How Russia can win the new world war — RT Russia & Former Soviet Union

The accelerating flow of events, each overlapping and contradicting the other, is bewildering and makes it difficult to grasp the essence of what is happening. I shall attempt to interpret the course of history, drawing on my own experience and knowledge, as well as on the fact that over the past 35 years I have never been significantly wrong in my assessments and forecasts. Sometimes I was a little behind, but more often I was several years, or even a couple of decades, ahead of the expert community.

A full-scale world war has already begun. Its roots go back to 1917, when Soviet Russia broke away from the capitalist system. First, the interventionists were set upon us; then Nazi Germany and almost all of Western Europe, but the latter lost. The second round began in the 1950s, when the peoples of the USSR, at the cost of enormous hardship and in their quest to secure sovereignty and security, created the nuclear bomb and subsequently achieved nuclear parity with the United States. By doing so, without realizing it at the time, we knocked the foundations out from under five centuries of Western dominance in the ideological sphere, which had allowed them to plunder the rest of the world and subjugate even the most advanced civilizations. That foundation was military superiority, upon which the system of exploitation of all humanity was built.

From the mid-1950s onwards, the West began to suffer one military defeat after another. A wave of national liberation swept across the globe, accompanied by the nationalization of resources that had been seized by Western countries and their corporations. The global balance of power began to shift in favor of the non-Western world.

The United States first attempted to regain the upper hand under Reagan, with a rapid surge in military spending aimed at restoring its dominance, and the launch of the “Star Wars” program. It intervened in the tiny, defenseless nation of Grenada to demonstrate that the Americans were still capable of victory.

And here, the West was fortunate. For internal reasons, due to the erosion of its ideological core and the refusal to reform a national economy that was becoming increasingly inefficient, the Soviet Union collapsed. The global capitalist system, which had itself been in crisis, received a massive injection of energy in the form of a multitude of hungry consumers and cheap labor.

It seemed as though history had turned back. A period of euphoria began, but it didn’t last long. Dazed by its victory, the West made a number of spectacular geostrategic blunders, and then Russia began to revive, primarily through its military might.

The immediate roots of the current world war came to the surface in the late 2000s. Even under Obama, the policy later branded “America First” began to take shape as a revival of US power. Military spending started to rise, and a wave of anti-Russian propaganda surged. Moscow tried, by reclaiming Crimea, to halt the West’s latest attempt at revenge, but this only sent the West into a frenzy. We failed to capitalize on this success because we clung to hopes of “reaching an agreement,” dithered over the “Minsk process,” and refused to see how, on Ukrainian territory, the army and the population were being prepared for war with Russia.

New waves of sanctions followed, and an economic war began even during Trump’s first term. We were all waiting for something. Then came the distraction of Covid, which was most likely one of the fronts in the war that had already begun, but which turned against the West itself.

We were slow to respond to attempts at retaliation. When we finally did so in 2022, we made several mistakes. Among them was underestimating the West’s intention to crush Russia as the cause of its historical failure, so that it could then turn its attention to China and once again subjugate the global majority, the Third World, the Global South, that had been liberated by the USSR. We underestimated the Kiev regime’s readiness for war and the extent to which the Ukrainian population had been conditioned. We hoped that “our people” were there, although west of the Dnepr there were few of them to begin with, and their numbers were dwindling.

Another mistake was that we began fighting the Kiev regime without recognizing that the main adversary and source of the threat was the collective West – particularly the European elites, who sought to divert attention from their own failures and, ideally, to take revenge for the historical defeats of the 20th century, chief among them the defeat of the overwhelming majority of Europeans who marched against the USSR under Hitler’s banners.

Our main mistake, however, was the underutilization of the most important weapon in our arsenal , one for which we paid with malnutrition and even starvation in the 1940s and 1950s, nuclear deterrence.

