What more to expect of Putin

The past two weeks saw a number of events that, in one way or another, affect Ukraine. They include the opening of the 70th UN General Assembly, where the American and Russian presidents declared their opposite vision of the world, the meeting of the Normandy Four leaders in Paris, where the Russian president agreed to some extent to de-escalate the situation in Donbas, and the direct military involvement of Russia in the Syrian conflict.

The Day interviewed Lilia SHEVTSOVA, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, who shared her opinion of the current global processes and her forecast of the possible implications of the Kremlin’s aggression for Russia self, as well as for Ukraine.

“THE KEY GEOPOLITICAL AND CIVILIZATIONAL CHALLENGE IS RUSSIA’S WAR AGAINST UKRAINE”

“Today, priorities in evaluation of global challenges are considerably changed. Of course, this involves certain negative moments for Ukraine. Among the most recent challenges facing the West, there are three crises: the refugee crisis in Europe, Russo-Ukrainian war, and the situation in the Middle East. And surely, the key geopolitical and civilizational challenge is Russia’s war against Ukraine, which has now entered a latent phase.

“Apparently, the West has no solution and no idea how to solve this crisis, although it does realize its graveness and destructive consequences which its eventual aggravation could bring. And once there is neither solution nor vision of a way out of this trap, there inevitably appears temptation to put Russia’s war against Ukraine, and the entire Ukrainian crisis, on the back burner. This undoubtedly leaves Ukraine in a predicament, as Kyiv is deprived of the West’s deliberate and coordinated support potential. But it has to live with the situation, and this poses new challenges before Ukraine’s diplomacy.”

The Kremlin’s position in relation to the West

“We see that the Kremlin is trying to derive a new post-Crimean survival formula. The Crimean one, which had caused a triumphant euphoria, is not working anymore. What is this new formula about? On the one hand, the urge to maintain the military and patriotic legitimization of the regime and find a new military and political drug for the population. On the other, there is a feeling that Russia cannot be a superpower in its isolated, marginalized status, that is why there is a striving to break out of the isolation and return to the West’s negotiation table. This is like playing two pianos, the splits that can lead to a rupture. What is the cause of it all? The Kremlin (especially with the incumbent leader) cannot go back to the peacetime status, because this step would demand to solve the domestic problems. This, too, is beyond the regime’s powers now. On the other hand, it cannot wage the war much longer. It needs a dialog with the West, the lifting of the sanctions, and gas trade. Moreover, neither the elite nor the population wants the war.

“For the regime, this situation is more dramatic than the one before the collapse of the USSR. At that time, there were more opportunities for self-preservation than now.

“By all appearances, Putin’s attempt to follow the example of the anti-Hitler coalition and make a proposal to Obama, at the backstage of the UN General Assembly, to form a coalition for fighting Islamic fundamentalism resulted from his desire to breach a path back to the table where the great powers sit. Apparently, he failed. And now we see steps leading to an escalation of tension in the Middle East, the use of cruise missiles of the Caspian fleet, and bombardments by Russian air force. As a matter of fact, it is muscle-flexing, a desperate attempt at forcing the West to make room and accept Putin’s rules of the game.

“There also is another important component: Putin’s attempt to project violence not only to convince the West of his vitality. It is an attempt of a waning leader, who causes consternation in society in general and among the elite in particular, to keep this elite in his orbit, prevent its fragmentation, and preserve his own regime.”

The Kremlin’s position in relation to Ukraine

“One of the Kremlin’s secondary goals is to distract the world’s attention from Ukraine. The regime realizes that the Ukrainian factor has been losing its mobilization effect on Russian society. The population is sick and tired of the war against Ukraine and of the Ukrainian theme in the boob tube. Past spring, only 16 percent of respondents in one Russian survey were prepared to make sacrifice for the sake of the state, which shows that the Ukrainian theme has a low degree of consolidation power. Of course, there is a desire to break loose from the sanctions, which are effective and cause a lot of pain to Russia’s economy. There is also a certain desire to swap the Ukrainian crisis for cooperation with Syria. This could explain Putin’s more flexible stand, including his participation at the summit in Paris and certain steps towards the de-escalation of Russia’s pressure in Donbas.”

