по Европе

Источник: https://scottritter.substack.com/p/ritters-rant-089-the-karaganov-fallacy

Краткое содержание

В 89-м выпуске «Ritter's Rant» Скотт Риттер вступает в прямую полемику с одним из самых влиятельных российских внешнеполитических интеллектуалов — Сергеем Карагановым. Риттер подчёркивает уважение к Караганову («когда он говорит, серьёзный исследователь России обязан слушать») и оговаривает, что термин «Karaganov fallacy» он применяет не для оскорбления, а как точечную поправку: он принимает диагностику Караганова, но отвергает его терапию. Караганов в преддверии Дня Победы дал интервью, в котором описал воинственное позиционирование Европы — переосмысление ядерного оружия и доктрины, открыто враждебной России, разговоры о подготовке к войне с Россией к 2029–2030 годам, риторика Германии, напоминающая 1930-е, и активное участие Европы в военных операциях против России уже сейчас. Конкретно — европейская роль в украинской волне дальних дроновых ударов: фабрики дронов в Германии, Великобритании, Франции, Дании находятся вне досягаемости России; разведданные для целеуказания идут оттуда же; маршруты прокладываются через Польшу и страны Балтии или через Азербайджан, Каспийское море и Казахстан, обходя обычные эшелоны ПВО и создавая стратегическую уязвимость, которую Риттер называет «несостоятельной» — экзистенциального уровня. С этим, говорит Риттер, Караганов прав.

В чём, по Риттеру, состоит «ошибка»

Спор начинается там, где Караганов формулирует решение: использовать тактическое ядерное оружие, чтобы «терроризировать» Европу и пресечь возрождающуюся «фашистского типа ментальность». Логика Караганова, как её излагает Риттер, опирается на гипотезу о неравномерности американских гарантий: США не пожертвуют Бостоном или Чикаго ради Познани или Лондона, а значит, ядерный «зонтик» НАТО над Европой — блеф. Риттер не объявляет тезис ложным — он называет его непроверяемой гипотезой и говорит: «лично я не готов сделать такую ставку и Караганову бы советовал не делать». Зато проверяема обратная цепочка — реакция России на американское использование ядерного оружия против стратегического союзника России (Риттер использует гипотетический пример удара США по Ирану). Формально у России нет договорной обязанности по типу 5-й статьи; однако американский ядерный удар первым ломает нерасставание Холодной войны — нерушимую норму «ядерное оружие никогда не применяется». После такого удара ядерное сдерживание превращается из теории в доказанную практику, и США начинают говорить: «мы это уже делали, мы сделаем это снова». Россия, по Риттеру, не сможет жить в среде такого американского давления и ответит ядерно, но не по США, а по другой цели — например, по Европе. Так возникает «ядерный обмен», который, как показывает «компьютерное моделирование на большинстве моделей человеческого поведения», после старта «никогда не заканчивается» и неизбежно приводит к всеобщему ядерному обмену и прекращению жизни на планете.

Личный контур: внучка Marceline Salome

Как и в предыдущих выпусках, Риттер вводит личный регистр: дочь родила ему внучку Marceline Salome — «маленькую воительницу мира». Он шутит, что когда-нибудь внук его друга Optial Adhanov постучится в дверь и попросит позвать Марселину на свидание — это, говорит он, «проблема, которую решат моя дочь и её муж»; «моя задача — сделать так, чтобы мир, в котором это возможно, существовал». Этим он мотивирует своё «принципиальное против» доктрины Караганова.

Альтернатива: «Орешник» как продолжение «доктрины Караганова» неядерными средствами

Конструктивная часть рента — переписать рецепт. Риттер принимает тезис, что Европу нужно «терроризировать», то есть европейское население должно ощутить страх, чтобы остановить свои правительства. Но «ядерное оружие — это таблетка-самоубийство». Альтернатива — урок Ирана: страна без ядерного оружия выиграла 37-дневную войну против двух ядерных держав конвенциональными баллистическими ракетами. У России есть оружие, которого нет ни у кого в мире — «Орешник», баллистическая ракета средней дальности с конвенциональной боевой частью, способная точно доставить большую разрушительную мощь.

