Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, has a conversation with T-House. He pointed out that the defining feature of China–Russia relations today is “stability.” High-level interactions between the two countries have become so frequent that there is no longer any need to deliberately create “special moments.” Behind this stability lie centuries of geographical proximity and historical ties, as well as the realities shaped by today’s changing international landscape.

As Russia’s political, economic, and energy ties with Europe continue to be cut off, China’s importance to Russia is rapidly increasing. And for both China and Russia, their relationship has long gone beyond a simple transactional partnership. Geographic proximity, historical interaction, industrial complementarity, and a shared perception of shifts in the global order are making bilateral ties increasingly close.

The conversation is available via this link.

When President Trump made the fateful decision at the end of February to go into Iran with full force and decapitate its leadership, there were a number of likely consequences to that decision that the President, apparently, did not fully take into consideration. Foremost among these was Iran’s effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz, putting a stranglehold on a critical route of international trade and hence the global economy – an outcome which had been widely discussed and expected beforehand but which, as Trump himself has stated, took him by surprise. It soon became clear that the President had expected a quick and decisive victory in Iran and didn’t fully consider the potential fallout of failing to achieve that. 

But it’s not only the consequences of failure that the President and his advisors seem not to have fully considered. It’s also certain consequences of the operation’s success, or even of its having been undertaken at all – especially the success of its decapitation strike, during negotiations, on Iran’s top leaders at the outset. One such consequence is the chilling effect that this move was likely to have on one of the top declared priorities of Trump’s presidency: improved relations with Russia and a negotiated peace in Ukraine. It’s not clear whether he is personally aware – as many of his advisors must be – of certain foreboding undercurrents in Russian political sentiment that have been developing and gaining ground over the past two or three years, and which his invasion of Iran has almost certainly exacerbated.  

Being vaguely aware of these currents among Russia’s military and political elite, and wanting to learn more about what impact the US attack on Iran has had on the political mood within Russia, Jonathan McCormick (Marker) spoke with Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of the influential foreign affairs journal Russia in Global Affairs. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): There’s been a lot of discussion about the impact of the war with Iran on the economies and strategic objectives of various countries. And in all these discussions, Russia seems always to come out on top. From your perspective, how has the Iran crisis actually impacted Russia, and the political mood within the country? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Of course this is closely watched in Russia. And I would say the impact is ambivalent. I know that in the West, many commentators assume that what is going on with Iran is favourable for Russia. And it’s true that economically, of course, we see oil prices going up – which is pretty important for the Russian budget at this point, because we have economic problems. And additionally, there’s a further sense that the whole attention of the United States and the Europeans will be diverted from Ukraine, and that the capacity to deliver arms to Ukraine might be limited. Both points are fair. But I don’t believe many people in Russia think that these are significant factors in the long term, or even the medium term. Because what the Americans and Israelis have done has caused a major disruption, obviously. And Trump miscalculated heavily, expecting an easy and quick defeat of the Iranian regime, which of course didn’t happen. And now no one knows how to get out of this.

It looks like Trump cannot simply declare victory and go home, because Iran has demonstrated the efficiency and the capacity to block the most important strategic sea route in the world. And if Trump allows Iran to get away with this, it would mean a significant blow, a huge blow to the prestige of the United States.

So now the Americans have to do something to unblock it, and to guarantee for the future that something like this will not happen again. And that’s a very risky operation. I can imagine the Americans will simply have to do it, but it’s very risky. But anyway, this is the short term outlook. In Russia, many people are looking at it through a more long term lens. And from this perspective, the whole thing could be pretty devastating for international relations at large. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): Well, on that point, the US has actually made a series of aggressive moves recently: first Venezuela, then Cuba – which is ongoing, the Americans may well invade – and now Iran. And in the case of Iran, the US attacked and killed their leaders while actually in negotiations with them. And of course, Russia is also in negotiations with the US. How does this sort of thing affect diplomatic relations, especially with countries like Russia that have an adversarial relationship with the United States? Are people in Russia looking closely at this? Are they worried about it? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Yes, absolutely. People both at the top, and in the more rank and file public, have come to a couple of conclusions based on what happened this year, starting with Venezuela and then all the other moves. First of all, as you said, diplomacy has been discredited – heavily, massively. Because what the Americans and Israelis have demonstrated – with the Americans in the lead – is that negotiations do not mean anything. It can happen that those with whom they’re negotiating will be killed immediately, even during the negotiations. This was already demonstrated to a lesser extent last year when the Israelis attacked Iran, and even more so when they tried to kill the Hamas negotiating team in Doha, in an attack on Qatar. Which was absolutely outrageous, of course. And as you said, these same people, the same US negotiators, are conducting negotiations with Russia. Of course, Russia and Iran are different, it’s not exactly the same. But the aftertaste of that is strong. So it will be pretty difficult for Mr Kushner and Mr Witkoff to fully regain trust. Secondly – and from my point of view, this is more important and more dangerous for the international situation – the very fact of the possibility of a decapitation strike, which at once eliminates everybody, the whole political leadership – this is being very seriously considered here. First of all, because it is seen as proof that the Americans are actually capable of doing anything. It’s a kind of lawlessness. Whatever they imagine is to their benefit, they will do. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): In terms of assassinations and decapitation strikes, that sort of thing? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Yes, assassinations of leaders – which until recently was not very common. Maybe historically, but not in the 20th century for example. But in Russia, this is having an additional impact. Beginning in 2022, and especially since 2023, we’ve been having an interesting, and somewhat terrifying, debate here in Russia, about the nuclear factor. Some have been arguing that in the case of real trouble, Russia should be ready to use nuclear weapons, even without any nuclear provocation from the other side. The debate was launched by certain commentators and scholars – in particular by Professor Karaganov, a senior colleague of mine. Of course, the idea is not to persuade the whole leadership to use nuclear weapons. Rather it’s the opposite – to avoid this scenario, by lowering the threshold for usage, as a credible deterrent. And to some extent the debate has had an impact, because Russia did correct the concept of its nuclear policy – not in support of immediate usage, but as suggested, the threshold was lowered. Of course, it’s a big debate. I would not say that the people arguing for that view are in the majority here, not at all. But after what happened in Iran, I think the national leadership has moved, at least psychologically, closer to the position of people like Professor Karaganov. Because they see that nuclear arms – the red button, the final red button – might be the only guarantee, the only means against such an aggressive policy. You remember from Cold War times, the whole system of the “dead hand” that could still launch a nuclear attack even after its own country had been annihilated – there’s that famous movie by Stanley Kubrick, Dr. Strangelove. I don’t insist, of course, that we are moving towards that. But again, with the psychological impact of such behaviour on international politics, in particular within Russia, we’re looking at very disturbing scenarios now which we couldn’t imagine a couple of years ago. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): Some months ago there was an incident where it looked like Putin’s residence in Valdai was targeted by a drone strike. And I remember there was a general feeling coming out of Russia that the Americans were likely involved – which of course led people to doubt the sincerity of American negotiations. From your perspective, did this incident have a serious impact on how Russians view the Americans? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: You know, it’s difficult to judge, because this episode was put on a very high level initially. And we remember some moves – including when Russia’s chief of military intelligence personally visited the US Embassy in Moscow to deliver some documents proving that it was an attack. But the Americans disregarded that. They said they didn’t receive sufficient evidence that this was the case. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): I believe he gave them some actual electronics containing targeting data, didn’t they? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Yes, some sort of chip. But paradoxically, the issue then disappeared. We heard no more about it – either in the Russian political position, or in their negotiations, or continued statements. So, I don’t know what that was.