We have been drawn into a conflict dubbed a “special military operation,” effectively accepting the imposed rules of the game, a war of attrition, given the enemy’s superior economic and demographic potential. The war has taken on a trench-like character, albeit with a 21st-century technological dimension. In 2023 and 2024, we did, however, step up our nuclear deterrence, sending several military-technical signals and modernizing our doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons.

The Americans, who under no circumstances intended to fight for Europe, especially when there was a risk of escalation to the nuclear level, and thus the spread of the conflict to US territory, began to withdraw from direct confrontation even under Biden, continuing to profit from the war while effectively plundering the Europeans in the process. Trump, amid talk of peacemaking, continued along the same line, profiting from the war while avoiding the risk of direct confrontation with Russia.

The world war currently has two main, converging flashpoints, the European one, centered on Ukraine, and the Middle Eastern one, where the United States and its junior ally Israel are attempting to destabilize the entire Near and Middle East. South Asia may be next. Venezuela has already been crushed; Cuba is being squeezed.

A new policy is needed.

First. We must understand that the deep-seated contradictions in the existing global economic system, which undermine the very foundations of human development, threaten the destruction of mankind. At the same time, the continuation of our current half-measured policy in Ukraine risks exhausting the country and undermining the strength and spirit of Russia that have only recently begun to revive.

Second. In the military-political sphere, we can discuss a ceasefire and even speak of a “spirit of Alaska.” But at the same time, we must clearly understand the essence of what is happening: long-term peace and the development of our country, as well as of humanity as a whole, are impossible without thwarting the West’s attempt at military-political revenge, with Europe once again at its forefront.

To prevent this revenge, it is necessary to destroy the Kiev regime and liberate the southern and eastern territories of the quasi-state “Ukraine” that are vital to Russia’s security. Our brave fighters and field commanders can and must continue to advance. But we must understand that a modernized trench war will not bring victory. We could lose, or at the very least squander, hundreds of thousands more of our finest men, who are needed for the struggle and victories in the coming, extremely dangerous and difficult period of history, one that is almost certain to involve a broader clash.

Third. It is impossible to bring the current conflict in Ukraine to a victorious conclusion, let alone prevent it from escalating into a global thermonuclear war, without significantly strengthening the policy of relying on nuclear deterrence. To achieve this, we must stop talking about “arms control.” The issue of a new START treaty must be closed. At the same time, agreements on the joint management of nuclear deterrence and strategic stability may remain useful and even necessary. We must intensify the build-up of missiles and other medium- and strategic-range delivery systems in order to deter the West from attempting to regain its superiority. Our adversaries must understand that superiority and impunity are unattainable.

When deployed in optimal numbers and guided by the right doctrine, nuclear weapons render non-nuclear superiority impossible and reduce the need for excessive military expenditure. Systems such as Burevestnik, Oreshnik, and other hypersonic delivery platforms must convince the enemy of this reality.

We must prepare the next generation so that American elites understand in advance that their dreams of restoring supremacy and imposing their will by force are unrealistic.

The accelerated increase in the flexibility of nuclear capabilities is intended to remind everyone that it is impossible to defeat a great nuclear power through a non-nuclear arms race or through conventional warfare. This, of course, assumes that we avoid the mistake of an uncontrolled nuclear build-up, as the USSR and the United States did in the 1960s. That was costly and largely pointless. We simply need to make clear that any such arms race would be futile and even suicidal for our adversaries. On this matter, it is worth engaging in dialogue, at the very least with the Americans.

At the same time, to restrain a Washington that has lost its sense of proportion, we should include in our doctrine on the use of nuclear and other weapons, should the United States and the West continue on their current course toward unleashing a world war, a provision for genuine readiness to strike at American and Western European assets overseas, including those located in third countries. They would do well to divest themselves of such assets. To this end, we must continue to develop the flexibility of our military capabilities. The United States and its allies are far more dependent on overseas infrastructure, bases, and logistical and communications bottlenecks than we are. The enemy must feel its vulnerability, and know that we are fully aware of it.