On the Kremlin’s readiness for a real peaceful withdrawal from the war against Ukraine

“You must have no doubts and no illusions here. It is absolutely clear that Moscow seeks de-escalation and is ready for it, but at the same time it seeks a way to force Ukraine and the West to accept Russia’s peace formula in Ukraine and in Donbas.

“What is it like? Here Moscow is adamant: Ukraine remains in the ‘gray zone,’ outside of NATO membership and outside active cooperation with the EU. Donbas as an enclave must be included in Ukrainian state structures, where it will exercise its destructive, demoralizing influence. And so far the Kremlin will not give up these key goals.”

On the readiness of Europe, Merkel, Hollande, and Obama to accept Russia’s formula of the new peaceful approach to Ukraine

“A very important moment must not be overlooked here. The West wants to solve the so-called ‘Ukrainian crisis’ while preserving Ukraine’s territorial integrity. This is Angela Merkel’s principled position. Nevertheless, we see no resources, desire, possibility, and readiness in the West to restore status-quo-ante. Consequently, the West is looking for an opportunity of a compromise with Russia, with preserving Ukraine’s territorial integrity minus Crimea. It means a persistent, deliberate desire (demonstrated first of all by Merkel) to seek a compromise with Moscow in the framework of pared-down territorial integrity. In other words, Ukraine is being forced to embrace Donbas and honor Russia’s interests in doing so. As a matter of fact, it is an attempt to conclude a deal between Ukraine’s willingness to take Donbas back, and Russia’s interests in preserving its clout in Donbas, which should formally remain in the framework of Ukrainian statehood.

“Importantly, this harbors an absolute antagonism between Russia’s and Ukraine’s strategic interests. The Kremlin has not parted with its wish to keep Ukraine on its geopolitical orbit, or at least in its ‘gray zone.’ Ukraine has opted for a different geopolitical direction, but it remains to see to which extent they will be able to find a tactical compromise. I have serious doubts that a compromise on elections and ‘special status’ is possible while the border remains open and while separatists and armed unites remain in Donbas. And once it does not happen in the near future, the West will have to pretend that a peaceful solution has been achieved.”

On the role of Merkel, Hollande, and Obama in the Ukrainian issue

“We witness a dramatic change of the situation in Europe. Germany has effectively replaced the EU, which proved to be absolutely spineless, unprincipled, and devoid of possibility, readiness, and (most importantly) resources to carry out a definite, clear foreign policy, first of all in international politics, regarding the gravest crisis the EU has ever experienced: the crisis around Ukraine. However, the burden that Merkel undertook switched her out her previous role of the leader of just one European country, a political dwarf albeit an economic giant, and forced her to alter the form of leadership, to assume full responsibility for European politics, and even step in for the totally spineless Obama. But Merkel has apparently reached those limits in her policy and leadership which could have grave consequences for her role and for her clout in Europe. One can hardly expect more courage, guts, and more readiness to assume responsibility for forcing Russia to a more efficient peace in Ukraine. The more so that there is absolutely no support on America’s part.

“One fact here inspires no doubt. Even with the decisive role of Merkel, who shows an example of dynamism and consistency, but with the absence of America’s participation in solving global issues, in particular, the challenge presented by Ukraine’s crisis, it is impossible to solve these problems.”

“RUSSIA IS EFFECTIVELY REPEATING THE MISTAKES MADE BY THE SOVIET LEADERSHIP IN 1979”

How can the Syrian crisis affect the viability of Russia self (which, after its intervention in Syria on al-Assad’s side, was dubbed Rushia, with -shia alluding to Shia Muslims? And how well had Putin learned the lesson of the Afghan drama of the USSR, before he ventured the military intervention in Syria?

“Putin’s actions in Syria suggest two factors at play. The first factor is defined by my colleague Ihor Kliamkin as an ‘improvisation vortex.’ After one improvisation, the annexation of Crimea, the Russian regime is forced to continue improvising, sometimes imprudently, in order to escape the first trap, the ‘improvisation vortex.’ It is about the irresponsible and inadequate policies of a leader who does not consider and weigh the possible effect of his actions. Then the question arises: what to do with the consequences of those actions.

“The second factor is system logic, the logic of autocracy, at the stage which is obviously not just decline, but agony. This is the comeback of the logic, which resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. And now we see that the system has practically resumed the same path which, after the Afghan war, led to 1991. Here Russia practically repeats the mistakes undertaken by the Soviet leadership in 1979, which had far less serious consequences for Russia. Now Putin, by intervening in a war on the side of the Shia minority and posing as the leader of the Shia warriors, effectively antagonized Russia against 1.5 billion strong Sunni majority.

“This is a totally new, dramatic situation with enormous fallout. The Soviet Union had by far greater military and economic potential than the one contemporary Russia has. Beside economy, there is another component, which could result in an outburst of terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism in Russia self. Apparently, these repercussions were not accounted for. But they testify not only to Putin’s pitiful lack of adequacy and his desperate attempts to escape the cul-de-sac he worked himself into. The logic of the very agonizing system is at work as well.”

October 7 is a very strange date for Russia. On the one hand, this is Putin’s birthday, on the other, the day on which a renowned journalist Anna Politkovskaya was killed. What do you think of this coincidence?

“For a number of years, October 7 is a date to remember that not only was the assassination of Politkovskaya completely unraveled (just like the political crimes of the recent years). A very dramatic sequence is formed, with Boris Nemtsov as the most recent victim. We can conclude that not only does this state allow to kill political opponents, but that it is also responsible for their deaths. As if to make the dramatic picture complete, Putin celebrates his birthday by playing hockey. It is just another evidence of the two-facedness and helplessness of the state, which allows political assassinations, as well as of the leader’s desperate desire to show off his power, strength, and energy, which raises doubts about his having that energy, power, vision, and capability to rule the country in question.

“I do not think that, after numerous demonstrations of the naked torso and other story pictures illustrating our leader’s machismo, his hockey talents inspire optimism in people.”

“UKRAINE COULD SERVE BOTH AS AN EXAMPLE AND A LAB SHOWING HOW TO DO MANY THINGS IN RUSSIA”

Recently Lithuania’s former prime minister Andrius Kubilis said that it is crucial for Europe to help Ukraine become successful, for it could inspire Russians to change their country. What do you think about it, could a successful Ukraine change Putin’s regime or is it a very distant prospect – or are other actions needed to help Russia become a democracy?

“We, Russian liberals, have believed for decades, right until the recent events, that Russia and Ukraine must walk the path towards Europe together. Many still believe that Russia must to some extent show Ukraine an example of reforming. How wrong were the liberals! Now it is absolutely obvious that Ukraine has broken free from Russia’s pocket, and is now leading the way. Even if this way is painful and dramatic, and Moscow is trying its best to make it painful and dramatic. But nevertheless, you have broken free, and you will follow your path. To what extent will you become an example for a new Russia? I think you will, when the consolidated yearning of Russian opposition becomes apparent, and when conditions for change are ripe in Russian society. I think that Ukraine more than other new independent states could serve as an example and a lab to show how to do many things in Russia.”

Why?

“Because Russian public opinion is still largely convinced that Ukraine is mainly repeating Russia. There is an opinion, evidently false, that many mental and perceptional processes in Russians and Ukrainians are analogical and similar. Thus you will set an example for our experiments. And it is something quite different when these processes begin in our country. Despite the demoralization of Russian society, despite all the zombiefying and brainwashing, despite the fact that I never saw the society in such a state, not even on the eve of the Soviet Union’s collapse, there still are certain signals, signs of hope. We must admit that we do not understand what is going on in Russian mind, in Russian society. The surveys suggest that almost half of all Russians would like to see Russia as a country with high living standards, not one of the world’s strongest. This suggests certain transformations in political mentality. When 58 percent say they would like to see a real political opposition, it is evidence of certain processes in society.

“And it is just another question of society daring to do what Ukrainians did: tell about their hopes and problems. It is a question of when they are going to say, ‘We are not coming back to our pen. We do not know when the moment will come and what price we will pay for it.’ But here the law of unintended consequences has kicked in: whatever the Kremlin is doing now, all this disastrous adventurism pushes Russia towards self-knowledge, self-identification, towards realizing life’s real problems and the horror they are sinking in.”