"Russia Will Nuke Germany & UK if Ukraine War Persists" | Sergey Karaganov

"We are fighting Europe once again—the continent that has consistently been the source of all ills and evil in the history of humanity, including, of course, world wars, racism, and colonialism." Sergey Karaganov’s perspective on Europe and its relationship with Russia is defined by his belief in the urgent necessity of a definitive civilizational break from the West.

 

 » The source of all ills and evil in the history of humanity. «

 Zelensky, Starmer, Macron, and Merz coordinating their seizure of Russian assets, December 8, 2025.

He views the current conflict between the US-EU-NATO and Russia in Ukraine as a historical repetition, noting that "Europe has been several times invading us" and that "last time was in 1941–1945 when Western European countries came here under the banners of Hitler [Operation Barbarossa]." Karaganov asserts that "unbelievably after all their defeats they haven't learned the lesson" and "they are still pushing for a big war."
 

He warns that Europe’s "strategic parasitism" and "loss of the fear of God and nuclear war" make them "dangerous idiots that are pumping up hatred towards Russia like mad. Even in Hitler's Germany, the level of anti-Russian propaganda was maybe weaker than what is happening in Europe now." He argues that "they do not understand anything but physical pain," suggesting that Russia will be forced to "punish them severely" with "waves of nuclear strikes" should they continue fueling the war in Ukraine and threatening to directly attack Russia.

 

How far are we from Russia using nuclear weapons against Europe? "Two years, maybe one year. I've been calling on my government to escalate earlier. But President Putin is very religious and cautious." Karaganov specifies that "my choice would be Britain and Germany" and "Germany should be nuked first because it is the source of the worst in European history."

  

» Germany should be nuked first because it is the worst. «

Sergey Karaganov, January 14, 2026.

 

"I beg the Almighty that won't happen. I have a lot of friends in Europe, but I have no contact with them because they are banned by their elites from talking to us. These elites are preparing them for war, though they cannot comprehend that if a real big war is unleashed, there will be nobody in Europe left to talk to. I pray that we won’t have to make this decision."

 

Regarding the decline of European elites, Karaganov argues that under its current leadership, Europe "became anti-European and even anti-human." He characterizes these leaders as "complete failures on all counts—moral, political, economic," and bluntly asserts that "Europe is going down." He further contends that "never in the history of Europe have we had such a low level of intellectual capacities in the leadership of most European countries," noting that while this applies to "not all but almost" every nation, the overall decline is undeniable.

European elites "understand that their Golden Age is finished and they are desperate," primarily because they realized "they cannot live on others' money nor on the cushion of US protection any longer." Ultimately, he suggests that "everybody in the world now laughs at Europe," observing that a continent which "used to be one of the core centers of world power" has now been reduced to "a joke."

 

On the relationship between Russia and Europe, Karaganov believes "our European journey which Peter the Great started is over" and "it should have been over 150 years ago." He expresses a sense of liberation from Western influence, saying, "we are not European, thanks God" and "we are returning back to where we belong—to become the Eurasian nation... We have done away with "comprador" elites and thrown away the "fifth column." We are returning to our Russian soul. The only problem is that we have to pay for it with the lives of our best men. But other than that, Western sanctions have been a blessing. Russia, when threatened, is again a nation of warriors."

 

Reference:
Tucker Carlson Interview with Sergey Karaganov, January 14, 2026.

 

See also:

Sergey Karaganov (January 27, 2025) - Russia Must Help Overthrow Europe's Dangerous Elites.

Sergey Karaganov (May 3, 2024) - Russia Needs to Change Its Nuclear Doctrine. 

Sergey Karaganov (2023) - Russia’s Policy Towards World Majority (aka Karaganov Doctrine). 

Emmanuel Todd (2024) - The Defeat of the West. 

Samuel P. Huntington (1993) - The Clash of Civilizations: The Rest Against The West. 

George Frideric Handel's "Passacaglia," performed on piano

by Russian Orthodox monk Avel (born Anatoliy Stulkin), 2025.

Sergey Karaganov is a Russian political scientist, Professor Emeritus, and Supervisor at Moscow's Higher School of Economics. A long-standing personal friend and advisor to President Vladimir Putin—and formerly Boris Yeltsin—he is the honorary chairman of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy. Architect of the "Karaganov Doctrine" and Russia’s Eurasian pivot, he advocates for an assertive foreign policy, interaction with the non-Western World Majority that has no binding relationships with the US and the organizations it patronizes, as well as for a radical civilizational break from the West.

After Maduro, Might Makes Right | Alexander Dugin

What does the kidnapping of the president of a sovereign country mean? Like in the era of barbarian kingdoms, Maduro was brought in and paraded through the streets of New York like a captive enemy for the amusement of the crowd. Many note that this is reminiscent of Rome in its twilight years.

