Filenews 6 March 2022 - by Nicoletta Kourousi
"Huge mistake" of the Russian President, which may end up in his "Waterloo", characterized the Russian invasion of Ukraine the experienced Professor of International Politics and Strategic Studies of the Department of International, European and Regional Studies of Panteion University, Dr. Constantinos Koliopoulos.
In an interview with "F", he argued that Russia is facing a very problematic combination of objectives, namely on the one hand to occupy territory and overthrow the Ukrainian government and on the other hand not to kill many Ukrainian citizens.
He explained that "destroying a country and exterminating its population is easy. Things get complicated, however, when you invade a country supposed to be a liberator, because there you cannot exterminate the population, so you automatically limit your military effectiveness."
He dwelt on Vladimir Putin's objectives, such as the occupation of Kiev, Kharkov and the entire coastal zone of the country, and stressed that he "does not see a strategy for Moscow's exit from the war" and that "the conflict with the West will be perpetuated", while, as he said, "he also does not see how the Kremlin will manage to maintain control over Ukraine".
At the same time, he underlined that we are entering a period of widespread instability at a global level, while he also warned of the possibility of World War III if NATO as a whole or its members individually, starting with the US, send military forces to Ukraine or if they impose a zone prohibiting Russian flights over the country.
Regarding the west's stance, Dr. Koliopoulos pointed out that the whole issue started from the West's refusal to take into account Russia's concerns. He argued that while the US had been clumsy in managing peace without the necessary diplomatic temperament, it has so far been skilful in managing the war, showing determination.
He also did not fail to mention that "the invasion of Ukraine gives us a diplomatic opportunity to highlight the similarities with the invasion and occupation of Cyprus by Turkey". He underlined that in general "the conflict between Russia and the West is not in the interest of Hellenism", but argued that "once the conflict begins, Hellenism should behave as part of the West".
-What are the causes of the crisis in Ukraine? How did we get to Russia's invasion of this country?
-The whole thing starts from the refusal of the West to take into account Russia's concerns. One thing, however, is this and another thing is the Russian invasion. Whatever may have been "right" russia had lost on the day it invaded Ukraine. Now the discussion is done from a different basis.
Let me make it clear: the only military adversary NATO can have in Europe is Russia. So whatever the Western powers claim, that NATO expansion does not threaten Moscow, it would inevitably create threats of threat to the Russians. To the question "but Ukraine has no right to join NATO if that is what its people want", the answer is that no one has the automatic right to join an international organisation. Turkey does not have an automatic right to join the European Union either. The Member States of each organisation shall decide which State to accept. One issue is freedoms within Ukraine, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and another issue is admission to a military organisation such as NATO. These cannot be ignored. It should be said that NATO enlargement was seen as a threat by Russians of all political hues. That is, it is not only the fanatical nationalists or Vladimir Putin's circle, but even liberal opponents of the Russian President, who saw Ukraine's eventual admission to NATO as a vital threat to Russia.
Unfortunately, America no longer seems to have a diplomatic temperament. A diplomat like Kissinger would have compromised with Russia on the basis of Ukraine's non-admission to NATO, recognising that Ukraine is in the narrow grip of Russia's vital interests. The present American policy as it is practiced refused to do so.
But we have ceased to discuss these things since Putin invaded Ukraine. As soon as the Russian President's address of 21 February can be interpreted as questioning Ukraine's right to exist as a state. So we have an invasion with potentially limitless goals. There can be no debate on this.
-Why did Russia now choose to attack Ukraine? Does it have to do with the fact that Russia, as a declining revisionist power, whose influence is predicted to decline in the coming decades, has at this point in time seen the right opportunity to overturn faits accomplis against it?
-If we accept that the invasion is the result of rational thought – because doubts are growing more and more about whether Vladimir Putin is 100% rational – then Russia may be acting as Austria-Hungary did in the early 20th century in the Balkans. That is, as a great power, which is on the path of decline and is trying to confirm its role as a great power, moving aggressively.
But there is also the possibility that the Russian President does not have a good flow of information anymore, that he will be significantly isolated and that his advisers will present him with a very rosy picture. It was mentioned, among other things, that he may not pay attention to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergey Lavrov, an excellent connoisseur of international politics.
