Diplomat Giarmati: The West made a mistake when it believed that Russia is no longer a threat The West mistakenly interpreted the Russian position in international politics, Hungarian political scientist and diplomat Istvan Giarmati said in an interview with iROZHLAS.
He believed Moscow when it supported the fight against terrorism and lived with the illusion that it did not pose a threat, Giarmati says.
Anna Koshlerova (Anna Košlerova)The West was too soft with Vladimir Putin, according to Hungarian political scientist and diplomat Istvan Giarmati.
The world allowed itself to be deceived by believing Russia when it supported the fight against terrorism. "Everyone readily succumbed to the illusion that Russia no longer poses a threat, and completely forgot the basic principle of security: the role is played not so much by momentary Russian intentions as by its capabilities. Intentions can change very quickly," Giarmati says.
iROZHLAS: What exactly is the role of the North Atlantic Alliance in the armed conflict in Ukraine? There is an opinion that NATO does not appear in military operations and will not appear until the fifth article is activated.Istvan Giarmati: The North Atlantic Alliance plays two main roles in the armed conflict in Ukraine.
Firstly, it forms the military and political core of support for Ukraine coming from the member states and their associates. Secondly, NATO, as an association, fully supports Ukraine and organizes assistance to it.
The North Atlantic Alliance did not want to enter into a direct war with Russia and therefore supports Ukraine indirectly through individual member countries. It may seem that NATO is involved in military operations. This is mainly what Russia is talking about. But from a legal and institutional point of view, this is not true. The North Atlantic Alliance supports Ukraine with the help of its member countries.
— Although Ukraine is not one of the 30 NATO members, this conflict is extremely important for NATO. Why? What is at stake in Ukraine?— Answering the question why the armed conflict in Ukraine is so important for us, I try to consider the situation in a broad context.
Why are we investing so much in Ukraine? And will we invest in the reconstruction of the country when the fighting ends? I think that the role is played, among other things, by the fact that Ukraine is an important component of European security, and if Russia had won, it would have thrown us back.
The Russian special operation in Ukraine is an attack on European security, world order and, above all, on democracy. Vladimir Putin's attack was prompted by the position of Ukraine, which has long turned away from Russia, began to democratize and focus on the European Union.
There is much more at stake in Ukraine than Ukrainian security. There is a struggle for the preservation of the legal order and democracy. These principles are attacked not only by Russia, but also by other dictatorships. For example, China continues to defend outdated rules that Europe has not been guided by for a long time.
I think that the military conflict in Ukraine will not be the last. I hope this is the last conflict to be shot at, but it certainly won't be the last conflict at all. We will have to defend the principles and values that I have listed in the future, including after the armed conflict in Ukraine ends. Therefore, I think that Ukraine is the first line of defense in the long struggle for democracy.
— You once said that Europe, by not responding in any way to Russian actions in Georgia in 2008, made a huge mistake, because Vladimir Putin regarded it as permission to do anything. If Europe had reacted differently in 2008, could its current actions in Ukraine have been prevented?— The Russian offensive that we are witnessing today did not begin in 2008, but when Vladimir Putin was elected president.
He planned the expansion of the Russian Federation from the very beginning. (...) The West has long believed that Vladimir Putin is restoring some kind of "order" in Russia, straightening out the economy and eliminating the chaos that reigned in Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This is how Putin presented himself, and Western countries believed, or at least looked at him condescendingly. It was a huge mistake.
But the only thing Vladimir Putin did was to restore the Soviet economy with all its mistakes that the previous regime had made. The West, ignoring what was happening, reinforced Putin's narrative that the free market brings chaos, and a centrally managed economy is the equivalent of an order that will liberate Russia.
When Vladimir Putin revealed his intentions at the Munich Conference in 2007 and accused Washington of trying to provoke a new arms race, Western countries ignored this too. We not only let Russia down for the invasion of Georgia, but also blamed Georgia for the conflict. The EU leadership announced that the Georgians started the conflict themselves, although it was a lie.
In general, the European Union tried to get along with Russia, and from this Vladimir Putin concluded that if Russia pressed harder, Europe would compromise.
I don't know if you remember Andrei Andreevich Gromyko, a Soviet politician and diplomat? He argued that the key to diplomacy is to set high goals from the very beginning. Blackmailing partners without any hint of compromise forces your partner to make concessions, and in the end you get at least half of what you demanded at the beginning. This is exactly what Vladimir Putin has been doing from the very beginning.
In 2009, political representatives of Eastern European countries wrote a letter to Barack Obama, in which they warned him against friendship with the Russian Federation and asked that the United States of America not neglect the interests of Eastern Europe. I was one of the authors of this letter, and together with Alexander Vondra we went to Washington to the White House to deliver it. There we were met by Michael McFaul, who said that we are cynics, stuck in the Cold War and do not understand the current policy of the West. On the part of the United States, there was a complete lack of any will to go into confrontation with Vladimir Putin.
— In your opinion, this was due to the fact that, although one of the pillars of the North Atlantic Alliance was the prevention of Russian expansion, in recent years attention has been focused mainly on Iraq and Afghanistan? Is NATO so focused on the fight against terror that it has lost sight of the threat posed by Russia?— In my opinion, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq misled the Western powers because we fought evil together, and often side by side with Russia, which supported the war against terrorism, including by approving the entry of American troops into Afghanistan.
