{"id":59793,"date":"2026-06-19T08:33:55","date_gmt":"2026-06-19T16:33:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=59793"},"modified":"2026-06-19T08:33:55","modified_gmt":"2026-06-19T16:33:55","slug":"ukraine-russia-and-the-danger-of-nuclear-attack-on-europe","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2026\/06\/19\/ukraine-russia-and-the-danger-of-nuclear-attack-on-europe\/","title":{"rendered":"Ukraine, Russia, and the Danger of Nuclear Attack on Europe"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reprinted with permission from Benjamin Abelow\u2019s Substack<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n

Why I\u2019m Writing<\/strong><\/p>\n

I\u2019m 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).<\/p>\n

You\u2019ll need a bit of patience to understand some of Karaganov\u2019s comments. His English is halting, and he sometimes mumbles \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

The discussion is fascinating. It provides deep insights into nuclear strategy and makes clear the great danger of the present moment for Europe \u2014 and all of us. Europe, if it continues on its current path, and Karaganov\u2019s program is implemented, will be struck by a conventional missile attack from Russia, which then \u2014 after a conventional retaliation by Europe and\/or the U.S. \u2014 likely will lead to a nuclear attack on Europe.<\/p>\n

The Importance of Human Interactions<\/strong><\/p>\n

Mearsheimer does an impressive job of maintaining collegial, and even, at moments, warm interactions with Karaganov \u2014 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.<\/p>\n

What Karaganov Is Proposing<\/strong><\/p>\n

As Karaganov describes it \u2014 and I believe he is being forthright \u2014 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) \u201csober-up\u201d 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 \u201creestablish deterrence.\u201d Karaganov genuinely seems to believe that this approach is the best way to avoid a large-scale nuclear war with uncontrolled escalation.<\/p>\n

You may not like Karaganov\u2019s viewpoint or his strategy. But, I would assert, you must understand it \u2014 because it if European leaders persist on their current path, it will become increasingly posssible, perhaps even probable, that Karaganov\u2019s plan will be implemented and that Europe will be on the receiving end of a nuclear attack.<\/p>\n

Let me summarize my understanding of what Karaganov is proposing:<\/p>\n

\n

Step 1<\/em><\/strong>: Russia launches a limited conventional (non-nuclear) missile attack on selected targets in Europe.<\/p>\n

Step 2<\/em><\/strong>:<\/em> Europe (and\/or the U.S.) respond in kind with a conventional missile attack on selected targets in Europe.<\/p>\n

Step 3<\/em><\/strong>: Russia launches a nuclear attack on selected targets in Europe.<\/p>\n

Step 4<\/em><\/strong>:<\/em> In this scenario there is no Step 4.<\/strong> The conflict ends without further immediate exchanges, escalation, or military conflict of any sort. Europe does not respond with it\u2019s 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\u2019s limited attack on Europe. Deterrence is reestablished on Russia\u2019s 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 \u201climited\u201d nuclear attack on selected European military and industrial targets probably would kill millions<\/strong>, and quite possibly tens of millions,<\/strong> of Europeans.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The Lethal Blindness of Europe\u2019s Leaders<\/strong><\/p>\n

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\u2019s actual goals and concerns are. It has been clear from the start of this conflict \u2014 actually, from long before the start of the war \u2014 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\u2019s border. In a similar but reverse situation, the U.S. would long ago have gone to war to remove the threat.<\/p>\n

But these European leaders appear to be entirely blind to this \u2014 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 \u2014 including the reality of their own terrible and ongoing failures \u2014 these leaders are doubling down. They appear to be incapable of changing course.<\/p>\n

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\u2019t have the guts to be honest even with themselves? I don\u2019t know. But either way, the result is the same: They are pushing Europe toward war and may well \u2014 if the Karaganov plan is implemented \u2014 provoke a nuclear attack on their countries. The European people and media must wake up to what is happening \u2014 without delay.<\/p>\n

The German Connection<\/strong><\/p>\n

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 \u2014 with roughly half of these civilians. We are speaking here of the death of 15\u201320 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.<\/p>\n

Karaganov\u2019s Proposal Is Not as Crazy as It Sounds<\/strong><\/p>\n

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 \u201cescalation dominance\u201d in this scenario \u2014 as I described above under \u201cStep 4.\u201d The Russian nuclear attack on Europe would be the final \u201cround\u201d in the acute conflict. And this means that Russia might not be deterred from taking the steps Karaganov is proposing.<\/p>\n

Karaganov\u2019s Concern About \u201dSin\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Karaganov says that the only thing that gives him pause about his plan is a concern for \u201csin.\u201d 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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019t know; though I suspect that both are important.<\/p>\n

Whatever one thinks of Karaganov\u2019s 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\u2019m saying, but in case you don\u2019t, just read this book<\/a> and you\u2019ll see what it\u2019s all about.<\/p>\n

But It\u2019s Not a Good Plan<\/strong><\/p>\n

But none of this means that \u2014 even from the blinkered perspective of a Russian nuclear planner \u2014 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\u2019t 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 \u2014 especially if Russia fears it could be on the receiving end of a third World War \u2014 and one that the West has a profound interest in preventing from being implemented.<\/p>\n

Try to Watch the Whole Video<\/strong><\/p>\n

The video is 1 hour, 48 minutes. Yes, that\u2019s long. But if you possibly can, watch the whole thing; it\u2019s really worth it. It is crucial to understand what is happening.<\/p>\n

The Discussion \u2014 Links<\/strong><\/p>\n

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 \u2014 as you likely will \u2014 whereas this can\u2019t be done on YouTube.<\/p>\n

Rumble:<\/p>\n

https:\/\/rumble.com\/v7b8bx6-john-mearsheimer-and-sergey-karaganov-nuclear-strike-on-europe-to-restore-d.html<\/a><\/p>\n

YouTube:<\/p>\n