But, of course, as we already discussed, what happened in Iran has demonstrated to many Russians that there are absolutely no limits to what the Americans might be willing to do. They’ll do whatever they think is good for themselves, and that’s it. And this is being projected onto everything else – including Ukraine, of course.

And the Maduro case – that was something else again. To some extent, it was more shocking – because we had already seen the killing of leaders. We saw it done by the Israelis in Lebanon and in Iran. But just to abduct a functioning head of state – that’s quite new. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): Russia has been supporting Iran throughout this conflict – at least, it seems, in terms of providing critical intelligence. And as the situation has escalated – and in response to certain extreme threats made by Trump toward Iran – Russia has at least once issued a strong statement warning the US against a certain course of action. Do you or others in Russia perceive any risk that this situation could lead to a direct confrontation with the US?

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Not really. It’s not necessarily the case that we would get into a direct confrontation with the US over this particular issue. It’s true that early last year, a couple of months before the 12-day war, Russia signed a treaty – a strategic partnership – with Iran. This treaty is pretty cautiously formulated, and it’s not binding, I would say. And to be accurate about the Russian position, Russia is in a pretty delicate situation here. Because the Russian leadership actually has a rather tense relationship with Iran – and at the same time basically a good working relationship, and a very extensive one, with the Gulf monarchies. Russia has a lot of converging and diverging interests with Turkey.

Russia has a not very good relationship, but an extensive one, with Israel. And in the case of Putin and Netanyahu – I don’t know whether they like or dislike each other, but they normally understand each other very well, because both are pretty straight-to-the-point kind of guys.

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): And how would you characterize Russia’s current relationship with the Americans? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: With Trump, despite all the nuances we discussed earlier, Russia – and Putin in particular – doesn’t want to break with Trump, because at the end of the day there is still the expectation, the hope, that some kind of settlement can be negotiated between Russia and the US on Ukraine. I wouldn’t say it’s a very big chance, or a very high expectation, at this point. But still, it’s something. And Putin doesn’t want completely to disrupt his relationship with Trump. So within this complicated equilibrium of relations, it’s not so easy to know how to navigate in a proper manner. And I think that’s why Putin has been pretty silent. He hasn’t made any statements since the war against Iran began. He’s had a lot of phone calls, and phone diplomacy, and probably discussed certain things with all involved, but never public statements. It’s quite remarkable, really. So again, coming back to your question – at the end of the day, I don’t think Iran’s situation will create a casus belli for Russia to involve itself in a direct conflict with the United States. But the atmosphere is very, very complicated, and there’s a question as to how Russia will be able to manoeuvre through it.

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): In terms of the global impacts of the war with Iran – apart from energy, a lot of people are also worried about the possibility of a widespread threat to food security. And in the case of the Gulf States, even water security – if the desalination plants are destroyed. And all of this, of course, could lead to more wars. How are these issues being looked at inside Russia? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: In terms of Russia itself this is not a big problem, because Russia is self-sufficient when it comes to food security. We do have certain shortages and certain deficits – like for example, in the process of enhancing and improving the whole food industry. Many of those things that are needed have been imported from other countries, from Europe in particular. But in general, Russia can survive very easily in terms of food, even if isolated. But when it comes to the global situation – yes, this is serious indeed. The Ukrainian crisis, when it started, created problems – but they were more or less resolved. Partly by force – to be frank, Russia failed to isolate Ukraine from the world market. But also diplomatically – as despite all the hostility, Russia was not absolutely committed to this. So at the end of the day, it worked. This time it is worse, because we see a blockade of the world’s most important channel through which fertilizers come, and elements to produce fertilizers. And just now, at this time of year, when countries have to prepare for agricultural work – this is really bad. Especially for Asia – in countries like India, Bangladesh and others, this could be really disastrous if it continues. So Russia, of course, is ready to extend support to so-called “friendly countries”, those who did not introduce sanctions against Russia. But the problem is still pretty severe – because even if those countries quickly reorient their relationships toward other partners, like Russia, this cannot be accomplished easily or in a few days. It will take months to rearrange the whole system, and then it will be too late. So I think this is a real possibility, and one of the serious dangers we face. That’s why Trump is so nervous about this, and wants to stop it. But of course, in this situation, the blockade of Hormuz is the only means Iran can employ against the Americans. And of course, they will use it. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): Let’s talk a bit about Europe. Obviously Europe has been trying since 2022 to rid itself of all energy imports from Russia, and to a large extent has done so. But now, with the war in Iran and the closure of Hormuz, it seems Europe will be facing a critical energy situation. Is there any sense within Russia that Europe might come and ask to have its energy imports resumed? And what do you think Russia’s response would be if that happened?

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Well, I think it’s pretty ambivalent on Russia’s side. On the one hand, to be frank, of course Russia would be very much interested in resuming exports to Europe, because those contracts and relations cannot be replaced. Not with Asia, not with anybody else. Asia might partially compensate for the loss of Europe, but not entirely. But at the same time, the European Union has proved itself to be an absolutely unreliable partner – a 200% unreliable partner. So unreliable, in fact, that it is ready to act against its own interests, even to its own harm – to damage itself, in order to punish Russia. And of course, this makes things very difficult.

