by Paolo Valentino
The director of one of the Kremlin’s think tanks says: «We are at war with NATO. Conquest of Donbass and then an agreement with Ukraine. I think so, but there are those who have a more maximalist idea”
FROM OUR RELEVANT BERLIN In the Kremlin, there are two opposing schools of thought about what to do in Ukraine. The hardliners are pushing for an all-out war, pointing after Donbass to Odessa and the rest of the south, to open a corridor to Transnistria, the Russian-speaking territory that has rebelled against Moldova. The others try to persuade Vladimir Putin to end the game with a decisive victory in the Lugansk and Donetsk regions, and then impose their own peace terms on Kyiv. Dmitry Suslov tells Corriere della Sera, head of the Center for European and International Studies at the Higher School of Economics, one of the Kremlin’s think tanks.
The latest news about the war in Ukraine
Two months ago, on February 25, you told me that Ukraine was imploding and that the goal of Russian action was regime change in Kyiv. Things went differently. What happened?
“There is no doubt that regime change was part of the original plans behind the invasion. It did not work. And today it is no longer considered feasible or punishable by Russia. The initial assumption that Ukraine would collapse like a house of cards without resistance has turned out to be wrong. The Ukrainian army put up an impressive resistance with massive support from the West. In fact, I’d say that’s the main reason for the ability to resist for so long. The Russian army is not fighting against Ukraine, but against NATO, which not only supplies weapons and ammunition, but also provides valuable intelligence information».
Wasn’t that foreseeable?
“I don’t know. I was not one of those who supported this operation from the beginning and did not consider it likely until February 24. I considered it very difficult for Russia to achieve all the goals formulated, including regime change “Of course, there were many things that Russia did not see in advance, such as the level of sanctions. The prime minister and foreign minister made it clear that they could not even imagine the repeated freezing of Russia’s foreign exchange reserves. Or exclusion from the “Swift. There was also probably a misjudgment as to the extent of the Western military response to Ukraine’s aid. Today we know that much of the Ukrainian fire is organized and fought by Westerners. In other words, it is NATO that is involved fires on Russian troops with its Ukrainian-operated weapons ».
Including the sinking of the Moskva?
“I don’t know. The Russian government does not officially confirm the Ukrainian version, that is, a missile launched under the indications of NATO ».
But what does Putin want now that Mariupol has fallen? What does it take to declare victory?
“All of Ukraine is no longer an option. The whole country should be occupied, and that is beyond the resources the Kremlin is willing to allocate in this war. Remember that Russia uses limited resources in Ukraine. There are many reasons for this, above all the domestic political and economic situation. In any case, the fact that so many Western politicians are going to Kyiv, most recently Charles Michel, signals that there must have been an agreement that Russia will not return to attack the capital.”
So what’s the new goal?
“There is currently no consensus. There are two schools of thought, but the President hasn’t decided yet. The first, which I would describe as maximalist, says that Ukraine must be dealt a heavy defeat in the Donbass and then the remaining southern part of the country, including Odessa and Nicolaev, must be occupied by cutting off access to the sea and creating a direct one Connection is made with Transnistria, where there is also another oppressed Russian-speaking population. The second school I belong to argues that this would require far more resources, prolong the war and make it more difficult for Ukraine and the West to accept the Russian occupation of the South.
And what alternative do you offer?
“That after a decisive victory in Donbass, we should conclude a peace agreement with Ukraine based on the terms of our original offer: neutrality, i.e. renunciation of NATO; demilitarization, including restrictions on strategic cooperation with the West and the type and amount of weapons owned by the Ukrainian army; status of the Russian language; ban on far-right nationalist parties; official recognition of the annexation of Crimea and the independence of Donbass. Odesssa and Nikoalev would remain Ukrainians and the Russians would withdraw from the currently occupied Kherson Territory. From our point of view, it would be easier for Kyiv to accept this agreement if the Russian victory in Donbass is clear. The alternative would be to continue the military offensive and lose more territory. Instead, in this way, Ukraine would not lose anything compared to the status quo that has been in place since 2014”.
