then shut down all diplomacy for more than 4 years while declaring that “weapons are the path to peace”. It is obligatory in Europe to pretend this is about “helping Ukraine”, but this is dangerous self-delusion.
Where exactly did we think this was heading? Is nuclear war not the obvious end? Can anyone imagine it ending in any different ways if we had done this during the Cold War or if Russia were now similarly attacking the US through a proxy? Biden once said that sending F-16s meant World War 3, yet now it has become controversial to point out that NATO clearly crossing the line between proxy war and direct war will trigger a nuclear war. I see no morality in such self-delusion. NATO escalations are now out of control, we are heading to war, and that war will not be limited to conventional weapons. The fact that this is dismissed as a “pro-Russian” argument demonstrates how completely lost we have become in mindless war propaganda.
What to Do?
As the most basic step, let others know about this video. Share the link to this page, or let them know directly by giving them links to the video with your own explanations and encouragement. If you have contacts in Europe, perhaps even in the European media, share this information with them. In my experience — and I’ve been to Europe several times during the past 18 months — most Europeans, and the European media for sure, do not clearly understand what is happening. They need to. Currently, they are part of the problem, and they may end up paying a terrible price for it.
Thanks for reading.
Benjamin Abelow is the author of How the West Brought War to Ukraine: Understanding How U.S. and NATO Policies Led to Crisis, War, and the Risk of Nuclear Catastrophe. The book has been translated into German, Italian, Polish, Danish, and Slovenian, with French, Dutch, and other translations forthcoming. Abelow holds a B.A. in modern European history from the University of Pennsylvania and an M.D. from the Yale School of Medicine, where he also served as Lecturer in Medicine. He previously worked in Washington, DC, writing, lobbying Congress, and lecturing about nuclear arms policy. His other areas of interest include the study of trauma, including war trauma. He writes on Substack.