Even if, theoretically, we assume that the Europeans now decide to come to Russia, it will be very difficult to restore trust, to restore confidence. Frankly, I don’t see it happening. And I cannot imagine how it could, because that would mean basically the elimination, the cancellation of the whole policy conducted by the European Union for more than four years now.

And this is not just a policy of confrontation with Russia, or simply the replacement of Russian energy. This is very much a principled position – even proclaimed early on as a holy war, a holy war between good and evil. And nothing has changed since then. Okay, they don’t say it as frequently as they used to do, but it’s still there. The Americans may be more flexible, insisting as they do that they want to negotiate a deal for both sides – that they are not on either side, and so on. Which may be hypocritical, but still, it shows some flexibility. But with Europe, it’s different. Europe is still committed to its initial position: Russia must not gain anything at all from this war – Russia has no right to gain anything. And the war should continue as long as it takes for Ukraine to win. This will be difficult, of course, in the context of a severe energy crisis, but I don’t see how they can change it. Maybe I’m underestimating the flexibility of some European politicians. But so far, they’ve never demonstrated this skill vis-à-vis Russia.

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): I believe the Belgian prime minister, Bart De Wever, has recently moved a bit in that direction. 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Yes – but I think, at the end of the day, it depends on one particular country. It depends on Germany. Because Germany was the biggest consumer. Germany had the most extended relationship with Russia, the biggest economic relationship, biggest energy relationship. And Germany was the key element of this new policy of cutting off Russia: We’ve cut it off completely, we can never restore it, we will never go back, and so on. And historically we know that in many respects, what happens in Germany defines the whole European political environment. So we will see. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): I want to ask about the ongoing dispute between Zelensky and Orban. It seems Ukraine is blocking Russian oil going to Hungary, Orban responded by vetoing the EU’s 90 billion euro loan to Ukraine, and Zelensky responded with a thinly veiled threat to kill Orban, or his family. And with Orban up for election this month – an election he could conceivably lose – the EU is trying very hard to use the opportunity to get rid of him. And so it looks like the whole future of the war in Ukraine could be hanging on the results of this one election. How are people in Russia looking at this situation? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Well, this is, of course, a moment of glory for Hungary. Who could imagine that this local election, pretty small on the global scale, would make such a big noise? On the Ukrainian side, Zelensky believes that he can afford to do anything towards anybody because he is in the right – he is fighting against Russia, and so on. As for the election, I would neither underestimate nor overestimate its significance, or the significance of Orban’s position. I suppose that if he wins and remains in power, the European Union will do everything it can to find some way around him – although this will be not easy, because it will undermine many aspects of the European Union.

In Russia, I think this situation is seen as a symptom, as one more sign of how severe the gap is between all of us, and of how nervousness creates aggressiveness – from Ukraine towards Hungary, and from Europe towards Hungary and towards anyone they believe is pro-Russian. Although neither Orban nor Fico, for that matter, is really pro-Russian – they are simply trying to keep some kind of balance for their economies.

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): There are people who believe that all of this tension, all this splintering within the EU, is only going to get worse. How are people in Russia evaluating the future of the EU?

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Of course, many people here discuss and speculate about the future of the European Union. And it seems clear that Orban per se, or Hungary per se, cannot undermine the European Union significantly. But we’re hearing more and more dissenting voices, for example from the Belgian prime minister, as you mentioned, or the Italian prime minister, Meloni, who is not in favour of what Trump is doing in Iran, for example. I think the European Union is in confusion – in a confused situation. To some extent this is bad for Russia, because a confused European Union – which is feeling serious problems regarding its own integration – needs the Russian menace, and needs Ukraine as a herald of the free world, in order to keep itself going and to deal with internal problems. It needs to divert public opinion away from its multiple internal troubles, and towards this issue of an imagined external threat. As we discussed earlier, some people – especially in the West – believe the Russians are very happy to see what is happening in the European Union. Okay, there might be some Schadenfreude, but on the whole Russians understand that an uncertain, nervous and confused European Union might become even less able to make rational decisions vis-à-vis Russia. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): Coming back to Ukraine – how do you see the future of that conflict, and its possible resolution? What do you think Ukraine will look like, and Russia-Ukraine relations, after this war is finished? It seems obvious there are nationalists in Ukraine that won’t accept any kind of settlement, and presumably they will still have weapons. How does this future look from your perspective? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: It’s a question which I can hardly answer, because the outcome of this war – the endgame – is still not clear. In spite of the fact that Russia generally prevails on the battlefield, this advantage has not been enough to achieve a breakthrough. It’s not easy for us to admit, but the Ukrainians are resisting pretty bravely. Nobody can be sure that it will end anytime soon – for example with the collapse of Ukrainian defences or the Ukrainian state. This could happen, because the severity of internal problems within Ukraine is huge. It’s really enormous, and it’s growing – in terms of demography, in terms of everything. But no one knows when. And to be honest, Russia is suffering some problems as well. The whole situation has turned into a full-scale attrition war, and there’s no telling how long it will continue. I think we are approaching a point where the situation will be clarified, either diplomatically or militarily – but again, I don’t dare to guess.

What is clear, however, about any post-war Ukraine-Russia situation, is that any Ukraine that will still be in place after the war – reduced, exhausted, destroyed, whatever – any remaining Ukraine will be an arch-enemy of Russia. And it will be something worse than the India-Pakistan situation.

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): Worse than India-Pakistan? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Yes, worse. It will be similar, but much worse, because of the closeness of the two countries – because of many things. And I think many people here understand that if Ukraine remains in place – however this war ends – Ukraine will pose a very long-term problem and threat to Russia. And there’s no reason to believe that Ukraine will disappear or be totally destroyed. And that’s why some people here argue that we shouldn’t stop – even if it’s difficult, even if it’s costly, we should continue. Because otherwise, we will create a huge precondition for another war to happen pretty soon. And that war might be much worse than this one, because then it will be a war between Russia and NATO, not between Russia and Ukraine. And so that’s part of the current debate. I wouldn’t say it’s the only view, but that’s what you can hear in Moscow and in many other places.

