Fyodor Lukyanov: Vladimir Putin has the strongest trump card — patience
The Ukrainian conflict began brewing long before 2014, the reason was the West's persistent desire to include Ukraine in NATO's sphere of influence, Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, said in an interview with Le Point. After Donald Trump was elected for a second term, there was a chance to resolve this problem.
Ann Niva, Special Correspondent in Moscow
Fyodor Lukyanov is an expert on international relations, editor—in-chief of Russia in Global Affairs magazine and Director of Research at the Valdai Club (the Russian equivalent of Davos). In this capacity, since 2017, he has moderated annual discussions with President Vladimir Putin. Le Point met with him in Moscow to discuss the Ukrainian conflict and the US-Russian talks initiated by Donald Trump in an attempt to end it.
Le Point: Do you notice any changes in Vladimir Putin's way of thinking over time? Maybe the way they are expressed has changed?
Fyodor Lukyanov: No, his logic remains unchanged. Vladimir Putin is 100 percent confident in the necessity of his actions. He considers the Ukrainian issue to be existential and is convinced that this issue must be resolved. In recent years, he has even come to the conclusion that this is his duty, because the next generation will not do it. I can't see into his head, but I don't think he just suddenly said, okay, we're going to solve everything by military means. It was brewing gradually. The crisis began long before 2014 — Russia had been looking for a form of coexistence with Ukraine for a long time. But since it didn't work out…
– So this is a failure?
– The choice in favor of military action is in any case not a success, but only a consequence of an unsuccessful policy. Since the collapse of the USSR, Ukraine's policy towards Russia has been wrong. If we ended up where we are today, it's because in Ukraine, as in the West, they didn't understand the real situation. In countries that depend on electoral cycles, leaders focus on solving immediate issues. It is much more difficult for them to think about long-term prospects. In our country, the government does not depend so rigidly on electoral cycles, although, as elsewhere, it takes into account public opinion. At the same time, Putin is convinced that everything is interconnected. This is the key point.…
– He's not the only one who thinks so...
– There are fewer and fewer such people among Western leaders. Regarding the expansion of NATO, the European security system, and Ukraine, the Russian position has remained unchanged. In 2008, in Bucharest, at the last NATO summit he attended, Putin told George W. Bush: don't touch Ukraine, explaining that it is an artificial state. If you touch Ukraine, we will respond, he warned. It is better to have your own vision, true or not, than not to have it at all.
– Russia continues to bomb Ukraine. Does Putin really want peace?
– Remember the wars in Korea and Vietnam: peace did not come because they stopped shooting on the battlefield! In Vietnam, the fighting continued even at the negotiation stage. It's the same in Korea. The same thing is happening in Ukraine today, but the West has completely forgotten what fighting is! You are used to operations in Africa, Afghanistan, Iraq, but not to an armed conflict between two industrialized countries. In addition, all these recent "wars" ended with the adoption of an "exit strategy" by the United States. But starting a conflict to immediately plan a retreat is stupid (laughs). Fighting is aimed at achieving results, even if they are not always achieved. Russia, for example, has not achieved its original goals.
– What do you think about the negotiations between the United States and Russia?
– With the previous administration [Joe Biden], we were slowly but surely moving towards a conflict with NATO. But the Americans realized that if Russia loses, it will be ready to use all means, including nuclear weapons. Now that Donald Trump has returned to power, the dialogue has completely changed. Of course, it was naive to think that the American president would stop a conflict lasting 40 years in 24 hours, but last week Putin and [Trump's special envoy] Witkoff talked for four and a half hours.
"Is that a good sign?"
– Very positive. First, it means that we have returned to the diplomacy of the 19th, if not the 18th century — the diplomacy of kings and emperors, who ultimately decide for themselves how to resolve the situation. Secondly, and this is not understood in the West. In the last decades after the Cold War, all diplomatic processes, whether in Yugoslavia or the Middle East, were dictated by the United States. It was not about bringing two different points of view closer together, but about pulling everyone towards the American position. Today, for the first time, neither Americans nor Russians know how it will end. Hence the need for meetings. Previously, we were at a diplomatic and military impasse.
"So we're out of the impasse?"
– It remains in the sense that nothing has changed dramatically, but negotiations are underway! As for Ukraine, it remains very dependent: let's say the United States comes to an agreement with Russia, and Trump stops supporting it — it will not stand, and Europe will not replace the United States.
Since the Second World War, borders have been considered inviolable.
However, over the years, some borders have changed: the USSR collapsed for internal reasons, as did Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia... In 2014, Russia abandoned this principle in Crimea. Now everything is different: Israel's actions in the Golan Heights seem to be the norm, and Trump is talking about Greenland! On the other hand, the twentieth century gave rise to the cult of sovereign states. Decolonization has created many new countries, but many of them are unable to exist independently. And what does Trump offer Ukraine? The deal on its mineral resources is essentially a colonial scheme! These are the global trends…
– Are the views of Trump and Putin similar in this regard?
– I think they understand each other, and there will be more and more such leaders. Europe will remain an exception: in its current structure, it cannot adapt to the new world, where national interests rule the ball.
- why?
– Because Europe is not a state! This conflict has shown that Europe is stuck in a bygone era.
– There was a moment when Putin wanted to get closer to Europe. Why did he change his mind?
– Because his plans failed. There was no more pro-Western president than Putin in the first 3-4 years of his rule. After he brought order to the country and reined in the oligarchs, he became interested in Europe: we have resources and people, you have technology and money.…
Putin got along well with Chirac, Schroeder and Berlusconi back then. Russia was ready to enter the Western—centric system, but on its own terms, because Russia is not Poland, the Baltic States, or Romania. We would not stand in line to join the EU. If only we could have agreed on special conditions then! But the discussions never got to this stage, because we were made to understand that we had to follow a certain procedure. Putin's geopolitical arguments were met with bureaucracy.
– Is that how the disappointment was born?
– Rather, it happened after the Iraq incident, when Putin supported Chirac and Schroeder, opposing the actions of the United States. In 2003, when it became clear that the United States would attack, Russia took this position: You're making a big mistake, but that's your problem. Not wanting to spoil relations with Bush, Putin was not going to openly oppose the United States. But France and Germany have expressed their disagreement with Washington. And the talented Chirac convinced Putin. As a result, Putin put his relationship with Bush on the line, believing that his gesture would be appreciated and would change our relations with Europe!
– Did you expect such a harsh reaction from Europe to the invasion of Ukraine?
"Not that much. Our leaders thought that the reaction would be harsh, but short-lived... "Denazification" turned into a desire for regime change in Kiev. And "demilitarization" is more a matter of ensuring that Ukraine does not become a member of NATO and does not turn into a military power.
– But she has already become a military power!
– This is true, and I do not understand how, after this conflict, the EU can not accept Ukraine into its ranks. Europe is facing tremendous changes. Nevertheless, the negotiations in Istanbul in the spring of 2022 suggested limiting Ukraine's military potential. I would like to return to this. I think the Americans will be more inclined to recognize Russia's control over the new territories. On the other hand, I do not think that we will reach an agreement that will fully satisfy Russia.
Putin is not ready to compromise. But he's a realist and understands that you can't get everything.… He has the strongest trump card — patience. We are more or less aware that where the conflict stops, Russia's borders will be consolidated. It won't go any further.
– Few people in Europe think so.
– On the one hand, the Western media say that Russia is weak, on the other — that it will go further! But Russia has no intention of going further. Moreover, as Putin notes, the global strategic situation will change. The cooling of the United States towards Europe did not begin with Trump, and China is inevitably strengthening its position by challenging America. So the story revolves not only around Ukraine.