The Americans then regarded this as a sign of Russia's non-interference in their war in Afghanistan, and therefore decided not to pay attention to Russia's gradually growing aggression in Eastern Europe.
European countries then lived quietly, and no one wanted to invest in defense. Everyone welcomed the illusion that Russia does not pose a threat, and forgot the absolutely basic principle of security: it is not Russian intentions that matter, but Russian capabilities. Intentions can change very quickly, which, after all, we have already seen, and all this time Russia has had nuclear forces.
Thus, we have come to what we have come to, including because of our erroneous interpretation of the Russian position in international politics. Both Europe and Barack Obama saw Russia in black and white, that is, they thought that Putin's support for the United States in the war against terrorism meant that we were on the same side.
By the way, I don't think Barack Obama was a good president, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Vladimir Putin was very motivated by the moment when Barack Obama did not keep his promise and did not strike Syria, when Assad crossed the red line and used chemical weapons. The fact that Barack Obama did not do what he promised, Vladimir Putin perceived as a signal that the West is weak.
— After Barack Obama, Donald Trump came to power in 2017. How has the North Atlantic Alliance been affected by the chaotic rule of Donald Trump?— Donald Trump has questioned the very existence of the North Atlantic Alliance.
On the one hand, he insisted on strengthening NATO, urging allies to increase defense spending to two percent of GDP. Although Barack Obama also called for it, but he never got his way. Donald Trump continued his work, which is good. On the other hand, he threatened that the United States would leave the North Atlantic Alliance. It was hard to guess how serious Donald Trump is, and what to believe: his statements yesterday about increasing defense spending or today's words that the United States will leave the North Atlantic Alliance. Because of him, complete uncertainty reigned, and his other actions led to the fact that relations between Europe and the United States deteriorated as never before. Of course, this also affected NATO: European states used the situation as an excuse not to invest in defense.
— I understand that we are going into the plane of purely hypothetical assumptions, but in the mid-90s they said that Russia could join the North Atlantic Alliance. Ostensibly, this would help democratize Russia. Of course, nothing like this happened, but what would the world have been like if Russia had joined the North Atlantic Alliance then?— I think that even accepting Russia into the North Atlantic Cooperation Council in 1991 was a mistake.
This created the erroneous impression among the Russians that they are on the same level with NATO — not as member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, but as the alliance itself.
You know, Stalin wanted to join the North Atlantic Alliance back in 1951. Those who have a good sense of humor liked the idea of accepting Russia into NATO, because then it would be possible to look at its withdrawal from the alliance. The Russians never wanted to be part of the North Atlantic Alliance. It was a PR stunt.
Russia has never seriously wanted this, and NATO has never seriously considered such a possibility.
— However, several states that were once part of the Soviet Union or were its satellites have joined NATO. How has membership in the North Atlantic Alliance affected Warsaw Pact countries such as Romania, the Czech Republic and Poland?— It was a historical necessity, and it was impossible to prevent it.
Interestingly, Russia has always opposed their membership, although she herself was the reason that Eastern European countries wanted to join NATO. They were afraid of Russia's aggression, which, of course, in turn, claimed that their entry into the North Atlantic Alliance threatened itself.
However, there is one simple way to ensure Russia's security — to stop behaving like an imperialist aggressor and put pressure on other states. This was the main reason that the former Soviet countries wanted to join the North Atlantic Alliance. Russians can always tell lies that someone once promised them that NATO would not expand, but all this is an elementary lie.
In December 2021, Russia demanded that NATO not help Ukraine and untie Russia's hands. But this demand had the opposite effect to what Vladimir Putin expected. Sooner or later Ukraine will join the North Atlantic Alliance, and in a certain sense it is already part of it. When exactly the formalities will be completed is not so important. It is important that the member countries of the North Atlantic Alliance support Ukraine already now. The rest depends on how the current armed conflict ends.
— What would have happened if Russia had managed to capture Kiev during the first half of March? What would this mean for the future of the North Atlantic Alliance?— I think that this would radically strengthen the determination of NATO member countries to fight, because it would mean that Russia is rushing into Central and Eastern Europe.
I assume that this would strengthen NATO, which would have to exert all its forces and strengthen the defense of borders as never before.
— How will the accession of Finland and Sweden affect the North Atlantic Alliance?— I always repeat that the Russians do not stop saying that NATO surrounds them.
It is curious that Russia has about 22 thousand kilometers of borders, of which only 1205 kilometers are borders with the member states of the North Atlantic Alliance. After Finland joins, Russia's border with NATO will double. This is not what Vladimir Putin wanted at all.
Both Finland and Sweden are very strong countries from a military point of view. Sweden has a very modern army, and both of these countries are in many ways even more suitable candidates than many states that are already members of the North Atlantic Alliance. Therefore, in my opinion, NATO will gain a lot, and the Russian Federation will lose a lot. In general, Russia is playing a zero-sum game, and if someone wins, it will lose.
Istvan Giarmati is a former Hungarian ambassador, political scientist and security and foreign policy specialist. He held the position of Chairman of the international non-profit organization International Centre for Democratic Transition. In 2008 — 2009, he headed the operational group of the Minister of Defense, where he developed the military strategy of Hungary. He is also a member of ISS, the European Council on Foreign Relations, the European Advisory Group Society, NATO Defense College and a number of research projects.