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): Is there still actually a worry that Ukraine could end up joining NATO? Because it seems to me that a lot of people on the European side have pretty much given up on that. 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: No, not necessarily joining NATO. Because NATO has no appetite for it, because Ukraine has finally realized it’s a bad idea, because the Americans are absolutely not in favour of it, and so on. But the question of formal NATO integration is just a symbol – it’s not something that actually matters. The scale to which Ukraine is already part of the Western military and political machine is enough. You don’t need to be formally integrated into NATO. What’s probably more important for the Ukrainians is the European Union. Because if they were to join, that would create new opportunities. But frankly, I simply cannot imagine that the European Union would accept such a Ukraine. That would ruin the European Union completely, both economically and politically. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): So when you say Russia is worried they could be at war with NATO next time, you’re not talking about Ukrainian membership – you mean a direct war with NATO? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Yes, I mean a war with NATO. Because the European part of NATO will never, in a sense, surrender – they will never accept the fact that this war brought about this result. And in the event that a new war does erupt after some time, I’m afraid that this new war will be much harder. There will be much more mutual hatred, even compared to what we have today. A postponed hatred is sometimes worse than the present one. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): You mentioned earlier that Orban and Fico are kind of exceptional in that they’re not really pro-Russian, but are pragmatic and looking after their own economies, which involves having decent relations with Russia. Does Russia see Hungary and Slovakia today as somehow different from the rest of Europe? And what do you think Russia’s attitude will be towards these countries in the context of future situations or confrontations? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Yes, indeed, Russia sees Hungary and Slovakia as countries with a different position. And despite the fact that both countries are very small, they’ve demonstrated a very firm position, both of them. Which is, of course, appreciated in Russia very, very much. But having said that, realistically speaking, of course neither Hungary nor Slovakia, nor even a larger bunch of central European countries – which might include Czech Republic under Babiš, or I don’t know, maybe Bulgaria – would be enough to make an important, decisive influence on European policy. And to imagine a separate relationship between Russia and individual countries inside the European Union, countries that have different positions, that’s very difficult. Because how to go about this? These countries are so fully integrated into the European system that they are basically limited in their sovereign decision-making. Which was the whole idea, after all, of integration. Of course, in the middle-term perspective, I can guess – and many Russian experts expect – that the European Union will change as well. Because European integration, as it was designed in the 20th century and then developed in the 21st century, cannot survive. It will change.

I don’t mean the collapse of the European Union – I mean that the model of integration will need to change in order to correspond to what is now a completely different international environment.

And then we will see. But so far as I understand, there is absolutely no clear idea within Europe itself as to how to change it – neither among the establishment, nor among those so-called populist parties. Because the original model seemed to be forever – but now it is not.

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): Do you mean because of international pressures – the various wars, Ukraine and Iran, and now energy issues? The pressure on Europe because of all these things coming together? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Yes, indeed, all these things are coming together. But I think the more important factor is that the whole idea of this European integration was designed for a peaceful world. Even during the Cold War – because the Cold War in Western Europe was actually pretty peaceful. There were a lot of fears, but it was a very stable, peaceful situation. And of course, after the Cold War, people believed that all the big threats were now gone. So this model was not designed for a wartime situation. And the world today is moving towards a situation of war in general – not just Iran, not just Ukraine, but in general. There is a very, very high level of hostilities, and at all levels. So Europe will have to change. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): You personally have been targeted by Europe and added to the EU’s sanctions list in December, along with a number of others. Did this surprise you? What do you think is behind it? And to what extent has it impacted your life? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: I did expect it, actually, because I’m a public person. I’m very much on the stage and the screen, and I appear once a year with the President of the Russian Federation. So the whole world sees me. And actually, if you read the explanation for the sanctions as written in the official document, I felt very much pleased. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): Pleased? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Because it seems my role was highly appreciated – my role as a person who shapes Russian debate, who shapes Russian public opinion. I never believed I was that important. So I would like to thank the external service of the European Union for pointing this out. As to whether it’s had an impact on my life – to some extent, yes. Because I cannot travel to the European Union anymore. I haven’t done so anyway for quite some time, and I didn’t have any plans to do so, but still – before this, there was at least the possibility, and now that’s been ruled out. My only real disappointment is that my favourite city in the world, which I love passionately, is Rome. I think it’s absolutely the best city in the world, and unfortunately I can no longer visit it. As for practical life – yes, the sanctions of the European Union do have a certain impact on my capacity to make financial transactions – even with countries which are not part of the European Union. The influence of the Western world, both America and Europe, is quite big actually, even on places that are outside it. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): How do you perceive this step taken by the European Union, in terms of its actual effectiveness in bringing about some sort of result? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: I think it’s a stupid move. Because, if we assume that sanctions are designed to have an influence on policy, this will not change anything. First of all, because I’m simply not someone who can shape policy. And secondly, even if I could, I don’t believe that under pressure I would. And there’s another aspect to this.

The ability to communicate with our counterparts in the West – to interact, to discuss important issues – is now absolutely minimized, limited to almost zero.

Because people like me, and my colleagues in the Valdai Club and other organizations affected by these sanctions – yes, we are on the side of the Russian Federation, but we are always trying to find ways to build up or maintain relationships, in particular with people in the European Union. And in fact, within the Russian context we are actually quite liberal. If the European Union rejects us, then I’m afraid Europeans will not have any vis-à-vis in Russia for a very long time. Okay, that’s the choice they make. We can live without it. But it’s strange. And frankly, I could not imagine something like this happening five years ago. 

Jonathan McCormick (Marker): Do you have any sense of whether these sanctions will outlast the war – whether you’ll still be sanctioned even after open hostilities cease and there is some sort of dialogue, some normalisation? 

Fyodor A. Lukyanov: Yes, I think it will outlast the war. And I’m afraid that even after the war – even in the beginning stages of normalisation – there will be a very long process of bargaining. Both Europeans and Russians – because we introduced many sanctions as well – will attempt to sell them back at the highest possible price. So frankly, I don’t expect the sanctions to be lifted during my lifetime. I’m not so old, but not so young either.

Marker

Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, has a conversation with The Peacemonger. He discusses how the war in Iran is being viewed in Moscow. On the one hand, Russia is benefitting short-term from the boost in oil prices. However, Iran is also a strategic partner to Russia, raising big questions about navigating US aggression while still maintaining contact between Trump and Putin in the interests of longer-term US-Russia relations.