 » "Reshuffling of the deck" and global conflict. The world will never be the same again. «

 

[...] And what does all this mean? [...] International law no longer exists. Appealing to the UN, asking the West to pay attention to violations of certain principles, agreements, or provisions that contradict the letter and spirit of the law — all of this is now completely futile. 

 

[...] The idea that there are certain norms and rules that can be negotiated should be left in the past once and for all. There is no international law. There is only the law of force. In a sense, it has always been this way — this is nothing new. It’s just that, at certain times, after each "reshuffling of the deck" and global conflict, when spheres of influence are redistributed, the great powers assert their right to sovereignty.  

 

» International law is always a balance of power between the victors. « 

This was the case in the First and Second World Wars. When fascist Europe became a separate entity in world politics, it demanded that the world submit to it. The world rebelled, and that power is no more. But any international law is always a balance of power between the victors. That’s the point. For more than a century, nation-states have not been sovereign actors establishing world order; world relations are shaped by ideological blocs.

[...] Trump said nothing conceptually new, but he de facto scrapped the Yalta peace, the bipolar system, the UN, and even the very idea of globalization hitherto. His position is simple: "My interests are the interests of the world hegemon. Obey me." 

 

 » In the end, these infamous and lost thieves, like wretched fruit hanging from this tree... « 

The Miseries and Misfortunes of War by Jacques Callot, 1633.

 

In fact, humanity is now in a state of fundamental humiliation. Trump simply called a spade a spade. Globalists used to soften this humiliation by pretending to listen to your opinion and allowing you to participate in the process. Now that multilateralism is over, only the right of force remains, and this is an irreversible process. The world will never be the same again.

We are in the midst of a protracted, long-running Third World War, where international law simply does not exist. It will exist sometime in the future, based on the outcome of this conflict. [...] Trump is casting an arrogant challenge: "If you are winners, then win. Like me, for example. Where is your Zelensky?" 

 

 » If you are winners, then win. Where is your Zelensky? «

 

From this point of view, only when you parade Zelensky, the terrorist Malyuk, the terrorist Budanov, or Zaluzhny through Moscow in a cage, and the crowd of "Russian Romans," the inhabitants of the Third Rome, shout "shame, murderers" at them, only then will they talk to you. Perhaps on some holiday: Labor Day or Friendship of Peoples Day. Only then will we be accepted into the club of great powers. But for now, no. We are trying to convince Trump with documents that hundreds of Ukrainian drones wanted to destroy the Russian president, and the response we get is something like, "I don’t believe it. First, you set it up yourselves; second, it’s a pity it didn’t work out; and third, I know that we sent them so that your life wouldn’t be too sweet."

[...] We must defend ourselves in the war with the West, because that is where the initiative to revoke our right to sovereign policy comes from. It is time to abandon illusions about "Western partners" or "shared values." Trump is right to drop the mask of hypocrisy and nonsense about human rights: for him, America comes first. We are in a shootout: shoot or you will be killed. Trump did not even start World War III — he simply confirmed its existence.

» In this game without rules, Russia must win by any means necessary. «

 

[...] Only war decides everything — that’s the issue. And here the question of resources arises. Apparently, we are much better off with them than we thought: over four years of war, the people have demonstrated an incredible will for sovereignty. But now, in Ukraine, the question is not about the use of sovereignty, but about its acquisition. So far, it is not enough. Sovereignty is when you draw red lines and punish those who cross them. And when we demonstrate the Burevestnik, Poseidon, or Oreshnik, but nothing happens, it ceases to count in this world of shows and short cycles.

We have put everything at stake — the existence of Russia and our people — to prove our sovereignty. [...] In this game without rules, Russia must win by any means necessary. There are no taboo topics: we can abolish the Constitution, declare a state of emergency, do away with all conventions, and do whatever is necessary to survive. If we observe propriety and lose, it will not count in our favor. But if we succeed, no matter what, the victors will not be judged. Only the defeated are judged: if we slip up, they will hold a new Nuremberg trial over us.

» Tremble, nations, and submit, for God is with us. «  

 

This is the seriousness of 2026: it is a year of war and extraordinary measures. Peaceful life is being completely erased, like a wet rag wiping outdated formulas off a blackboard. Everything we counted on no longer works. We are in a cowboy saloon where a shootout is taking place without rules or regulations.

 

 [...] Now, thanks to Trump and his new doctrines, the situation has changed. Trump says, "I will conquer you all, I will shoot without warning." And look what he’s doing: he really is shooting. [...] We must act just like the strongest players — the West or Trump. Do as Trump does, but with completely different content, goals, and objectives. 