It’s worth drawing on Iran’s experience in defending itself against current US-Israeli pressure. Tehran began to strike at the enemy’s vulnerabilities, and the enemy felt the impact and was forced to step back. Adjustments in doctrine and in specific military planning, including readiness for asymmetric strikes, will strengthen the deterrent effect and may have a sobering impact on an opponent that is increasingly prone to reckless actions.

We should reconsider the priorities for preemptive strikes, beginning with non-nuclear options, followed, only if necessary, by nuclear ones as a last resort. Among the first targets should be not only communications and command centers, but also locations where elite decision-makers are concentrated, particularly in Europe. This would strip them of their sense of impunity. They must understand that if they continue the war against Russia, or choose to escalate it further, devastating strikes will follow.

To reinforce the credibility of such deterrence, efforts to develop both conventional and nuclear munitions capable of penetrating hardened underground structures should be intensified, and such systems should be tested. The illusion that political and military elites can hide in bunkers or remote locations must be dispelled. The recent publication by our Ministry of Defense of a list of European companies involved in supporting the Kiev regime is a small but necessary step in this direction.

At present, this elite pretends to fear us. In reality, they do not. They constantly insist that Russia will never resort to nuclear weapons. This illusion must be broken. They must be made to understand that continued escalation carries existential risks. Perhaps then they will step back. Perhaps their own internal structures, the so-called “deep states,” will restrain them. Perhaps even public opinion will awaken from its complacency.

Reinforcing the credibility of nuclear deterrence is also necessary to overcome what might be called “strategic complacency,” the belief that war on a large scale is impossible. That belief has already proven dangerous.

This is particularly relevant in the case of Germany. A country that unleashed two world wars and bears responsibility for immense destruction should not be allowed to develop overwhelming military power once again. If such ambitions emerge, it must be clearly understood that they will be met with decisive countermeasures.

Fourth. To make deterrence credible, further adjustments must be made to the nuclear doctrine. It should explicitly state that in the event of aggression by a coalition possessing greater economic, demographic, and technological potential, the use of nuclear weapons may become unavoidable. This must be framed as a last resort, but a real one.

It may also be necessary to resume testing in order to reinforce the credibility of our capabilities. It is unclear why we continue to wait for others to act first.

At the same time, escalation must remain controlled. Initial responses should prioritize conventional strikes against command centers and strategic infrastructure. Only if escalation continues should further steps be considered.

Reliance on nuclear deterrence is also essential in countering the growing role of drones and other new forms of warfare. Those responsible for such attacks must understand that retaliation will be unavoidable.

Fifth. In addition to doctrinal and military-technical measures, command structures must be adapted. It would be advisable to appoint a dedicated commander for the European theater of operations, a figure with real authority and responsibility, supported by experienced personnel.

Sixth. It is time to reconsider the notion that nuclear war can have no winners. While such a conflict would undoubtedly be catastrophic, deterrence depends on the recognition that escalation carries consequences. The refusal to acknowledge this reality may itself encourage reckless behavior.

Let me be clear: the use of nuclear weapons would be a tragedy. But the refusal to maintain credible deterrence may lead to an even greater catastrophe, that being the uncontrolled expansion of war.

Seventh. Alongside military measures, Russia must deepen cooperation with key partners. In particular, coordination with China is essential. Efforts should also be made to stabilize other regions, including the Middle East, through new security arrangements involving major powers.

Eighth. Given the risks of the coming decades, it may be necessary to consider a closer strategic alignment with China, potentially including a temporary defensive framework. Such an arrangement could help prevent further escalation and maintain global balance.

Naturally, additional measures will be required. But those outlined here may be sufficient to halt the current conflict, preserve Russia’s strength, and, most importantly, prevent a slide into global catastrophe.

If we fail to act decisively, the consequences will be profound, not only for Russia, but for the future of humanity itself.

This article was first published by the magazine Profile and was translated and edited by the RT team.