What does it mean?
That Russia is on a horse, it has gotten off its knees and has control of the situation, and on the other hand that it has to be held. The two definitions are contradictory, because what is there to keep hold of if everything is fine? But Putin’s basic logic is such – keep hold of the situation, not to let the regime fall.
But will it fall?
It is possible, of course. The question is when. I think that the Ukrainian machination is a suicide act for Putin. I have been saying it since the beginning, starting with the annex of Crimea.
Putin has always followed the logic “leave room for maneuvering, it is unacceptable to back oneself into a corner.” In 2000 in the book Conversation From the First Person, which is a series of Putin’s interviews with journalists Nataliya Gevorkian, Andrey Kolesnikov and Natalya Semakova, the head of the Russian Federation offered a very stark example about how a rat should not be backed into a corner. It even describes how he backed a rat into a corner in his home in St. Petersburg and what happened next. Now he is playing the part of that very rat, however he was the one who trapped himself. Which is why the annex of Crimea birthed a number of irreversible consequences. He can neither return the Crimea, nor agree with the West, as that would mean a de-facto acknowledgment of the annex. It is very difficult to find compromise between Putin and the West today.
Putin is trying to convince the West that the fate of Ukraine is very second or third-rate in importance, so let’s agree on all the issues, while ignoring it. So let’s agree to divide it.
The West is not ready for this, and Putin does not believe and thinks that only the US is showing its excessive ambitions as a superpower, and the European Union, which is tied to Russia with colossal trade circulation and mutual economic interests, is ready for this, essentially. Putin cannot believe that the US and the European Union might have some common values which are higher than economic interests.
So everything depends on the European Union?
Of course, it always did. But meanwhile Putin, as someone who is not ready to make decision under pressure and who is organically countering it, may react to the sanctions of the US and the European Union in an incorrect fashion. I think that the imposition of new sanctions increases the chances that Putin will invest additional resources in destabilizing the situation in the east and south of Ukraine. To the extent of individual attacks on Ukrainian territory.
But he did it even without the sanctions.
We always did it as a means to retaliate to yet another wave of negativity on part of the West. Had the United States made peace with him about the fate of Ukraine immediately after the February revolution, he would not have annexed Crimea. The US refused to hold such dialogue with him, having noted that the fate of Ukraine is outside of his competence and the issue of talks between Washington and Moscow, and he annexed Crimea.
After this sanctions and the refusal of new talks followed – he destabilized the situation in Donetsk and Luhansk. This logic may develop even further, judging from Putin’s psychological type. We should not try to look for purely political logic. It is the logic of someone who has been in power for 14,5 years and who considers himself quite successful and happy.
What possibilities as to the development of the situation do you see?
As he is backed further into a corner, there are two options. The first is Putin’s disappearance in any format. The second, he continues the escalation. I will not try to evaluate the probability of the first. But it is possible in principle, regardless of our wishes.
Do the sanctions against Putin’s associates make the first option more probable?
Trending Now
All right, everything is clear with Putin, Obama and the rest. What would you advise to the Ukrainian President in this situation?
Putin does not want talks with Poroshenko, because he does not consider him or anyone sitting in his seat an independent figure. He wants talks with the West, and the West cannot agree, because there is no platform, no starting point.
Besides, all western leaders which may participate in such talks are have already taken the anti-Russian side. Therefore some sort of third party is needed, which is not involved in the conflict, which is not perceived by Putin as an enemy. It is the figure on the level of the Pope. I am not saying it should be him in particular, but the criteria are clear: big international authority, lack of involvement in the conflict and a current position that is not seen by Putin as hostile.
If there is such an international figure, they may enter dialogue with Putin, which is necessary either way. Without it, it will be impossible to stop the conflict, and escalation will continue. Putin has no opportunity for a large-scale war, but he does have all the necessary means for escalation.
So you would advise Kyiv to seek such a figure?
No, I would probably advise Washington to do so.
And what should Kyiv do?
Kyiv can only influence Russia through western partners, but not directly.
So it turns out our war is senseless?
No, of course not. If not for this war, Putin would have already taken a significant part of the east of Ukraine and in Donetsk, there would already be a Novorossiya headed by Viktor Medvedchuk.
Are such talks about Ukraine’s fate between Putin and the West acceptable for it?
As of today, no. But the question is how much can Putin destabilize the situation in Ukraine.
Tell me, do people in Russia really hate Ukrainians now? Can you feel it?
Yes, I can. Even when talking to my numerous associates and friends. They have also fallen victim to this propaganda. Many people I have been in contact with for years have taken the position that “Ukrainians are freaks of humanity and acting on orders of Americans and want to destroy everything.” If I walk down Bolshaya Bronnaya street where I live now, three out of four passers-by would say that the Malaysian Boeing was downed by Ukrainians. And they would be completely sincere. So you can imagine how hard it is for me here. I am not hyperbolizing my suffering, of course. I have it easier than, for example, [Sergey] Udaltsov and [Leonid] Razvozhayev [Russian opposition activists, convicted for organizing mass disorders], who recently were condemned to 4,5 years in prison, but the psychological atmosphere in Russia is becoming more and more hostile for people such as myself.
Do you predict any serious threats in this light?
I cannot predict them for sure, but I cannot exclude them completely.
I have said back in March that even if they don’t put me behind bars, the possibility that I will get beaten up in the street is growing exponentially.
Does it seem to you that our con tries will be able to restore relations in the future?
Of course. Without doubt. I see no obstacles here. The current conflict is vastly birthed not by Russia’s objective interests, and not even, as Vladimir Putin has recently become fond of saying, “substantive interests of some groups of influence inside Russia.” This conflict was brought about by Putin, and only him. By his specific perceptions of life and psychological features. When the President changes, so will the rhetoric, and the people will be able to love Ukraine again. Any future leader will have to correct the mistakes of their predecessor. And this [the escalation of relations with Ukraine] is a huge mistake.
Source: NVUA
Translated by Mariya Shcherbinina