 

» There is no other way out. «

 

Methodologically, there is no other way out. China has achieved its goals through economics, but in a military confrontation, the question remains open: the Chinese are not the most warlike people, and there is a huge pro-Western elite there. We have not been able to compete economically, but our strengths are warrior bravery, courage, and faith. God is on our side: "Tremble, nations, and submit, for God is with us."

Quoted from:
Alexander Dugin (January 7, 2026) - After Maduro, Might Makes Right: Trump Sets the New Terms of Sovereignty.

 

 » The era of redrawing maps of influence. EU is "carefully monitoring." «

Went from scramble for Africa to scramble for Europe and Latin America real quick.

 

Neolib Zionist supremacist Jake Tapper (CNN host) and neocon Zionist supremacist Stephen Miller (Trump's

Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy), fighting over how to execute the takeover of Venezuela, January 5, 2026. 

Why a US War with Venezuela Would Benefit Russia | Dmitry Seleznyov

As cynical and crude as it may sound, a US war with Venezuela would benefit Russia. Venezuela could become America's "Ukraine," diverting US attention and resources away from our own conflict in Ukraine. The United States risks getting bogged down in a war it starts—especially if it launches a ground operation. In that case, Venezuela could turn into a second Vietnam for the US. Either way, South American countries would likely rally in solidarity to support it, uniting the continent in a fight against the "gringos." 

 

 » Uniting the continent in a fight against the "gringos." «

It won't be possible to tear the country apart with impunity; there won't be an easy walkover, and the US could face unacceptable losses. On the international stage, Russia and China would provide support—both politically and through hybrid means. On one hand, we'd be whispering sweet nothings to those Witkoffs or whoever's in charge in that administration, while on the other, quietly fueling Maduro's fire. Why not? If others can do it, why can't we? Of course, we'd offer help with the constraint that we're still tied down in Ukraine, but we'd do what we can.  

 

» Why not? If others can do it, why can't we? «

 

If things in Venezuela escalate to a hot phase and body bags start flowing back to Trump's "Great America," the MAGA electorate won't like it. Trump was elected to do the opposite. Fighting a war in Venezuela isn't just getting involved for Israel's sake or bombing Iran on the other side of the world—this one's right in America's backyard, with short supply lines. Not to mention that Trump would permanently lose his carefully cultivated image as a "peacemaker," the one he wants to be remembered for in history. A war in Venezuela would brand him forever as the man who tied a bloody ribbon of a second Vietnam around America's neck. Does Trump want that? Doubtful.

 

But Trump is pushing hard—he always plays the bluff game. Recently, Mr. Twitter declared a no-fly zone, and just the other day, he went even further with a full blockade. In effect, that's already a declaration of war. Will Maduro escalate? Sure, a direct conflict could end in different ways, but if Trump has already sentenced the Venezuelan president, what does he have to lose? Escalation often leads to de-escalation. Remember how young Kim Jong-un told Trump to get lost on surrendering nuclear weapons—and nothing happened; he ended up as a "good guy."
 

But for now, our friend Maduro is acting unconvincingly. Chanting "peace, peace, peace" won't stop an inevitable war. "You're only guilty of making me hungry," as the fable goes—red-haired Donnie's intentions are clear. So why wait? Look at the "barefoot" Houthis—they drove off American ships from clustering near their coast. And they're still standing strong. 

Or what—surrender?

Quoted from:
Dmitry Seleznyov (December 18, 2025) - Why a US War with Venezuela Would Benefit Russia.

(Чем выгодна России война США с Венесуэлой.) 

 

» The Pathetic Empire. «

Caracas, December 18, 2025: Venezuelan naval forces have begun escorting non-sanctioned oil tankers carrying petroleum derivatives, reportedly destined for China, in direct response to US President Donald Trump's December 16 announcement of a "total and complete blockade" targeting sanctioned vessels entering or leaving Venezuela. The escalation follows the US seizure on December 10 of the tanker Skipper, carrying approximately 1.9 million barrels of Venezuelan crude, which Trump indicated the US would retain. 

 

Venezuela has condemned these actions as aggression, requesting an urgent United Nations Security Council meeting to address perceived violations of international law. Domestically, PDVSA workers staged protests across multiple states in defense of national sovereignty, while Vice President Delcy Rodríguez reaffirmed the uninterrupted operation of the hydrocarbons sector. Amid the tensions, President Nicolás Maduro reported that Venezuela achieved 9 percent GDP growth in 2025 despite sanctions, with projections of at least 7 percent for 2026.

Preventing Empire Collapse | Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou

The new 33-page US National Security Strategy, strongly shaped by Elbridge Colby and personally prefaced by President Trump, represents a partial yet still incomplete departure from three decades of neoconservative pursuit of hegemony. Officially released on December 4, it explicitly renounces any further quest for global domination, acknowledges that post-1991 globalism hollowed out American industry while delivering few benefits to ordinary citizens, and ultimately weakened the United States itself. It faults an over-reliance on allies and proxies that Washington could not fully control—pointedly implying Israel and European-driven adventures in Ukraine—for repeatedly pulling America into conflicts that did not serve its core interests.

