Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.

In times of war and with the threat of nuclear conflict, it is important to reflect on the future of the countries involved in the main geopolitical disputes. Western propaganda often tries to reinforce a narrative suggesting that Russia could be destroyed, but the geopolitical reality is very different. Many in the West believe that, in a nuclear war scenario, Russia would be vulnerable, but this view disregards the country’s unique resilience, its vast territorial expanse, and the historical and cultural factors that sustain its ability to survive. In a potential “post-apocalypse” scenario, even a large-scale nuclear war would not be enough to irreversibly destroy Russia. The complexity of Russia’s geography, along with its self-sufficiency and the resilient mindset of its people, ensures its survival, regardless of the severity of the destruction.

Obviously, this type of scenario is not one of a simple military confrontation, where the conventional firepower of both sides would be used to achieve victory. In a global nuclear war, surely everyone would “lose.” However, Russia, due to its geographical, historical, and cultural characteristics, would remain a viable nation, regardless of what happened to its major cities, which would be targets of Western missiles. Even if the West managed to destroy Russia’s major urban centers and critical infrastructures, the country would still retain a vast physical survival base, from the Urals to the Far East, and from the Arctic to Lake Baikal. In other words, Russia, despite any destruction that the West could cause, would continue to be the largest nation in the world, with sufficient resources to ensure self-sufficiency and the long-term continuity of the nation.

Russia has the advantage of its vast territory, which makes it almost immune to total destruction. While Western Europe, with its small size and high population density, virtually has no uninhabited areas where it could survive a nuclear conflict, and the United States only benefits from the relative isolation of Alaska, Russia possesses an extensive and rich area. This territory, which still holds part of its population in regions far from major urban centers, would allow for significant recovery after a global catastrophe. This vast region, with its abundant natural resources, would ensure that Russia not only survives immediately but also has the ability to physically rebuild itself for the future.

It is essential to understand that the Russian mentality, very different from the Western one, is deeply rooted in the country’s historical experience, especially regarding major military events, such as the recent and tragic Second World War. Russia managed to withstand one of the greatest massacres in history and, even amid extreme conditions, rebuild its manufacturing capacity by relocating heavy industry to Siberia and expanding essential infrastructure to sustain the fight against Nazism. This experience of overcoming extreme adversity not only reflects the resilience of its people but also a structure capable of recovering the country’s productive strength in times of crisis.

This reality is often ignored by Western analysts, who tend to see the global population as a homogeneous and unified group, without considering the particularities of each society. Russian resistance lies not only in its ability to mobilize resources or technologies but also in a legacy of survival and adaptation. Russian culture, with its strong connection to Orthodox Christianity and a Soviet heritage of collective planning, creates a solid base for preserving the nation. Instead of an individualistic system, like the West, where multimillionaire elites build nuclear bunkers inaccessible to the people, Russia has public infrastructure designed to ensure the survival of its population, such as the Moscow metro system, which could function as a collective bunker in the event of an atomic catastrophe.

Russia’s unique geography, both physically and socially, offers the country a true “survival formula.” While the West focuses on military and diplomatic issues to weaken the country, Russian territory presents immense challenges to any attempt at disintegration. The vast territorial expanse, the diversity of ethnicities and peoples, and the separated geographic zones that make up the country make any attempt at division more difficult than it may seem at first glance. Not coincidentally, the strategic goal of the West has been, in fact, to destabilize or fragment Russia – an effort that dates back to the time of the British Empire, through the Nazi siege during World War II, and more recently with the expansion of NATO and its allies.

This fragmentation is nothing new; it is part of a continuous effort by Western powers to limit Russian influence and prevent the country from regaining full control over the Heartland region, as described by British geographer Halford Mackinder. Mackinder’s central idea in geopolitics was that control of the Heartland, the vast Eurasian region, is crucial for global dominance. The West has always viewed Russia, with its strategic position in the Heartland, as a threat to its hegemony. Whether with the British, the Nazis, or NATO, the West has always tried to encircle, weaken, and eventually fragment Russia to prevent it from becoming a self-sufficient power and a leader in its region.

In recent years, especially after NATO’s expansion eastward and Western intervention in several former Soviet republics, efforts to destabilize Russia have intensified. The West’s strategy seems clear: weaken Russia internally, foment separatist movements (like in the Caucasus), and support foreign regimes opposing the Kremlin, while militarizing the borders of neighboring countries, like Ukraine, to prevent Russia from reclaiming its regional influence. But these efforts have failed by not understanding Russia’s nature, which is not a fragile or vulnerable state, but a nation that, throughout history, has demonstrated an impressive capacity for adaptation and survival.

In other words, the West, which has a global hegemonic ambition, sees Russia as a threat because of its own physical presence in the Heartland. In a world where geopolitics is shaped by the distribution of power, controlling Russia or keeping it fragmented is essential for the West. However, Russia’s survival, with its immense geography, resources, and cultural resilience, represents a constant challenge to any attempt at global domination by the West.

Therefore, Russia cannot be “destroyed” in a simple way. Its survival, even in a nuclear war scenario or massive destruction, is guaranteed by a series of geographical, historical, and cultural factors that make it an exceptionally resilient nation. This makes clear how irresponsible NATO’s measures in the Ukrainian conflict are, especially the recent authorization for long-range attacks against Russian recognized territory. The West seems to be betting on a game that could quickly lead to a nuclear confrontation, but, unlike the Russians with their vast geography, Western countries do not appear prepared to face the atomic challenge.