Иллюстрация концепции — короткий технический набросок (без раскрытия конкретных характеристик «Орешника»; это просто формальное описание принципа удара по линии «фабрика → перехват цепочки поставок дронов»):

Цели:
  1. Заводы дронов (Германия, Великобритания, Франция, Дания)
  2. Узлы передачи разведывательной информации
  3. Логистические коридоры (Польша, страны Балтии; Азербайджан → Каспий → Казахстан)
  4. Центры принятия решений
Средство:
  Конвенциональная боевая часть, баллистическая траектория средней дальности.
Эффект:
  Демонстрация: эскалация в ядерное измерение Европе невыгодна.
  Россия не пересекает порог первого ядерного применения.

Тезис Риттера: Европа не сможет «перешагнуть эшелон» от конвенционального удара к ядерному перехвату, особенно учитывая, что 2% российского ядерного арсенала уничтожат всю Европу; Европа не сможет выиграть ядерный обмен с Россией и, следовательно, не инициирует его, а США в этом сценарии «не вмешаются ядерно». Поэтому ответ — «не Бостон за Познань», а массированный конвенциональный удар «Орешником» по европейским целям, удерживающий ядерное оружие за рамками уравнения.

Значимость и оговорки

Эссе важно как редкий внутренне-«пророссийский» голос, выступающий публично против ядерной эскалации в варианте Караганова — то есть оно адресовано не западному, а русскоязычному политическому читателю и формулирует «доктрину сдерживания через демонстративный конвенциональный удар». Его сильная сторона — методологический ход: Риттер не просто отказывается от «Караганова», а признаёт диагноз и переписывает терапию, что делает аргумент политически устойчивым. Спорные элементы — фактологические оценки боевых результатов 37-дневной американо-израильско-иранской войны (тезис «Иран победил две ядерные державы») и однозначное утверждение, что Европа «никогда» не инициирует ядерный обмен и что США «не вмешаются ядерно». Эти выводы у Риттера повторяются в нескольких выпусках, но в мейнстримной аналитике остаются предметом разногласий. Отдельно: Риттер открыто легитимирует «массированный конвенциональный удар по европейским заводам и центрам принятия решений» — его собственный «средний путь» — и эта рекомендация, в отличие от чисто аналитической части, является политическим актом, требующим отдельной критической оценки и проверки на соответствие международному гуманитарному праву.

🧾 Транскрипт (формат)

Ritter’s Rant 089: The Karaganov Fallacy

Источник: https://scottritter.substack.com/p/ritters-rant-089-the-karaganov-fallacy

Hello and welcome to this episode of Ritter's Rant. Today I'll be talking about what I call the Kerriganov fallacy. Of course I'm making reference to the esteemed Russian political scientist Sergei Kerriganov, a man whom I have the highest respect for, whom I've had a conversation that we've published on the Russia House. Obviously, because I'm talking about it, he's a man I listen to and I weigh his words very, very carefully because he is a very serious individual whose words are listened to and acted on sometimes by the senior most elements of the Russian government. So in short, when Sergei Kerriganov speaks, if you're a serious student of Russia, you have a duty and obligation to listen. So when I push back on what I call the Karaganov fallacy. It's not meant to be insulting to Mr. Karaganov. It's actually meant to compliment him because much of what he says is true. You see, in the lead up to Victory Day, Mr.

Karaganov gave an interview in which he talked about the posturing that's being done by Europe today, the very warlike posturing. to include incorporating threats of nuclear war against Russia. We're talking about a reimagining of nuclear weapons and nuclear doctrine by Europe that is openly hostile to Russia and Russian interests. I mean, Europe is speaking of actively preparing for war against Russia come 2029, 2030. The rhetoric that comes out of Germany today is reminiscent of the rhetoric that came out of Germany in the 1930s. It's not something that Russia, especially on the eve of Victory Day, can tolerate. And Russia would be a fool to sit by and do nothing while Europe not only prepares for war, but is actively engaged in warlike operations against Russia today. One has to understand that the recent wave of attacks carried out by Ukraine using long range drones are attacks that are openly facilitated by Europe, Germany, Great Britain.

