Nuclear Strike - Necessary Sin!

“A ‘Necessary Sin’? What a Kremlin Hawk Just Said Out Loud — and Why We Should Pay Attention”

Most people still treat nuclear war talk like a Cold War relic — something only the unhinged bring up, and serious people ignore.

But this month, on a major Western platform, a prominent Russian foreign-policy hardliner laid out a worldview that is both chilling and clarifying — not because it’s “true,” but because it shows how one influential faction inside Russia’s strategic class wants the world to think.

The man is Sergey Karaganov — a long-time Russian strategist and academic who has held formal advisory roles connected to the Russian presidential administration and major foreign-policy institutions.

In a Tucker Carlson interview, Karaganov didn’t just offer a “different perspective” on Ukraine. He argued that the real conflict is Russia vs. Europe, and he spoke in explicitly moral and spiritual terms: Europe as decadent, ungodly, and dangerous — and Russia as the reluctant, burdened actor willing to do horrific things “for humanity.”

That’s not normal language for nuclear strategy. That’s religious-ethical permission structure — the kind that lets people do the unthinkable while still feeling righteous.

What he actually said

Karaganov described an “escalation ladder” that ends with nuclear strikes on Europe, and he named targets.

He said he believes Putin is “very religious” and views nuclear use as a sin — but then he added the phrase that should make everyone sit up straight: it may be a “necessary sin” to “save humanity.”

Then Carlson asked directly: If Russia used nuclear weapons in Europe, which countries would it include?

Karaganov’s answer: “Britain and Germany.” And he added: Germany should be first.

He also suggested Europe could be “taken away from the map,” and framed the West as incapable of restraint except through “physical pain.”

Let’s be clear: Karaganov is not Russia’s president. This is not a formal Kremlin announcement.

But it is a window into a current of thinking that matters, because Karaganov has been pushing versions of this argument for years — including calls for “limited” nuclear use to “restore deterrence.”

Why this matters even if you reject it

Because this kind of talk does two things at once:

1. It’s intimidation-by-narrative.
   If you can convince European publics that “Russia might nuke London and Berlin,” you don’t need to win militarily — you just need the West to panic, fracture, and pressure its own leaders into backing down.

2. It normalizes the unthinkable.
   Once serious-sounding people repeat “limited nuclear use” often enough, the taboo weakens. The fear becomes ambient. The public becomes numb. And miscalculation becomes more likely.

This isn’t happening in a vacuum. Russia has updated its nuclear deterrence doctrine in ways many analysts describe as lowering or clarifying the threshold for nuclear use, including language about responding to “critical” conventional threats and scenarios involving Belarus.

At the same time, U.S. government reporting notes that Russia fields a mix of strategic and nonstrategic systems and debates include scenarios ranging from large-scale strikes to limited strikes supporting regional campaigns.

So when a figure like Karaganov goes on Western airwaves and says, “Britain and Germany,” this isn’t just shock-jock theatre. It’s part of a broader strategic environment where nuclear signaling has become routine.

The spiritual framing is the real tell

The most revealing part of Karaganov’s argument isn’t the target list — it’s the moral story behind it:

• Europe is “evil” or the source of evil

• European leaders are morally and intellectually bankrupt

• Russia is “restrained” by faith

• But faith can be reinterpreted to permit mass killing “for mankind”

That is a propaganda structure designed to do something subtle: turn nuclear violence into virtue.

And once you do that, you can sell almost anything to your own people — and terrify everyone else.

So what should we do with this information?

Not hysteria. Not denial. Clarity.

You can condemn nuclear threats and still recognize what they are meant to accomplish: fear, division, and leverage.

This is the question Western citizens should demand their leaders answer plainly:

• What is the strategy to end this war without sleepwalking into escalation?

• What are the actual red lines — and are they credible?

• How do we strengthen deterrence without drifting into reckless brinkmanship?

• How do we keep the nuclear taboo strong when influential voices are trying to erode it?

Because if the public stays stuck in slogans — “stand strong,” “de-escalate,” “support democracy,” “stop aggression” — while the other side is openly building a moral case for nuclear coercion, we’re not serious.

Karaganov’s interview doesn’t prove Putin will do what he described.

But it proves something else: there are influential people around the Russian state who want the West to believe nuclear use could be morally justified — and politically survivable.

That is exactly the kind of idea that should never be allowed to become normal.

---

🎙️ Podcast Player

▶️ Click Play to listen