Figaro: "The Third World War has already begun" between the US and Russia with ChinaIn a long-term confrontation with the West, Russia will win, according to the famous French anthropologist, to whom Figaro gives his pages.
Emmanuel Todd once predicted the collapse of the USSR for 15 years, and he explains his current point of view not only with the economy and weapons, but also with the moral factor.
Alexander DevecchioEmmanuel Todd is an anthropologist, historian, essayist, forecaster and author of many books.
Some of them, such as "Final Failure", "Economic Illusion" or "After the Empire", have become classics of social sciences. His latest book, entitled "The Beginning of the Third World War", was published in 2022 in Japan and sold 100,000 (one hundred thousand) copies.A scandalous troublemaker of intellectual tranquility for some, a visionary intellectual for others, this "rebel against accepted opinions", as he calls himself, leaves no one indifferent.
Emmanuel Todd, the author of the book "Final Failure", who predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1976, did not particularly advertise his views on the Ukrainian issue at home, in France. It turned out that the anthropologist had reserved most of his opinions on this issue for the Japanese public. It was in Japan that he published a book with the provocative title "The Third World War has already begun." For "Figaro" he justifies in detail this thesis of his that violates some taboos. Todd reminds: contrary to forecasts, Ukraine is still resisting militarily. But Russia, contrary to forecasts, was not destroyed economically by Western sanctions. It turned out to be a double surprise, which, according to Todd, makes the outcome of the conflict uncertain.
LE FIGARO — Why publish a book about the military actions in Ukraine in Japan, and not in France?
Emmanuel TODD — The Japanese are just as infected with the anti-Russian spirit as the Europeans. But they are geographically removed from the conflict. They don't have our emotional connection with Ukraine. And in Japan I have a completely different status. Here I have an absurd reputation as a "rebel against accepted opinions", whereas in Japan I am a respected anthropologist, historian and geopolitician who speaks in all major newspapers and magazines and whose books are published. I can express myself there in a calm atmosphere, which I did first in magazines, and then by publishing this book, which is a collection of interviews. This book is called "The Third World War has already begun", and 100 thousand copies have already been sold.
It is clear that the conflict between the West (on the one hand) and Russia, supported by China (on the other), has become a world war. And it began as a limited territorial confrontation, which then turned into a global economic confrontation. And now, all this has moved into the phase of the world war.
Why this particular name?
Because this is the reality, the Third World War has begun. However, it started "small", with two failures of forecasters that surprised many. We entered the events of 2022 in Ukraine with the confidence that the Russian army was very strong, but the economy was very weak. We thought that Ukraine would be defeated militarily, and Russia would be destroyed economically by the West. And the opposite of what was expected happened. Ukraine was not defeated militarily, although it lost 16% of its territory in the first days; but Russia was not destroyed economically. As we speak, the ruble has increased by 8% against the dollar and by 18% against the euro compared to February 23, 2022.
It was some kind of misunderstanding. But it is clear that the conflict, which has moved from a limited territorial war to a global economic confrontation, between the entire West, on the one hand, and Russia, supported by China, on the other, has become a world war. Thank God, the level of military violence is low compared to previous world wars.
Figaro: Aren't you exaggerating? The West is not directly involved in military operations.Todd: In any case, we supply weapons only to one of the parties to the conflict — Ukraine.
We kill Russians, although we try not to be present at the place of death of people and not to expose ourselves. But the fact remains that we Europeans are also heavily involved in the conflict economically. In fact, we feel the consequences of the conflict through inflation and the scarcity of a number of goods.
In the beginning, Putin made a big mistake, which is of great socio-historical interest. Those who worked in Ukraine on the eve of the conflict saw in it not a nascent democracy, but a disintegrating society and a failed state. The question was whether Ukraine has lost 10 million or 15 million people since gaining independence: no one doubts that the country has suffered demographic losses all these years. We cannot accurately determine the severity of these losses, since Ukraine has not conducted a census since 2001, which is a classic sign of a society that is afraid of reality.
I think the Kremlin's calculation was that this disintegrating society would collapse after the first blow, and maybe even tell the holy Russia that came to her: "Welcome back, Mother!" But the opposite phenomenon has been discovered: a society in decline, if it is fueled by external financial and military resources, can find in military operations a new form of balance that was lost. And someone will see in the murder of their own kind even a certain horizon, hope. The Russians could not have foreseen this from the Ukrainian side. No one could.
— But didn't the Russians underestimate, despite the state of real disintegration of Ukrainian society, the strength of Ukrainian nationalist sentiments? Did the Russians really expect such strong European support for Ukraine? And don't you underestimate her yourself?— I don't know.