France, Denmark and others are building these drones. Their factories exist in areas that Russia can't touch and are providing these drones together with the intelligence information that allows these drones to be targeted and then facilitating the routes used by these drones by creating corridors through Poland and the Baltic States or through Azerbaijan, the Caspian Sea, through Kazakhstan into the center of Russia that bypasses Russia's normal air defense. and it has created a strategic vulnerability for Russia that is unsustainable not only unacceptable but unsustainable meaning that left unattended to this problem could become you know literally a life and death issue for Russia existential in nature so Sergei Karaganov is right to point out the dangers that exist but his solution is is one that raises eyebrows. For some time now, Sergei Karaganov has said that Russia need not fear nuclear war, that Russia has a nuclear arsenal.

And when threats arise of an existential nature, such as a resurrected fascist type mentality in Europe, that Russia would be right to use nuclear weapons to nip this in the bud decisively. he rightfully points out that you can only change the mindset of Europe by terrorizing Europe by making Europe understand that there are horrific consequences for their actions for their intended deeds and Mr. Karaganov has said that he believes that the United States which you know for decades has provided some sort of nuclear guarantee a nuclear umbrella to Europe that the United States is not going to sacrifice you know Boston or Chicago for Poznan or London that the United States isn't going to come to the assistance of Europe if Europe has done something to warrant a Russian response I'm not saying that Sergei Karaganov is wrong it's a hypothetical and we sincerely don't know what the answer to that is what I am saying is I personally am not willing to take that gamble and I would advise Mr.

Karaganov and others not to take that gamble likewise because we don't know what would happen what we do know and we can take guidance from your Russian military thinkers alike that how Russia would respond to an American use of nuclear weapons against a strategic ally of Russia. Let's say hypothetically the United States were to use nuclear weapons against Iran. how would Russia respond clearly it was not an attack against Iran and Russia doesn't have a NATO type treaty relationship that would require article five automatic intervention there is no obligation upon Russia to use nuclear weapons in response to American use of nuclear weapons against Iran however an American use of nuclear weapons would break the model of nuclear deterrence that has existed since the Cold War began. That is that, you know, nuclear weapons should never be used. And the first side to use it, what you've done is you've altered this nuclear balance because what you've done is you've turned the use of nuclear weapons away from a theoretical into a reality you have upped the nuclear deterrence model to say we are proven to be able to use nuclear weapons therefore you must fear us even more Russia could not live in an environment where the United States was now walking around saying, we've used nukes, we'll use them again against you, you must back down.

Russia would have to respond. And Russian military philosophers have said Russia would need to respond using nuclear weapons of its own, not against the United States, but against another target, say Europe. And now what you've done is you've created a nuclear exchange. Yes, it doesn't start out as an exchange between the United States and Russia directly, but you've created the notion of an exchange. And computer modeling based upon, you know, most human behavioral models shows that once this exchange begins, it never ends. It will inevitably end up with a general nuclear exchange terminating all life on the planet. Now I'm a newly minted grandparent. My daughter gave birth to a beautiful little girl, Marceline Salome, the warrior, the little warrior of peace. And it's my duty and obligation as a grandparent to make sure there's a world for her to grow up in. You know, Optial Adhanov, a good friend of mine, has said that he wanted his grandchildren to grow up in peace with my granddaughter.

I joked with my daughters that I'd like to create a situation where maybe Opti Al-Adhanov's grandson one day showed up at their home, knocked on the door and said he'd like to take Marceline out on a date. Now that's a problem that my daughter and her husband would have to deal with. That's their issue. My job, however, is to make that a possibility, to make sure that the world exists. And if we're talking about using nuclear weapons, this world will not exist. So I am against the Karaganov doctrine. But I'm not against the underlying concepts that he uses to justify this. What I would like to propose as an alternative to using nuclear weapons is to take a lesson from Iran. Iran has fought a 37-day war against the United States and Israel. It's a non-nuclear power and it defeated two nuclear armed powers. How? by using ballistic missiles, conventionally armed ballistic missiles to strike targets, to destroy targets.

