Russian experts believe: "For Moscow, the war option always exists"

On December 8, the French newspaper Le Monde published a report titled "For Moscow, the option of war has always existed" – an interview with Fyodor Lukyanov, an expert in international relations and editor-in-chief of the bimonthly magazine Russia in Global Politics. Fyodor Lukyanov is one of the most vocal figures in Russia and abroad, and is regarded as a transmitter and interpreter of the Position of the Russian regime. The full text is excerpted below:

The reporter of Le Monde asked: NATO's eastward expansion into Georgia and Ukraine has never been seriously considered. Why is Russia no longer satisfied with the status quo and demands written assurances?

Fyodor Lukyanov replied: Westerners, especially Europeans, have repeatedly told Russia, "Don't worry, they can't join us..." But at the same time, at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, it was clear that Georgia and Ukraine would become NATO members. This has never been condemned. Today, it has reached the point where Russia has made it clear that it will not accept NATO's eastward expansion, and Ukraine is the red line.

Why is this crisis happening now? The first is because of the significant increase in Western military cooperation with Ukraine, mainly the United States and Turkey. For Moscow, westerners helping Kiev dramatically increase its military might be worse than formally joining NATO.

The second reason is that Russia has decided that the political process for resolving the Conflict in Donbass — the Minsk process — has run out of vitality. Russia also sees no substantive dialogue with Ukraine's current president, Zelenskiy.

Eastern Europe is neutral or antidote

Q: In your opinion, the solution to this problem is the "Finnishization" of Eastern Europe (referring to finland's neutrality during the Cold War). Does the Russian leader think so?

A: "Finnishization" is a fairly broad concept that doesn't sound very well in the West. We can say neutrality, we can say non-alignment, but it must be admitted that no one has a very clear idea of how to implement these principles.

Which countries will be affected? Ukraine is once again in a very special position, and its territory is extremely strategically important. If it becomes a military platform for hostile forces, Russia will see it as an existential threat.

Q: Isn't this demand for neutralization a negation of the will of the governments and peoples of the countries concerned? Ukraine considers NATO to be its security guarantee ...

A: Every country should be aware of its geographical and geopolitical status. Objectively speaking, the status of some countries is limited by their historical, geographical and peripheral strategic balances. Many Ukrainians are in favor of NATO, and so are their leaders. But if a strong neighbour opposes, I see how that wish will strengthen your country's security. Quite the opposite, because this powerful neighbor will have to take preventive action. With the end of the Cold War and the euphoria of the West, all these geopolitical principles were forgotten.

The U.S. and Russian heads of state opened a dialogue

Q: Russia released a message in support of its demands that it was ready for war. Do you think this threat is credible? What form of intervention might Russia take?

A: The war option exists and has always existed in the past. But that doesn't mean use. I don't have access to secret documents, but I'm sure there's a plan for all situations. Pressure could increase if the talks fail, if the U.S. increases its military support for Ukraine. For example, contrary to the current situation, such interventions may be overt and undisguised. This is the most extreme situation, and I don't think Putin wants war, but the situation has reached such a serious point.

Q: Both sides have drawn a "red line." How can the Council of Heads of State make a difference in position? Will Putin be satisfied with conditions like U.S. participation in the Minsk accords?

A: It may not be enough, but the option exists, and Russia didn't want that for a long time. It was the incompetence of the Europeans that caused this change. As for the Meeting of Heads of State, we can recall the outcome of the Geneva Conference in June. After the meeting, Russia and the United States established working groups on the most sensitive issues of cyber and arms control. Although little progress has been made, the groups are working and meeting. It's a way to start a conversation.

Source: Reference News Network