Incredibly complex, yet what appears clear is that many in Russia are deeply concerned about the almost complete obliteration of global norms of behaviour precipitated by the US-Israeli war against Iran, which is removing all predictability from international relations. That then boils down to one key judgement; conflict may be the new normal. In this regard, an increasing number of voices inside of Russia, who may formerly have been considered more moderate, are starting to ask whether Russia has exercised too much restraint in its fight in Ukraine and against Europe. 

The conversation is available via this link.

Tariq Marzbaan and Nora Hoppe conduct an interview with Professor Sergey Karaganov on nuclear escalation, US decline, Europe’s crisis, and the search for a post-capitalist model to “rehabilitate humanity.”

H/M: It is a great pleasure to embark on a fourth interview with you…

To start off… Until now, your warnings and your efforts to prevent nuclear war in Europe through nuclear deterrence have remained unheeded by the deranged European elites, who believe that they are untouchable in their comfort bubbles, as well as by the European populations, most of whom are in a stupefied state… There are also quite a few Westerners who, having even heard about your warnings, have misinterpreted them as the expression of an eagerness «to nuke Europe».

But Europe now lacks any significant role in global decision-making. And the real danger is emanating from their supreme leader, the US… We have now reached the point where the outbreak of a devastating global nuclear war is increasingly becoming a bitter reality. This danger has also existed in the past (the 1960s), but it was averted by prudent politicians at the time, as well as by the fear that gripped the population. Today, however, there are no prudent politicians in the West, and there is no fear among their populations.

Therefore, your deterrence statements are not only justified but essential. However, as this message fails to resonate in Europe, as the threat has now reached a global urgency, and as the UN and international law have degenerated into useless institutions, what options do you see for this state of affairs?

Sergei A. Karaganov: To begin with, we Russians shouldn’t neglect our obligations toward our people, our nation, even the world, in order to prevent a new world war and to rein in the war-mongers.

We have been too soft and indecisive for too long. We have been fighting this global evil that has been unleashed upon us through Ukraine, but we've been extremely patient and cautious. And now we will probably be reaching some kind of piecemeal solution for the time being. It, of course, would not be a final peace, but it may be seen as a pause in active fighting.

We would, of course, use such a pause as an opportunity to focus our internal policies on small, promising areas of development and to cultivate the human capital we have accumulated through this war – and that is the resurrection of the Russian spirit, the Russian economy, the Russian people, Russian patriotism. We should continue to regenerate ourselves. But this is not enough.

In any case, it is likely that this conflict will continue with provocations after this stop-gap peace, because most European elites are not yet ready for real peace; they want a state of war, though a war would finish them off as a civilisation and as a subcontinent. But their elites do not care or are not willing to understand.

So, if they continue with their provocations, we will have to go to another level of escalation, and we’re already moving in that direction… But that is not to start a new war like the one Israel is waging against Palestine, which is inhuman… We would have to start attacking valuable targets in those major countries of Europe waging the war: first, with waves of conventional strikes; then, if we get a response, a wave of nuclear strikes would follow – and they should not be tactical strikes, they should be operational-strategic, so that those people will finally understand what they are facing.

We do not expect the United States to come to their rescue, but should the Americans decide otherwise – and I think there is zero chance of that – we would attack targets of theirs on European soil.

I hope that all this will not happen. But to at least prevent this from happening, we will have to deploy more nuclear weapons on the borders of Europe and further modify our nuclear and military doctrine with a clause that stipulates that any war against an enemy that is predominant in terms of demography and economy would entail the automatic use of nuclear weapons. So the main thing is to persuade ourselves that we would have to undertake such a step. As I’ve said many times, the use of nuclear weapons is a sin, because a lot of innocent people would die.

But if we do not stop the descent into World War III, that would be an even worse sin.

In any case, the process continues.

President Putin is very cautious, but he recently said that if Europe starts a direct war against us, there will be nobody left in Europe to talk to. So I hope we shall support this step of increasing our nuclear potential against Europe, as well as other relevant deployments.

Of course, we should offer an olive branch to those nations in Europe that do not want to participate in such a self-induced tragedy. And there will be more of them, because we now see signs that this war-mongering in Europe is starting to break down. But it is a long process. And, if and when Europe starts to break down and return to being the «usual Europe» – to being the usual source of instability with conflicts just amongst themselves – that will be a different issue, and it will make it much easier for us to deal with them.

In any case, we will not be able to rest on our laurels after a semi-victory, which we have achieved so far. We must achieve full victory, and such a victory means peace in Europe, and peace in Europe means the removal of all those elites -by their own peoples – hopefully not by our soldiers!

And we are not interested in seizing an inch of their territory because, for us, that Europe is a kind of a historic junkyard, and we don’t want to be polluted by them.

H/M: Does Russia count on any nuclear response from the other side?

Sergei A. Karaganov: Well, first of all, an American response is absolutely ruled out. To have an American response, one would need madmen in the White House who hate America. So, there is no question about that. As to a potential suicidal counterattack by the Brits or the French, who are crazy, this would be answered with a disarming and decapitating strike on them. One sole warhead heading for Russia would be met with a wave of strikes on their cities… and that would mean the elimination of France and Britain. But I hope that we can avoid such a calamity. Also, because I cherish what is left of British high culture and French high culture. And they wouldn’t want that to be obliterated.

H/M: As a fresh start to this year, we have seen a dramatic opening act to what seems to be a serial imperial project: the invasion of a sovereign state, the precipitous kidnapping of a legitimate head of state (President Nicolás Maduro) and the blatant declaration of a takeover and plundering of this sovereign state. According to Trump’s own statements, actions of this kind will soon be taken on Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, Greenland… and more to come.

What do you personally make of this behaviour, and how do you think Russia should proceed in light of these actions?

Sergei A. Karaganov: From a purely geostrategic point of view, what is happening there looks like a step toward one of our aims, which has been to bring the United States – without having a direct impact on them and humiliating them – to adopt a more appropriate position, namely that of a key nation in the Western Hemisphere rather than a global hegemonic power, a position they seem to be retreating from.

However, on the way to this necessary retreat – which would also be beneficial for them – the United States is trying to destabilise some other areas of the world, such as in the South China Sea, near Taiwan… and very obviously in Europe still, because the United States may be calling for peace, but it is also still supporting the war there, directly and indirectly.