Russia has a weapon that nobody else has in the world, and this is the Ereshnik, an intermediate range strategic missile with a conventional warhead that can deliver accurately a great destructive power. What I would propose to Sergei Karaganov is not to not attack Europe. I agree. Europe needs to be terrorized. The European population needs to feel terror because that is the only way they're going to stop their governments from doing what they plan on doing with Russia to wage war against Russia. But using nuclear weapons isn't the answer. Nuclear weapons is a suicide pill. But the Ereshnik corollary to the Kerrigan of doctrine is the solution. Rain the Oreshnik down on European targets, destroy the factories that produce the drones that are given to the Ukrainians to strike strategic targets inside Russia. Destroy decision making centers if you must. This is the advantage of Russia. Europe has no ability to match this escalation, and Europe is not going to skip echelon going from conventional strike to nuclear interdiction, especially when the European nations understand that 2% of Russia's nuclear arsenal will destroy all of Europe.

Europe cannot win a nuclear exchange with Russia, so Europe will never initiate a nuclear exchange with Russia, and the United States is not going to intervene nuclear in this scenario. So Sergei Garaganov, you are right, my friend. Europe needs to be taught a lesson sooner rather than later. I believe Europe has already committed egregious acts of violence against Russia that must be responded to. But the answer isn't to create the hypothetical tradeoff of Boston for Pozna. Leave the United States out of this. Take the Ereshnik. Use the Ereshnik. Decisively strike terror into the hearts of Europe. keep nuclear weapons out of the equation. This has been my rant. The next time an idea crosses my mind, I'll be sure to let you know.

════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ ═══ Транскрипция видео ═══ ════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

═══ Транскрипция видео 1 ═══

Hello, and welcome to this episode of Ritter's Rant. Today, I'll be talking about what I call the Kerriganov fallacy. Of course, I'm making reference to the esteemed Russian political scientist Sergei Kerriganov, a man whom I have the highest respect for, whom I've had a conversation that we've published on the Russia House. And obviously, because I'm talking about it, he's a man I listen to, and I weigh his words very, very carefully, because he is a very serious individual whose words are listened to and acted on sometimes by the senior most elements of the Russian government. So in short, when Sergei Kerriganov speaks, if you're a serious student of Russia, you have a duty and obligation to listen. So when I push back on what I call the Kerriganov fallacy, it's not meant to be insulting to Mr. Kerriganov. It's actually meant to compliment him because much of what he says is true. You see, in the lead up to Victory Day, Mr. Kerriganov gave an interview in which he talked about the posturing that's being done by Europe today, the very warlike posturing to include incorporating threats of nuclear war against Russia. We're talking about a reimagining of nuclear weapons and nuclear doctrine by Europe that is openly hostile to Russia and Russian interests. I mean, Europe is speaking of actively preparing for war against Russia come 2029, 2030. The rhetoric that comes out of Germany today is reminiscent of the rhetoric that came out of Germany in the 1930s. It's not something that Russia, especially on the eve of Victory Day, can tolerate. And Russia would be a fool to sit by and do nothing while Europe not only prepares for war, but is actively engaged in war-like operations against Russia today.