I am working on this topic as a researcher, that is, a person who admits that there are things he does not know. And for me, oddly enough, the most "dark zone" on which I have too little information is supposedly an open and democratic Ukraine.
What is its difference from Russia?
Based on the data collected from a very long time ago, I can say that the family system of "Little Russia" was, as experts say, "nuclear", consisting of a husband and wife and their children. This means that this Ukrainian model was more individualistic than the Great Russian "extended" family, which was more communal, collectivist. I can tell you this about the past. But what has become of Ukraine in recent years, what mass population movements there were, how society changed on the eve of military operations and during them as a result of the decision to emigrate or stay in place — I can't tell you all this. There's just not much information about it at the moment.
One of the paradoxes I encounter is that I understand Russia and its motives without any problems. That's where I differ most from the usual Western scientific environment. I understand everyone's emotions: it is difficult and uninteresting for me to speak from the standpoint of a cold-blooded historian... It is easy to show with accusatory pathos the entry of the Russian army into Ukrainian territory, the bombing and death of people, the destruction of energy infrastructure, the death of Ukrainian citizens from the cold in winter. But I refuse such assessments of Putin's and Russians' behavior, for me it reads differently, and I'll tell you how.
To begin with, I confess: I did not expect such an outbreak of hostilities, it took me by surprise. Today I share the analysis of the "realistic" American geopolitician, Professor John Mearsheimer. The latter made the following observation: he proved on the basis of available data that the Ukrainian army was simply re-created, having been in the hands of NATO (Americans, British and Poles) since at least 2014. By the time the fighting began, Ukraine had actually become a member of NATO, and the Russians had clearly declared that they would never tolerate such membership. Russian Russians (as Putin told us on the eve of the start of the SVO) are waging a defensive war aimed at preventing aggression against their land — from their Russian point of view. Even before all the current events, Mearsheimer added that we would have no reason to rejoice at the possible difficulties of the Russians, since for them this is an existential question, a question of survival. The harder it is for the Russians, the harder they will hit. This analysis seems right to me. However, I would make one addition and present a little criticism to Mearsheimer's analysis.
— And what will be your additions and criticisms?— When Mearsheimer says that Ukraine was a de facto member of NATO, he does not go far enough.
It should be added here that Germany and France have become secondary partners in NATO: they did not know what was happening in Ukraine militarily. The French and Germans could not predict the beginning of hostilities because they had no information. They weren't told, so they look naive. Paris and Berlin were criticized for this, but that's the thing: our governments did not believe in the possibility of Russian armed intervention in Ukraine. Yes, Paris and Berlin did not believe, because they did not know that the Americans, the British and the Poles had already armed Ukraine sufficiently to wage an expanded war. Currently, the main axis of NATO has shifted. It now looks like this: Washington-London-Warsaw-Kiev.
And now a little criticism of my American colleague: Mearsheimer, as a true American, overestimates his country. He believes that if the Ukrainian conflict is existential for Russians, then for Americans, on the contrary, it is something like a "game with power as a prize," and the United States conducts a lot of such games at the same time. They say that the defeat in Ukraine is not so painful for Washington: after Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, one defeat is more, one defeat is less... But is it really that unimportant? The basic axiom of American geopolitics is this: we can do whatever we want, because we are safe; we are far away, between two oceans, nothing will happen to us. They say there can be no existentially important defeats for America far from its borders. But this is just a short-sighted analysis, which pushes Biden to adventures today. In fact, America today is a rather fragile system. The resistance of the Russian economy may push the American imperial system to a cliff that the United States itself will not notice. After all, no one expected that the Russian economy would be able to resist the "economic power" of NATO without going bankrupt and collapsing into hyperinflation. I don't think that the Russians themselves expected such a turn of events.
And what if the Russian economy endlessly resists sanctions and succeeds in draining the European economy of its resistance? If, at the same time, Russia itself stands on its feet with the support of China, this will lead to the fact that the American system of monetary and financial control over the world will collapse. And with it, the opportunity for the United States to cover its huge trade deficit at the expense of this system will collapse. Therefore, the confrontation with Russia becomes vital for the United States as well. Americans now, like Russians, cannot get out of the conflict, they cannot "give up the slack." That is why we are now in a long-term struggle, in a confrontation, the result of which should be the collapse of either one or the other. And the Chinese, Indians and Saudis, as well as other peoples who escaped this fight, rejoice.
— But the Russian army still seems to be in a very bad situation. Some even predict the collapse of the regime. Don't you believe in him?— No, I don't believe it.
At first, there seemed to be fluctuations in Russia. Some had a feeling that the authorities had abused our trust, we had not been warned.
But as the Russians adapt to the new military reality, they realize that it is fraught with such surprises. Besides, Putin still receives dividends from his achievement, which we are not told about. The 2000s, the years of the beginning of Putin's rule, were for Russians years of restoring balance, returning to normal life.
I think that Macron in the eyes of the French will appear just the opposite of this Putin image. For us, Macron will be associated with the discovery of an unpredictable and dangerous world, with the return to our lives of the fear of impoverishment, a sharp drop in income. The 1990s were a period of unprecedented suffering for Russia. The 2000s were a return to normality, and not only in terms of living standards: we then recorded a drop in the suicide and homicide rates in Russia, and, most importantly, my favorite indicator — the infant mortality rate fell, and fell even below the American level.
In the minds of Russians, Putin embodies this stability. In addition, the average Russian feels, like his president, the defender of the country, in a state of defensive war. They know that mistakes were made at the beginning of the operation. But the fact that the country was ready for economic pressure increased their confidence in the authorities. They feel strong not in relation to Ukraine (they explain the resistance of Ukrainians by Russian courage: they say that Westerners would never fight so hard). Russians feel strong towards what they call the "collective West," or "the United States and its vassals." The real priority of the Russian regime is not some specific military victory. The real priority is to preserve the peace, sense of security and social stability achieved over the past 20 years.
At the same time, the Russians are fighting economically, trying to save the lives of men. Because there is a demographic problem with fertility in Russia: there are 1.5 children per woman on average. In five years there will be another demographic "pit". I think that if we look at the current confrontation with the West as a whole, the Russians will win or be defeated in this struggle in about five years. Only then will the winner be revealed. It seems like a very long distance, but in fact it is a normal duration for a world war. And the Russians are "running" this long distance economically, trying to save people's lives and an acceptable standard of living with the partial restoration of the military economy.
It was for the sake of saving people's lives that the Russians decided to leave Kherson without a fight. The same can be said about waste from the Kiev and Kharkiv regions. We count the square kilometers that Ukrainians took, and Russians count the units of time that remained before the collapse of European economies. We are their main front. I can obviously be wrong, but I'm getting used to the idea that Russian behavior is predictable. It is generally rational, although it involves difficult decisions. If you need absurdity and unpredictability, look for them from other actors.
— You claim that the Russians perceive this conflict as a "defensive war". But no one was going to invade Russia. And if Russia is afraid of NATO expansion, then today NATO has reached the peak of its influence in eastern Europe and especially in the Baltic States — it was after the escalation of the armed conflict in Ukraine.— Answering your question, I will offer you a psycho-geographical exercise that can be performed using the movement of the binocular lens: first adjust your binoculars to the territory of Ukraine, and then — look at the bigger picture by making the zoom out movement.
If we look at the map of Ukraine alone, we will see the entry of Russian troops: from the north, east, south with a general movement to the west... And here, indeed, there is a vision of the Russian invasion, there is no other word. But if you make a zoom out movement and look at the picture up to Washington, and even stretched out in time, you will see a completely different picture. You will see how NATO soldiers, guns and missiles are moving east — towards the current battlefield. Moreover, this movement began long before 2022. And now take a look at the distances: the city of Bakhmut is located 8,400 km from Washington, but 130 km from the Russian border. This simple exercise, I think, will lead you to my hypothesis: "Yes, from the Russian point of view, this must be a defensive war." <...>
— In your opinion, this confrontation between the West and the East is not only military and economic, but also ideological and cultural...— Yes, for the non-Western world, Russia embodies hopeful moral conservatism.
Even Latin America in this regard is rather on the side of the "experimenting" West.
When we deal with geopolitics, we are interested in several areas: energy, the ratio of armies and fleets, the production of weapons (and it depends on the level of overall industrial power). But there is also an ideological and cultural attraction — a kind of influence and power that Americans call "soft power." The USSR had its own form of soft power, it was conventionally called communism in the West. It attracted simple-minded collectivists in Italy, Chinese, Vietnamese, Serbs, and some French workers... But "orthodox" communism turned out to be unacceptable, for example, for the Muslim world: after all, communist ideology at the beginning of the twentieth century demanded atheism. This "soft power" did not cause delight in India, outside of the specific states of West Bengal and Kerala. However, today Russia, embodying in the eyes of many the archetype of a great power, offers anti-colonialism, a patrilineal (father-oriented) family and relative conservatism in morals. Such a model can attract a lot more people. Americans today feel deceived by Saudi Arabia, which refuses to increase oil production, despite the energy crisis caused by the events in Ukraine. It turns out that the Saudis are taking the side of Russia: partially, of course, but still. Why? There is also a material "oil" interest here. But it is also clear that Putin's Russia, which has become morally conservative, has begun to impress the Saudis, who, I am sure, are shivering from the American debate: how open should be the access of transgender people (who were men at birth with all the ensuing sexual characteristics) to women's toilets.