But, as to what they’re doing in the Western Hemisphere, that is of course outright banditry. I don’t think we should involve ourselves in that particular conflict, but we should create situations to make the residual imperial ambitions of the United States much costlier. I think that sooner or later, the time will come when countries like Russia and others would like to support Brazil in becoming nuclear – to have a more balanced situation on that continent.

As to the Greenland issue, well, that is an inter-Atlantic problem. So let the Europeans and the Americans quarrel over that huge piece of ice.

We are not very much concerned over that, though they are talking about challenging us – I mean, militarily, blah, blah, blah, blah. But we could face those challenges easily. (On a facetious side note, they should compare the price of Greenland with the price we gave them when we sold Alaska to them.) Anyway, it’s up to them to decide how they will handle that particular territory. But I’m pretty sure that nowadays it will be extremely hard and much more expensive for them to try to impose a full-scale Monroe Doctrine on Latin America. And they will of course try. But it is their problem.

Nevertheless, we shall continue to deter the United States from all kinds of imperialist policies. But in the end, if the United States will end up dominating that part of the world in a «normal», non-violent sense, as their sphere of influence, let it be so.

In any case, we are totally against the overthrow of governments. The seizure of Maduro was thoroughly nauseating, and it was even a humiliating act for Americans. Even in prehistoric societies, the abduction of a tribal chief was considered to be absolutely abhorrent and unconscionable. But we do have to deal with those people… They are there. The main thing is to push them out from where we are and let them boil in their own juices. Hopefully, they will come to their senses. I mean Europe and the US.

So, to a certain extent, despite all these metastases of imperial policies in Latin America, the US is retreating from its globalist, hegemonic role, which was imposed on them by their history.

Let us recall that until WWII, the United States was not a very pleasant power, but a «normal power» over there. And it even came a couple of times to the rescue of Europeans – when they started to kill each other – as usual, as they normally do.

Then they were handed a historic opportunity – by mistake – mostly after the Soviets defeated Hitler. But the real «winner» ended up being the United States because they enriched themselves, and they didn’t lose many people. They came out of the war much stronger than anybody else and rose, over several decades. And then after the collapse of the Soviet Union – to becoming the world’s hegemon. But that was an aberration. I think that the United States should be and will be pushed into the position of a normal major power – to become one of «four great powers» in the future constellation, which should help the world to live more peacefully. But it will take time, perhaps about 15 years.

H/M: Amongst other US goals that these acts in Venezuela, in the South China Sea, in Iran are intended to achieve, is the control over most of the planet’s oil reserves – which would significantly hinder China’s further evolution and stop any further development of a multipolar world. What can civilised states like China and Russia do to prevent such actions?

Sergei A. Karaganov: We observe these matters with concern, because they are also waging a kind of economic war against us. But that is going on in their rear guard operations.

China is firmly on the way to become the number one power, and it can't be stopped for the next 15-20 years. And the Chinese are very cold-bloodedly changing their policies towards more reliance on the countries of the Global Majority and on themselves.

They’re changing their technological policies. They are starting to lead in more and more fields of technological development. So, they are unstoppable for the time being. And they have other sources, including from Russia.

Of course, we should avoid a big war, and I think the Chinese will avoid a big war – because if we are with them, it would become a big war. We discussed with them that American provocations around Taiwan and elsewhere are aimed at drawing them into a war before they can become the number one power. We will refrain from getting involved. Hopefully, they’ll have enough wisdom to win peacefully – not a win over the United States, but in a win-win game for all.

Then we may have another problem, and that is if China gets too big and too powerful for her neighbours. We’re discussing how to create a balanced system – a so-called Eurasian Security and Cooperation System. It is an interesting subject for further discussion. Even some European countries in 10 to 15 years might be joining that system – if and when it is built. It is being developed gradually. Then, with more cooperation on the economic, security, environmental, energy and technology levels, it will become more institutional.

You see what is already happening with the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, with the BRICS, despite all the ups and downs. We will see that more and more interactions and transactions will be conducted in national currencies and not in dollars. This shows that we are moving in the right direction, and that direction should not and will not be interrupted.

By the way, some Americans have also started to understand that their former dollar pre-eminence is also becoming a double-edged weapon, because it is creating a kind of a «Dutch disease» for them and undermines their own development. Yet, Trump, who is full of contradictions – he’s threatening countries of the BRICS, saying that they should not abandon the dollar-dominated system. Well, he’s a talented man, but he’s facing huge opposition within the country and a lot of turmoil. The question is how to deter him from making terrible mistakes. He does not have my sympathy, but he’s moving the United States in the right direction…

H/M: According to forensic investigations to date, the recent drone attack on President Putin’s residence in Novgorod bears the hallmarks of a CIA undertaking. As these assumptions now seem to be confirmed, how is Russia taking this?

Sergei A. Karaganov: Well, that is really the impression one has. I don’t know whether it was coordinated by the CIA, the BND or the British, but it was a blatant provocation. I think we have been too soft in reacting to these kinds of provocations of theirs. This time, our response so far was fierce. You know that half of Ukraine is without electricity, though I must say that I’m not too happy about that. Of course, we have to punish them, but it is winter and civilians are freezing. Nevertheless, we have to do something to persuade Ukrainians to overthrow their completely rotten compradore and irresponsible, irrational regime. Whether this will work, I do not know. But, as I said at the beginning of our conversation, sooner or later we will have to go up the ladder of escalation and show the Europeans and the others that if they continue, there will be severe punishment. I am criticising my government for procrastinating for too long.

And the sources of evil do not lie in Ukraine, though Zelensky and his clique are an extremely ugly group of people.

The source of evil is old Europe, which has been the source of evil for humanity for 500 years: immense wars, two world wars, colonialism, racism, many other awful "isms" and now their post-human values. I think one of the strategic goals of our policy and also the policy of the "international community" is to move Europe away from the centre of the world stage and let them boil in their own juices, which are increasingly unsavoury and malodourous.

However, some of the European nations and many European individuals are normal. They should be invited sooner or later to join Greater Eurasia. We don’t want to isolate the whole of Europe, only Calvinist Europe.

H/M: And what about the United States that is an offspring of Europe and its worst features. They robbed the land of others through genocide, they developed it with slavery and, in their nearly 250-year history, they have only gone 15 years without waging brutal wars against others.

Sergei A. Karaganov: I started my scientific career as a professional «Americanologist», so I know their history well, and I do not view them through rose-tinted glasses. And I know that they have to be pushed aside.

On the other hand, I know that they are also somehow indispensable, because they are very powerful – economically, strategically and even culturally. So they should be invited to be one of the leaders of equal standing in the world in the future configuration of powers, if and when we come to a new global power concept. With all their sins, with all their many crimes, they are still in the picture.

Europe, on the other hand, is becoming negligible – economically, politically, morally, socially, etc. So it’s better just to push them aside and let them stew in their juices. And there may be some hope that they might recover after decades or centuries. After all, we had a Europe falling into a black hole from the fifth to the twelfth century – their Dark Ages. So, maybe it will be possible for them to recover, but it’s not none of our business, we can only be hopeful.

We still have a lot of people who are still infatuated with old European dreams, but the reality is becoming obvious. And less and less people in Russia are calling themselves Europeans. We, of course, appreciate European culture, but we are very different. And we are starting at last to acknowledge that – with pleasure.

H/M: Indeed, today Europe has nothing more to offer. They have destroyed their own cultures, their heritage…

Sergei A. Karaganov: Absolutely, now they can only offer noxious gases and juices. They have been robbing the world for the past 500 years through their system of colonialism and neo-colonialism, so they have acquired a lot of fat… And Americans are sucking this fat from them with great pleasure – in front of our eyes.

Well, we could still trade with them. Why not? After all, it is in our interest to earn money. So, if and when there is some kind of a ceasefire, we would also like to resume cultural contacts with Europe, especially on the level of high culture.

But other than that… well, there are certainly nice places in Europe which I personally love. However, I’m forbidden to travel there now, and the Europeans are forbidden to travel to Russia. So, other than that, Europe has nothing else to offer. Maybe unpleasant diseases, and less and less markets. And technologically they are starting to lag behind the rest of humanity.

I’ve just returned from China, where the Chinese economists are saying that within the next several years, they will end the European machine-building and automotive industry. And we see that that is already happening. Only Europeans have to be blamed for their mistakes and their ills. But Dante, Shakespeare, Beethoven and Dvořák will still be amongst our composers and writers. Otherwise, we should distance ourselves as much as possible from today’s Europe.

H/M: Many Europeans are actually jumping ship and fleeing their countries now…

Sergei A. Karaganov: You know, we are not a very comfortable country like certain parts of Europe, but many people are heading here and asking for citizenship. It’s a very interesting phenomenon. Most of these people are affluent and with families.

As you know, I am developing a concept of the Siberianisation of Russia which involves shifting Russia’s spiritual, economic and political core toward Siberia… And now, as it is becoming warmer there – not to mention that the Siberian climate is already very healthy – reasonable people from Europe with skills and fresh energies will be welcomed in Siberia, as well.

We are now working on a new demographic policy for our Eastern regions, which includes the integration of a certain number of foreigners, because ultimately, all of Siberia was built by a mixture of «foreigners». After the collapse of the Mongol Empire, there were tiny native populations. The Russians came and then many other nations. Siberia is the most multinational and most culturally open area of Russia, which, in itself, is also multinational and culturally open.

So there is plenty of space in Siberia, and we are also creating a new concept for the development and urbanisation of Siberia… The urbanisation of such an enormous landmass would not necessitate the construction of high-rise buildings but comfortable, low-rise wooden buildings of one to three storeys. And I think we shall start that in the next several years.

But now, of course, we are still embroiled in a war. It will take three or four years to start the implementation of the Siberianisation project. We’ve already started to develop it intellectually, working out plans, enlisting people for these plans, but the real «shift» will begin three years from now.

I often travel throughout Siberia. It’s fantastic! Of course, it is a bit colder there. But now Siberian scholars are already calling the permanent frost merely a «long-term frost», because the frost is receding.

H/M: Now to return to unpleasant things, to the war…

We know today that the rise of the Nazi war machine was not an isolated German phenomenon. It was, in part, made possible by the capital, technology, and corporate partnerships provided by major Western (chiefly American) industrial and financial entities for profit. And these complicit entities not only survived after the Nuremburg Trials but went on to flourish… and are still flourishing till this day. And they and/or their «offspring» are the ones fuelling the NATO war in Ukraine (not to mention the Genocide in Gaza).

And, as the saying goes, it is important to «know your enemy». So how would you describe the true enemy today – those people behind the façade, those corporate and financial entities who are now, as we speak, not only providing the material and technological foundation for Kiev, but ultimately pulling all the strings of the «talking heads» of the US, NATO and the EU?

Sergei A. Karaganov: First of all, many of them are also present on the façade. The real enemies of Russia, and also the enemies of humanity, are quasi-liberal globalists. I even know many of them personally, because I was invited to many of their meetings in the past, where I learned a lot. The problem is quite complex. The Bush administration of the US started to amplify the worst elements of Ukraine, especially since 2003-2004. It happened after they learned that leading leaders of Europe – Putin, Schroeder, Chirac – and others started talking about a continental alliance. Then Ukraine began to be shaped into an anti-Russian state. Openly since the first coup in Kiev in 2004.

But first, the disease lies in the society. Let us recall that the worst dictatorships were also made possible by the people. Let us recall the French Revolution with its mass killings, and let us recall all the Nazis and Fascists. Of course, they were guided, they were backed, but we should not forget that the people themselves also sometimes bear responsibility.

H/M: Of course the people bear responsibility, but the very powerful people, as we discussed before, can still manipulate the masses for their own agendas. And, even if the war stops in Ukraine, the masterminds and string-pullers will endure, just as they did after WWII. So we are wondering how they can be stopped. Because otherwise the saga will just continue or repeat itself.

Sergei A. Karaganov: We cannot stop history, and we cannot put an end to all evil in history. It re-emerged in Europe, which, as I’ve said, has always been the source of evil in the history of humanity.

But let us recall that after the defeat of Hitler, Nazism, Fascism in WWII, not only Hitler and the Germans were defeated, but most of Europe was defeated. Most of Europe had sent troops to the Soviet Union and supplied Hitler’s war machine. The spine of aggression in Europe was broken. They then lived in relative peace for about half a century, but now they have forgotten the lessons and are returning to their habitual ways.

As to the elites in the West, that is a complex matter… I am reflecting on that issue often and focusing some of my work on it. The fact is that modern capitalism – as any form of capitalism, but especially modern capitalism – is completely devoid of moral constraints and is leading to the degradation of humanity, of nature, of the Earth. And that is a serious problem we have to face and to tackle, not only by military means, though deterrence is needed.

