Newstatesman.com bragte forleden et interview med Sergey Karaganov. Hvis du lige som jeg aldrig havde hørt om ham før, er her beskrivelsen fra Wikipedia. Han er ikke hvem som helst.
Sergey Alexandrovich Karaganov (Russian: Серге́й Алекса́ндрович Карага́нов, born 10 September 1952 in Moscow) is a Russian political scientist who heads the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, a security analytical institution founded by Vitaly Shlykov. He is also the dean of the Faculty of World Economy and International Affairs at Moscow’s Higher School of Economics. Karaganov was a close associate of Yevgeny Primakov, and has been Presidential Advisor to both Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin.Wikipedia
Jeg fandt interviewet interessant og skræmmende, fordi det giver et noget andet indblik i russisk tankegang, end jeg har mødt i andre medier (bare se overskriften på interviewet i billedet vedhæftet dette indlæg).
Karaganov giver bl.a. udtryk for, at han ikke har den store tiltro til, at NATOs artikel 5 (musketer-eden) reelt vil fungere, hvis det kommer til stykket.
There is a growing probability of a direct clash. And we don’t know what the outcome of this would be. Maybe the Poles would fight; they are always willing. I know as a historian that Article 5 of the Nato treaty is worthless. Under Article 5 – which allows a state to call for support from other members of the alliance – nobody is obliged to actually fight on behalf of others, but nobody can be absolutely sure that there would be no such escalation. I also know from the history of American nuclear strategy that the US is unlikely to defend Europe with nuclear weapons.
Særligt det sidste er skræmmende. Hvad er konsekvensen, hvis russerne tvivler på, at USA vil gengælde et atomangreb i et andet NATO-land? Her er mere:
I don’t know what the outcome of this war will be, but I think it will involve the partition of Ukraine, one way or another. Hopefully there would still be something called Ukraine left at the end. But Russia cannot afford to “lose”, so we need a kind of a victory. And if there is a sense that we are losing the war, then I think there is a definite possibility of escalation. This war is a kind of proxy war between the West and the rest – Russia being, as it has been in history, the pinnacle of “the rest” – for a future world order. The stakes of the Russian elite are very high – for them it is an existential war.
Hvis han har ret, og Rusland på et tidspunkt er ved at tabe en eksistentiel krig samtidig med, at de tvivler på, at USA vil svare på et atomangreb. Hvad er så konsekvensen?
Well, escalation in this context means that in the face of an existential threat – and that means a non-victory, by the way, or an alleged defeat – Russia could escalate, and there are dozens of places in the world where it would have a direct confrontation with the United States.
Hans tanker om Vesten er heller ikke betryggende…
So the West will never recuperate, but it doesn’t matter if it dies: Western civilisation has brought all of us great benefits, but now people like myself and others are questioning the moral foundation of Western civilisation.
Interviewet er værd at bruge 10 minutter på. Læs det her.