 

» The unipolar era is over. « 

 

In place of hegemony, the document calls for aggressive domestic reindustrialization, technological supremacy, and a return to traditional spheres-of-influence politics. It resurrects an explicitly imperial interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine, insisting that no external great power may have any presence whatsoever in the Western Hemisphere and that the United States must maintain absolute predominance there. At the same time, it insists that America must remain the world’s foremost military and economic power and must permanently prevent any rival from ever attaining the degree of primacy the United States itself enjoyed in recent decades.

» Extraordinarily harsh toward European leadership and the EU. «

 

China continues to be treated as the sole peer competitor capable of achieving parity or even supremacy; opposition to Taiwan’s reunification with the mainland remains a clear priority, revealing no substantive softening despite changed rhetoric. Russia, by contrast, is now a power with which the United States must seek accommodation and continental stability. The document is extraordinarily harsh toward European leadership and the European Union, accusing Brussels of delusional thinking on Russia and Ukraine, economic self-destruction, creeping authoritarianism, and the erosion of European civilization itself. Stabilizing Europe, it argues, requires ending the Ukraine war in partnership with the continent’s other great power—Russia.

 

The new operating model abandons the image of America as a "weary Titan" bearing the world’s burdens alone. Instead, Washington will concentrate on its own hemispheric backyard while outsourcing or franchising security responsibilities elsewhere: Europe is expected to provide for its own defense, Asia will be handled by regional proxies, Africa reduced to transactional resource partnerships, and the Middle East treated as a complicated but no longer central theater. These partners will still answer to the United States and pay their dues, yet day-to-day management becomes their problem.

Historically, this precise pattern—admitting overextension, rejecting free-trade globalism, demanding allied burden-sharing while assuming continued overall control, and invoking the "weary Titan" metaphor—appeared during the terminal phases of both the British Empire under Joseph Chamberlain in the 1890s–1900s and the Spanish Empire under Gaspar de Guzmán, Count-Duke of Olivares in the 17th century. In both cases the reforms were offered as salvation but in reality signaled irreversible imperial decline.

» Explicitly imperial interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. «

 

The strategy is riddled with contradictions. While calling for stabilization with Russia, Pentagon sources simultaneously press Europe to be combat-ready against Moscow by 2027; Europeans counter that 2030 is more realistic, and Viktor Orbán openly states that the official EU position is preparation for war with Russia by that later date. The unspoken American ultimatum to Europe is therefore: achieve full military self-sufficiency on Washington’s timeline or the United States will negotiate directly with Moscow over Europe’s head and end the Ukraine conflict on Russia’s terms. Given Europe’s incapacity to meet that deadline, the second path becomes the default—yet powerful entrenched forces in Washington, Brussels, and the broader transatlantic apparatus remain committed to perpetual confrontation with Russia and containment of Russia.

» Franchising security responsibilities elsewhere. «

 

The document is ultimately a fragile compromise between a small restraint-oriented faction and the far larger interventionist bureaucracy. History suggests the bureaucracy will prevail, just as it defeated Chamberlain and Olivares. Moscow and Beijing instantly recognize the contradiction of a United States that urges its vassals to keep fighting while posing as the reasonable party seeking stability; they will not be deceived. Russia, in particular, reads the American declaration that peace in Ukraine and stabilized relations with Moscow are now core US interests as confirmation that time is on its side, that it can stand firm on all demands, and that Washington will eventually concede because it is the United States, not Russia, that now needs the war to end.

Thus, while the 2025 National Security Strategy marks the intellectual arrival of restraint-oriented thinking inside parts of the American national-security establishment and constitutes an official admission that the unipolar era is over, its internal contradictions and the entrenched power of the old order make it unlikely to survive in anything like its present form. Like its British and Spanish predecessors, it may ultimately be remembered less as the blueprint for managed retrenchment than as one of the first formal acknowledgments that American hegemony has irrevocably ended.

 

Reference:

Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou (December 8, 2025) - Preventing Empire Collapse. (video)

  

Professor Shen Yi, Director of the Center for BRICS Studies and Professor at the School of 

International Relations and Public Affairs at Fudan University, evaluating the 2025 US NSS.

 

See also:

 Serge Bernard (2016) - From Conquest to Affluence to Collapse: The 250 Year Empire Life Cycle.

William Strauss and Neil Howe (1997) - The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy.  

Lieutenant-General Sir John Bagot Glubb (1978)  - The Age of Decadence.