We first need to understand the problem… Even in countries such as China and Russia, we are not yet ready to fully acknowledge and comprehend the problem.

We are faced with the degradation of humanity, which has not only been brought about by capitalism with its emphasis on endless consumption and profit orientation, but also by the Information Revolution and by modern civilisation itself, and, as of yet, we do not have a counter strategy.

It is also a personal matter. We should educate people so that each of us adopts a positive counter-approach to remain human, to thrive in a human environment and to attain wisdom when the endless flow of information and hype try to dumb us down. It is a very serious challenge, which we must acknowledge and tackle.

I’m currently writing an article on our future challenges, and I must say that they are many, many, many… but the greatest challenges are on a higher level, on the highest level. And our great challenge is: what alternative is there to modern capitalism – because our socialism also did not work – and what and how to create a positive offensive strategy to prevent the degradation of the human being and ultimately of the human race. And with the changes in our climate, how do we prevent the degradation of the environment. It may not be preventable but how do we adjust to it. So these are great problems, which very few people wish to confront. But we must, and I am urging my intellectual peers and my government to come forward with foresighted ideas.

H/M: We fervently agree with you that the main challenge today is to find an alternative to the capitalist system! But we would like to ask why a form of «socialism» is not being considered. Why must the notion of «socialism» be discarded? (Communism, of course, has never existed.) After all, the fundamental aims of socialism are: social fairness, cooperation, shared opportunities and resources, meeting everyone’s basic needs… rather than focussing on individual profit.

Just because Soviet socialism was corrupted and failed, does it mean we should condemn all forms of socialism? Has it become a tabu? Can’t it be rehabilitated?

But perhaps we all first need to analyse the Soviet version of socialism – and why it failed, and what were its defects and its positive achievements. We know that its birth was condemned and brutally opposed by all the Western powers, and its development was then blockaded and obstructed throughout the Cold War era, which kept the Soviet Union alienated and thus susceptible to repression and corruption. In addition, Western propaganda (their so-called «soft power» and many other infiltration practices) was extremely effective and had a strong influence on socialist societies. It is therefore easy to see that the failure of what was once known as «real existing, Soviet socialism» was not only due to internal causes, but was also sabotaged and brought about by external forces.

And yet we see different forms of socialism that have persisted in the world today – ones that have not adopted a Western approach but have been adapted to the specific needs and cultural particularities of a non-Western state…

The question is: if we were to live in a (multipolar) world where no external power would interfere in the affairs of others – as has been the case with the West up to now – and where the internal circumstances of a socialist system would be stable and "clean" (no or minimal corruption, no obstructive bureaucracy, no hot or cold wars, no economic scarcity)… would socialism still not be an option?

Or… we can ask: what would then speak against socialism? There is currently no other alternative in sight… and waiting for the Archimedean Moment (to find an alternative) could turn into waiting for Godot.

Sergei A. Karaganov: Soviet socialism denied people the right to private property. All socialist utopias by Campanella, Thomas More, etc. were totalitarian. Soviet socialism was also not economically effective. Our vast country could not provide enough food to feed the population. The Soviet Union died also because of its ideological core – the Communist idea-dream gradually lost appeal – largely because of the relatively high level of poverty among the majority of the population.

We have to find the third way – that is post-capitalist and post-communist/socialist. It is not an easy task. I am working on that.

H/M: As you said, today’s global economic system – this financialized capitalism – is at the centre of the most dire problems facing humanity. It affects the human, cultural, spiritual, civilisational aspects of our lives, and as you said, no one is really discussing The System and these problems – not even at the countless meetings and conferences of the BRICS, SCO, etc.

Why do you think these issues are not being discussed?

Sergei A. Karaganov: There are individuals starting to discuss these issues, and, as you know, I brought the issue of nuclear deterrence back to the centre stage. So now I am trying, together with my colleagues, to bring forth the issue of saving the human being and humanity to the centre stage.

It is up to us, we have intellectuals in our midst. It is our sin that we are not discussing this issue and avoiding it by simply refusing to acknowledge it. But we have to face it. And then to discuss it with others, normal people and also people in various circles, who do not understand the problem. It’s not that they are willingly contributing to the degradation of the human being, they simply do not understand the problem.

We are living in the age of economism. We still believe the idiotic notion put forward by – I believe it was Clinton: «it’s the economy, stupid»… But it’s not «the economy, stupid». Yes, we all have to earn money, and we all have to have a roof over our heads, but our main task is to be human and that means developing our spirit, our mind, and then… and creating a secure world.

We have a "triangle" defining human civilisation – a three-pronged structure of economic interests, of spiritual / intellectual drives and of military force (or some other physical force).

Economic factors are secondary, especially now. The first place is now, unfortunately, being occupied by brute military force because of geostrategic shifts and sudden tectonic shifts. But we should pay much more attention to the spiritual, intellectual part of our development. And economy, economists and capitalists (or non-capitalists) should become the servants of our humanity… and not the monsters. The mutual development of humans and nature is what we call “the noosphere”.

H/M: Is there any possibility to organise some international conferences in the near future on this urgent issue?

Sergei A. Karaganov: We are trying. We are thinking about that on several levels. As you know, I am working on this issue and on the so-called «idea-dream» for Russia, which is a new (or, in part, «earlier») ideological, spiritual foundation for Russian development.

We will continue this work, but unfortunately we are now embroiled in a war, and that distracts our attention for the long term. But I have been sitting here all morning, writing an article… calling for a shift of our focus towards more important and deeper issues such as the intellectual and spiritual development of the human being, as well as the defence of the environment and of course the prevention of war. As a preliminary, the new post-capitalist model of a socio-economic system should aim for the preservation and development of the human being – not only on the individual level ­–  but a human being who serves his or her family, community, country and God. It is not an easy mix. We are also thinking on several levels about creating various new institutions, «post-Davos» institutions. But unfortunately, my time is not endless, and my hands are tied by many other obligations. I have many projects on my desk. But I am also delegating things to younger people, whom I teach and whom I lead. Because older people like us, we have a role to play: to teach our younger generations, to share our wisdom with them, and of course, we should not lose our sense of humour while we’re doing this. We should be bold and humble.

Al Mayadeen English