One has to understand that the recent wave of attacks carried out by Ukraine using long-range drones are attacks that are openly facilitated by Europe. Germany, Great Britain, France, Denmark, and others are building these drones. their factories exist in areas that Russia can't touch and are providing these drones together with the intelligence information that allows these drones to be targeted and then facilitating the routes used by these drones by creating corridors through Poland and the Baltic states or through Azerbaijan, the Caspian Sea, through Kazakhstan into the center of Russia that bypasses Russia's normal air defense. And it has created a strategic vulnerability for Russia that is unsustainable, not only unacceptable, but unsustainable, meaning that left unattended to this problem could become, you know, literally a life-and-death issue for Russia, existential in nature. So Sergei Karaganov is right to point out the dangers that exist. But his solution is one that raises eyebrows. For some time now, Sergei Karaganov has said that Russia did not fear nuclear war, that Russia has a nuclear arsenal. And when threats arise of an existential nature, such as a a resurrected fascist type mentality in Europe that Russia would be right to use nuclear weapons to nip this in the bud decisively. He rightfully points out that you can only change the mindset of Europe by terrorizing Europe, by making Europe understand that there are horrific consequences for their actions, for their intended deeds. And Mr. Karaganov has said that he believes that the United States, which, you know, for decades has provided some sort of nuclear guarantee, a nuclear umbrella to Europe, that the United States is not going to sacrifice, you know, Boston or Chicago for Poznan or London, that the United States isn't going to come to the assistance of Europe if Europe has done something to warrant a Russian response. I'm not saying that Sergei Karaganov is wrong. It's a hypothetical, and we sincerely don't know what the answer to that is. What I am saying is, I personally am not willing to take that gamble. And I would advise Mr. Karaganov and others not to take that gamble likewise, because we don't know what would happen. What we do know, and we can take guidance from, you know, Russian military thinkers alike, that how Russia would respond to an American use of nuclear weapons against a strategic ally of Russia. Let's say, hypothetically, the United States were to use nuclear weapons against Iran. How would Russia respond? Clearly, it was not an attack against Iran, and Russia doesn't have a NATO type treaty relationship that would require Article 5 automatic intervention. There is no obligation upon Russia to use nuclear weapons in response to American use of nuclear weapons against Iran. However, an American use of nuclear weapons would break the model of nuclear nuclear deterrence that has existed since the Cold War began. That is, that, you know, nuclear weapons should never be used. And the first side to use it, what you've done is you've altered this nuclear balance. Because what you've done is you've turned the use of nuclear weapons away from a theoretical into a reality. You have upped the nuclear deterrence model to say, we are proven to be able to use nuclear weapons. Therefore, you must fear us even more.

Russia could not live in an environment where the United States was now walking around saying, we've used nukes, we'll use them again against you, you must back down. Russia would have to respond. And Russian military philosophers have said Russia would need to respond using nuclear weapons of its own, not against the United States, but against another target, say, Europe. And now what you've done is you've created a nuclear exchange. Yes, it doesn't start out as an exchange between the United States and Russia directly, but you've created the notion of an exchange. And computer modeling based upon, you know, most human behavioral models shows that once this exchange begins, it never ends, it will inevitably end up with a general nuclear exchange terminating all life on the planet. Now I'm a newly minted grandparent. My daughter gave birth to a beautiful little girl, Marceline Salome, the warrior, the little warrior of peace. And it's my duty and obligation as a grandparent to make sure there's a world for her to grow up in. You know, Optial Adhanov, a good friend of mine, has said that he wanted his grandchildren to grow up in peace with my granddaughter. I joked with my daughters that I'd like to create a situation where maybe Optial Adhanov's grandson one day showed up at their home, knocked on the door and said he'd like to take Marceline out on a date. Now that's a problem that my daughter and her husband would have to deal with. That's their issue. My job, however, is to make that a possibility to make sure that the world exists. And if we're talking about using nuclear weapons, this world will not exist. So I am against the Karaganov doctrine, but I'm not against the underlying concepts that he uses to justify this. What I would like to propose as an alternative to using nuclear weapons is to take a lesson from Iran. Iran has fought a 37-day war against the United States and Israel. It's a non-nuclear power and it defeated two nuclear armed powers. How? By using ballistic missiles, conventionally armed ballistic missiles, to strike targets, to destroy targets. Russia has a weapon that nobody else has in the world. And this is the Eurasianik, an intermediate range strategic missile with a conventional warhead that can deliver accurately a great destructive power. What I would propose to Sergei Karaganov is not to not attack Europe. I agree. Europe needs to be terrorized. The European population needs to feel terror because that is the only way they're going to stop their governments from doing what they plan on doing with Russia, to wage war against Russia. But using nuclear weapons isn't the answer. Nuclear weapons is a suicide pill. But the Eurasianik corollary to the Karaganov doctrine is the solution: rain the Eurasianik down on European targets. Destroy the factories that produce the drones that are given to the Ukrainians to strike strategic targets inside Russia. Destroy decision-making centers if you must. This is the advantage of Russia. Europe has no ability to match this escalation and Europe is not going to skip echelon going from conventional strike to nuclear interdiction, especially when the European nations understand that two percent of Russia's nuclear arsenal will destroy all of Europe. Europe cannot win a nuclear exchange with Russia, so Europe will never initiate a nuclear exchange with Russia, and the United States is not going to intervene nuclearly in this scenario. So Sergei Karaganov, you are right, my friend. Europe needs to be taught a lesson sooner rather than later. I believe Europe has already committed egregious acts of violence against Russia that must be responded to. But the answer isn't to create the hypothetical trade-off of Boston for Pozma. Leave the United States out of this. Take the Eurasianik. Use the Eurasianik. Decisively strike terror into the hearts of Europe. Keep nuclear weapons out of the equation. This has been my rant. The next time an idea crosses my mind, I'll be sure to let you know. Thank you.

═══ Транскрипция видео 2 ═══

Hello and welcome to this episode of Ritter's Rant. Today I'll be talking about what I call the Kerriganov fallacy. Of course, I'm making reference to the esteemed Russian political scientist Sergei Kerriganov, a man whom I have the highest respect for, whom I've had a conversation that we've published on the Russia House. And obviously because I'm talking about it, he's a man I listen to and I weigh his words very, very carefully because he is a very serious individual whose words are listened to and acted on sometimes by the senior most elements of the Russian government. So in short, when Sergei Kerriganov speaks, if you're a serious student of Russia, you have a duty and obligation to listen. So when I push back on what I call the Kerriganov fallacy, it's not meant to be insulting to Mr. Kerriganov. It's actually meant to compliment him because much of what he says is true. You see, in the lead up to Victory Day, Mr. Kerriganov gave an interview in which he talked about the posturing that's being done by Europe today, the very warlike posturing to include incorporating threats of nuclear war against Russia. We're talking about a reimagining of nuclear weapons and nuclear doctrine by Europe that is openly hostile to Russia and Russian interests. I mean, Europe is speaking of actively preparing for war against Russia come 2029, 2030. The rhetoric that comes out of Germany today is reminiscent of the rhetoric that came out of Germany in the 1930s. It's not something that Russia, especially on the eve of Victory Day, can tolerate.

Russia would be a fool to sit by and do nothing while Europe not only prepares for war, but is actively engaged in warlike operations against Russia today. One has to understand that the recent wave of attacks attacks that are openly facilitated by Europe, Germany, Great Britain, France, Denmark, and others are building these drones. Their factories exist in areas that Russia can't touch and are providing these drones together with the intelligence information that allows these drones to be targeted and then facilitating the routes used by these drones by creating corridors through Poland in the Baltic states or through Azerbaijan, the Caspian Sea, through Kazakhstan into the center of Russia that bypasses Russia's normal air defense. And it has created a strategic vulnerability for Russia that is unsustainable, not only unacceptable, but unsustainable, meaning that left unattended to this problem could become, you know, literally a life and death issue for Russia, existential in nature. So Sergei Karaganov is right to point out the dangers that exist, but his solution is one that raises eyebrows. For some time now, Sergei Karaganov has said that Russia did not fear nuclear war, that Russia has a nuclear arsenal, and when threats arise of an existential nature, such as a resurrected fascist-type mentality in Europe, that Russia would be right to use nuclear weapons to nip this in the bud decisively. He rightfully points out that you can only change the mindset of Europe by terrorizing Europe, by making Europe understand that there are horrific consequences for their actions, for their intended deeds. And Mr. Karaganov has said that he believes that the United States, which, you know, headed for decades, has provided some sort of nuclear guarantee, a nuclear umbrella to Europe, that the United States is not going to sacrifice, you know, Boston or Chicago for Poznan or London, that the United States isn't going to come to the assistance of Europe if Europe has done something to warrant a Russian response. I'm not saying that Sergei Karaganov is wrong. It's a hypothetical and we sincerely don't know what the answer to that is. What I am saying is, I personally am not willing to take that gamble. And I would advise Mr. Karaganov and others not to take that gamble likewise, because we don't know what would happen. What we do know, and we can take guidance from, you know, Russian military thinkers alike, that how Russia would respond to an American use of nuclear weapons against a strategic ally of Russia. Let's say, hypothetically, the United States were to use nuclear weapons against Iran. How would Russia respond? Clearly, it was not an attack against Iran. And Russia doesn't have a NATO-type treaty relationship that would require Article 5 automatic intervention. There is no, you know, obligation upon Russia to use nuclear weapons in response to American use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