What role would the West play in the agreement?
Obviously, the West should accept the deal, of which a partial sanctions abolition would be an integral part, and recognize the new borders. We believe that it is in Russia’s interest to end this war victoriously, but also as quickly as possible. The maximalist school, on the other hand, is not afraid of a protracted war, it does not seek recognition from the West, it does not consider it possible to abolish sanctions”.
Should the United States take part in the negotiations?
“They should be implicitly part of it, recognize the agreement and then recognize Russian Crimea and independent Donbass. Saying publicly that Kyiv will never be part of NATO. Without this there will be no agreement».
If the second school of thought prevailed, would a Biden-Putin summit be necessary?
“It is not 100% certain that this scenario will materialize, but even then a summit would be difficult to imagine. It will be some time before relations between Moscow and Washington resume dialogue on issues such as arms control, European security and rules of engagement. I have no doubt it will happen, nobody wants WWIII. But it won’t be tomorrow. And in the coming months, the border between Russia and NATO will double with the accession of Finland and Sweden ».
How will you react?
“We have already said that if they did occur, we would also target them with nuclear weapons.”
Who would mediate in the negotiation?
“You don’t need a negotiator. There are direct contacts. But at the same time we must be sure that the third parties, that is, the westerners, accept the terms of the agreement ».
There is a lot of talk these days about supplying heavy weapons like tanks to Ukrainian armed forces. What would it change?
“There would be a significant change in Russia’s attitude. In the beginning it was a conflict over Ukraine. But now it is a war for Russia. At stake is Russia’s survival as a great power and its status in international affairs. Everyone in Russia is convinced that we are at war with the West. There is no other option than victory. If we lose, it would be worse than the end of the USSR in 1991. That’s why the arms shipments to Kyiv and Western rhetoric have already upped the ante and changed the nature of warfare. Now we can’t lose ».
Does it pose a threat of nuclear conflict?
“I did not say that. I have said that it is imperative for us to win in Donbass, which is presented as a victory over the West given its strong involvement with Ukraine. We will tell the world that Russia is still a great military power. At this point, we believe conventional weapons will suffice for this purpose. I doubt that Russia will consider using nuclear weapons, which could instead be agitated as a threat in the event of an escalation at the NATO-Russia level.”
Crimes against humanity were committed in Bucha. Will they be prosecuted?
«Russia does not agree with the version spread in the West. We don’t know what really happened. As a Russian citizen, it is hard to imagine that the military committed these atrocities by withdrawing voluntarily. Then why leave these marks? ».
But there is evidence and witnesses
“There are witnesses on the Russian side who say it was staged. As for their prosecution, Russia does not recognize the International Criminal Court, neither does the US, and therefore has no prerogative to bring Russia to justice.
Will sanctions make Russia more dependent on China?
“I think that’s the likely outcome. The sanctions have completely destroyed Russian-Western relations. There is nothing more than what has existed since 1945 in all fields: economics, politics, culture, art, science, human relations. Nothing like this has ever happened in five centuries of history. The reaction in Russian society is strong, it will take a generation to eliminate Russians’ alienation and rejection of the West: we want nothing to do with this at all levels. I’m talking about intellectuals, artists, scientists, ordinary people. Do you want to cancel Tchaikovsky? Continue. Of course, dependency on China will grow, it’s inevitable. I wouldn’t be surprised if trade with Beijing hits $200 billion by the end of this year. This is exactly why we must win in Donbass, we must not become more dependent on China and lose at the same time. In addition, we will redouble our efforts to intensify and diversify our relations with other non-Western countries: India, Vietnam, many countries in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, South America.”
You’re pretty much isolated at the moment. At best, make up for a few abstentions at the UN
“It is ridiculous to talk about Russia’s isolation even within the G20. One of the most important and paradoxical results of this war is to have shown that the power of the West does not go beyond the West ».
How is Vladimir Putin doing?
“I read that there is a lot of speculation in the West on this subject. I do not know. I don’t see any evidence of health issues from following his meetings.”
April 23, 2022 (Modification April 23, 2022 | 08:15)
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED