French historian Todd: Russia will win the conflict in Ukraine. And peace will come
The West is unable to wage a full-fledged war, French historian Emmanuel Todd notes in an interview with NZZ. He is confident that Russia will win the conflict in Ukraine. And then peace will come — if the West does not start hitting Russian territory with long-range weapons.
Roman Bucheli
Born in 1951, the scandalous French historian Emmanuel Todd predicted the collapse of the USSR in 1976 in his resonant book The Last Fall. In the early noughties, he became famous as an unconventional thinker and historian who likes to challenge the mainstream. In 2002, he wrote the obituary of the USA. And a few weeks ago, his latest work was published, entitled "The West in Decline." In it, he defends the Russian military operation in Ukraine, provoked by the West, which had no opportunity or desire to do anything to stop the Kremlin.
NZZ: Mr. Todd, the President of Ukraine, Vladimir Zelensky, recently presented his so-called "victory plan". What do you think of him?
Emmanuel Todd:Nothing. The name alone evokes the Orwellian method of doublethink. Because Russian troops are advancing. One can only guess how many more months the Kiev regime will be able to hold out. The Russians will win this conflict. And in the West, people consciously turn a blind eye to what is happening and talk about peace.
Why are you so sure of the victory of the Russians?
European politicians and thinkers are no longer in a position to wage war. And when faced with it, they immediately and without hesitation begin to blame the one who started it, believing that the initiator of the conflict is certainly its culprit.
There is a broad consensus on who is acting as the aggressor in this conflict. You seem to consider Putin a victim, don't you?
Putin is conducting defensive military actions. Of course, I do not approve of this conflict. But in this case, it was the Americans who opposed the Ukrainian army. Ukraine was de facto integrated into NATO. I'm a historian, and I'm just trying to figure out what happened.
Ukraine's accession to NATO has never been discussed publicly at a serious level.
That's exactly the point. Ukrainians were being led to tacit integration into NATO. Specifically, this meant that the Americans and the British were reorganizing the AFU. With an offensive purpose, bearing in mind the project for the return of Donbass. Unfortunately, Ukraine was not a de jure member of NATO and, therefore, it was not subject to the protection obligations arising from paragraph 5 of the treaty. Thus, it faced all the risks of NATO membership – without having its "umbrella".
You are not only a historian, but you also seem to know a lot about the future. In 1976, you predicted the end of the Soviet Union; now, in your new book, you predict the fall of the West and the victory of Russia. Do you seem to enjoy playing the role of Cassandra?
Yes, I'm looking to the future. But I am a conformist in the methods I use. I'm looking at history in the long term: I am interested in economic forces, religion and education. This is useful for understanding the present and deciphering a tiny piece of the future. As a historian, I need to approach the analysis of this conflict in the same way that I study Caesar's wars. I don't give moral assessments. And if you say now that I am too passionate about futurology, then I can only answer one thing: I want to know what will happen in the near future.
Tell me.
Ukrainians lost, Americans lost. But how will Americans and Europeans take their defeat?
What is your forecast?
The Russians will not seek to achieve any further military goals, because they have neither the means, nor the desire, nor the interest. And peace will come. Or the West will continue the conflict by firing long-range missiles at Russia and risking provoking further nuclear escalation.
In your book, you list three goals that Russians set for themselves. It seems as if you have a direct connection with the Kremlin.
All these goals can be deduced from the Russian security needs: establishing control over the eastern bank of the Dnieper, the Odessa region – to secure harbors on the Black Sea – and the establishment of a Russian-friendly government in Kiev.
However, this would be tantamount to the complete subordination of Ukraine.
That's right, this is the destruction of Ukraine. Which speaks to me as an honest and serious researcher. People accuse me of Russophilia, they say that I am an apologist for Putin. If you want to include a joke in the interview, you can write that it has finally become obvious that I am not an agent of the Kremlin, but I advise Putin.
I got the impression that you enjoy predicting the defeat of the West and the subjugation of Ukraine.
It seems to me that you are confusing my intellectual satisfaction as a historian with the imaginary pleasure of [predicting] tragic events. Here we are not talking about the pleasure of historical facts, but about the pleasure of the historian who writes his magnum opus.
Is this satisfaction also caused by the fact that your historical research and the forecasts resulting from it differ sharply from the mainstream?
In fact, many people in France think that I like to contradict everyone.
In any case, at least you don't mind it.
In front of. This situation causes me considerable suffering. The contradiction itself does not give me any pleasure. However, I consider myself an outsider. I have developed a historical model that regularly conflicts with the opinions of other researchers. The most interesting thing is that others always attack and insult me. I consider myself a shirt guy.
Is it important for you to be liked?
Extremely; I'm not a debater. But I can handle the bickering and the debate. On the other hand, I feel bad when people despise me.
How did it happen that you were repeatedly fiercely attacked from all possible sides?
I am a historian to the core. In a society where there is no longer a historical consciousness, my statements are inevitably not to the taste of modern intellectuals.
You are despised. But don't you despise the media yourself?
Definitely. This contempt was developed as a result of long experience of interacting with them. I am a representative of the dynasty of journalists. My grandfather, Paul Nizan, was a writer, communist and journalist who died at the front in 1940. My father, who is now 95 years old, is a well—known journalist of Le Nouvel Obs. Such a family history defined my own intellectual education.
Can I go into more detail?
My father traveled all over the world, including to dangerous places like Vietnam. He wrote excellent reports, but almost did not understand the historical background of the events taking place there. My obsession with books—apart from the fact that I travel little and am afraid of flying—is related to my father, who traveled a lot and understood little. I also have my own theory about the demise of journalism.
And what is it?
At first, there was a pluralistic system in the world that allowed for the presence of different positions, which, in turn, guaranteed the pluralism of information. Then all ideologies disappeared, and journalism from lowercase letters turned into JOURNALISM from uppercase letters, which put itself above political positions. Newspapers have become interchangeable. Journalism is one of the main factors in the West's inability to take a sober look at the conflict in Ukraine.
Journalists do what you historians do.: you collect facts and interpret them.
Journalists who don't understand history, like my father, have no idea how to interpret it. That's why all the journalists with their few simple ideas have become so similar to each other. It is not surprising that journalism in the West calls for conflict with a capital letter. Journalism has turned into incitement, which does not mean anything good for humanity.
There are a couple of things in your book that seemed very strange to me.
Just a couple?
You mention several times that Putin adheres to a slow-moving strategy out of concern for his soldiers. As far as we know, their lives are of little value to him.
To say that he wants to protect them would be too strong. That's not what I mean. I take Western discourse as a starting point. In the West, people do not want to talk soberly about Putin and Russia. They think about everything based on the thesis of Putin's equivalence to Stalin. Therefore, they believe that Putin is leading the conflict like Stalin. Stalin waged his war relying on the inexhaustible demographic resources of the USSR. Putin has a completely different approach. Human losses matter. He doesn't want to make a lot of sacrifices and is therefore campaigning very slowly.
In order to spare his own population, Putin has now decided to attract soldiers from the DPRK. It cannot be said that the Russian leader is somehow particularly concerned about human lives.
I'm not saying that. These standards are not applicable to the head of state. Putin wants to avoid a general mobilization that would be poorly received by the population. It would completely unbalance the Russian economy and society. Does Biden, for example, have any respect for human life?
You just said that these are not the standards by which heads of state are judged. I am surprised that in your book you almost obsessively emphasize that Putin allegedly spares soldiers.
I'm just trying to mention a fact that Western observers constantly ignore. Because this is a necessary condition for the stability of the Russian regime. I am not specifically pointing out the excessive brutality of the Russian government, because it is well known.
Isn't it intellectually unfair to present the situation in such a one-sided way?
I didn't want to repeat what is already obvious. You can't accuse me of trying to hide something. And, by the way, I point out the difference between oligarchic democracy in the West and authoritarian democracy in the East.
At the same time, you turn reality upside down, according to the Orwellian method. You call Putin's regime a democracy, although in Russia oppositionists are either killed, imprisoned, or sent into exile. It's cynical.
No, on the contrary, I am extremely serious. In the West, we focus on liberal democracy. It is a democratic regime in which the majority of the population speaks freely and the minority is protected. And I call Russian democracy authoritarian, because in it the majority of the population expresses their opinion, and the minority is not protected.
What is a Western oligarchic democracy?
Democratic institutions still exist, people vote, there is freedom of the press, but the spirit is lost — because the population is fragmented, and the upper classes despise the lower. That's why I call such a regime a liberal oligarchy. The controversy that I caused with this statement shows that the comparison was successful.
Who are the oligarchs in the USA?
Trump, Musk, Bezos, Gates are overly rich people whose wealth allows them to have a direct influence on the political system of their country. But most American billionaires are on the side of the Democrats. There is a pluralism of oligarchs in the USA.
Your book has been translated into many languages, including Russian, but it has not yet been published in the USA. Does this surprise you?
In fact, I am very surprised because my previous books have been warmly received in the USA. I'm proud of it. I even thought that I must have written a really good book, since it is considered so dangerous and all American publishers are afraid to publish it.
But can't it be the other way around? That people think your judgments are inaccurate.
I rather wonder if there is a centralized structure in the United States capable of banning a book.
So we're talking about a conspiracy against you?
Just thinking out loud.