However, an American use of nuclear weapons would break the model of nuclear deterrence that has existed since the Cold War began. That is, that, you know, nuclear weapons should never be used. And the first side to use it, what you've done is you've altered this nuclear balance. Because what you've done is you've turned the use of nuclear weapons away from a theoretical into a reality. You have upped the nuclear deterrence model to say, "We are proven to be able to use nuclear weapons. Therefore, you must fear us even more." Russia could not live in an environment where the United States was now walking around saying, "We've used nukes. We'll use them again against you. You must back down." Russia would have to respond. In Russian military philosophy, as I said, Russia would need to respond using nuclear weapons of its own, not against the United States, but against another target, say, Europe. And now what you've done is you've created a nuclear exchange. Yes, it doesn't start out as an exchange between the United States and Russia directly, but you've created the notion of an exchange. And computer modeling, based upon, you know, most human behavioral models, shows that once this exchange begins, it never ends. It will inevitably end up with a general nuclear exchange, terminating all life on the planet. Now, I'm a newly minted grandparent. My daughter gave birth to a beautiful little girl, Marceline Salome, the warrior, the little warrior of peace. And it's my duty and obligation as a grandparent to make sure there's a world for her to grow up in.

You know, Abdiel Adhanov, a good friend of mine, has said that he wanted his grandchildren to grow up in peace with my granddaughter. I joked with my daughters that I'd like to create a situation where maybe Abdiel Adhanov's grandson one day showed up at their home, knocked on the door and said he'd like to take Marceline out on a date. Now, that's a problem that my daughter and her husband would have to deal with. Uh, that's their issue. My job, however, is to make that a possibility to make sure that the world exists. And if we're talking about using nuclear weapons, this world will not exist. So I am against the Karaganov doctrine, but I'm not against the underlying concepts that he uses to justify this. What I would like to propose as an alternative to using nuclear weapons is to take a lesson from Iran. Iran has fought a 37 day war against the United States and Israel. It's a non nuclear power and it defeated two nuclear armed powers. How? By using ballistic missiles, conventionally armed ballistic missiles to strike targets, to destroy targets. Um, Russia has a weapon that nobody else has in the world. And this is the Eurasianic an intermediate range, uh, strategic, uh, missile with a conventional warhead that can deliver accurately a great destructive power. What I would propose to Sergei Karaganov is not to not attack Europe. I agree. Europe needs to be terrorized. The European population needs to feel terror because that is the only way they're going to stop their governments from doing what they plan on doing with Russia to wage war against Russia. But using nuclear weapons, isn't the answer. Nuclear weapons is a suicide pill, but the Eurasianic corollary to the Karaganov doctrine is the solution. Rain the Eurasianic down on European targets. Destroy the factories that produce the drones that are given to the Ukrainians to strike strategic targets inside Russia. Destroy decision-making centers if you must.

Um, this is the advantage of Russia. Europe has no ability to match this escalation, and Europe is not going to skip echelon going from conventional strike to nuclear interdiction, especially when the European nations understand that 2% of Russia's nuclear arsenal will destroy all of Europe. Um, Europe cannot win a nuclear exchange with Russia, so Europe will never initiate a nuclear exchange with Russia, and the United States is not going to intervene nuclearly in this scenario. So Sergei Karaganov, you are right, my friend. Europe needs to be taught a lesson sooner, rather than later. I believe Europe has already committed egregious acts of violence against Russia that must be responded to. But the answer isn't to create the hypothetical trade-off of Boston for Pozma. Leave the United States out of this. Take the Eurasianic. Use the Eurasianic. Decisively strike terror into the hearts of Europe. Keep nuclear weapons out of the equation. This has been my rant. The next time an idea crosses my mind, I'll be sure to let you know. Thank you.