-What is Russia's strategy in Ukraine?
-Destroying a country and exterminating its population is easy. Armies, which have such military purposes, are easy to achieve their mission, like Turkey in 1974. Things get complicated when you invade supposedly as a liberator, because there you cannot exterminate the population, so you automatically limit your military effectiveness. This is what happened to the Americans in Afghanistan and it has slowed down their war effort, this seems to be happening now to the Russians in Ukraine. Their political purpose, the reform of Ukraine, is such that it does not allow them to use the full range of military means at their disposal. And that is why an image of indolence and perhaps incompetence of the Russian army appears.
-What are Moscow's strategic objectives in general?
-Russia has historically not been limited to one point on the horizon, it cannot be limited to Europe and not deal with Asia and cannot be limited to Asia and not deal with Europe.
-How do you see Russia's action on the battlefield? Does it achieve its goals?
-It is too late. While the Russians have been fighting for a week and still have not been able to occupy Kiev. We didn't see the large armatic marches with great heavy artillery support. Moscow cannot do this because of the objectives I have just mentioned. For example, it is one thing to march to West Germany, where you are not interested in population losses, and another now to sister Ukraine. It is a very problematic combination of objectives, on the one hand to occupy territory, to overthrow the government and at the same time not to kill many Ukrainians.
-The attacker has the comparative advantage where he will stop. How far do you think Vladimir Putin will go?
-It seems to have the following objectives:
>The occupation of Kiev, Kharkov and the entire coastal zone of Ukraine.
>The last zone can be kept forever, in case it is occupied, thus cutting Ukraine off from the sea and completely diversifying it.
-What factors do you think will judge the result?
-The events on the battlefield, i.e. the Ukrainian resistance, which was much greater than the Russians expected and a possible Russian escalation. Secondly, the attitude of the Russian people and, thirdly, the attitude of the Russian elite, which is around Putin and supports his power, such as members of the armed forces and the security services.
- How do you think Russia could achieve its goals without invading and how do you assess the outcome of the decision to invade?
- Russia had in any case achieved its objectives to a significant extent. Crimea had been conquered and no one was talking about it. In the East it strengthened the separatists, who controlled eastern Ukraine, and Ukraine's accession to NATO was not on the table. No one dared to put Ukraine in NATO, because they were afraid of a Russian reaction. I think Putin has made a huge mistake, I don't see an exit strategy from the war, I don't see how he can get out of it. The conflict with the West will be perpetuated and I also do not see how it will manage to maintain control over Ukraine.
-Can we say that the invasion of Ukraine will be Putin's "Waterloo"?
-Yes it can, very likely.
-How did you see the U.S. attitude after the invasion?
-The U.S., while it seemed clumsy in managing peace, seemed skilful in managing the war. The UNITED States has shown determination and this in turn has enabled Europe to show determination.
"Europe can only become energy independent if it turns decisively to nuclear energy"
-Similarly, how did you see the EU's stance and how do you think it will lose less from the crisis?
-Europe will have a huge economic cost, which is why it cannot do much, since it is energy dependent. And lest we kid ourselves, Europe can only become energy independent if it turns decisively to nuclear energy. As long as this is not done, Europe will inevitably be dependent on hydrocarbons. And, where are there many and readily available hydrocarbons? In Russia. So Europe will certainly have an economic cost.
On the other hand, and this demonstrates the magnitude of Putin's failure, Europe is strategically reactivating, re-arming Germany, whose armed forces were almost funny. So has NATO, from where it was brain dead, as Emmanuel Macron said, has suddenly been resurrected. So what Putin did was to resurrect NATO and re-arm Germany, which is a terrible failure.
"It gives us a diplomatic opportunity"
-What do you think should be the attitude of Cyprus and Greece on the issue, in order to lose as little as possible from the crisis?
-The invasion gives us a diplomatic opportunity to highlight the similarities with the invasion and occupation of Cyprus by Turkey. As far as the sending of military material from Greece to Ukraine is concerned, I do not have strong views. I am neither particularly in favour nor particularly against. As the days go by, the more I see it more positively, it does not make much difference, nor does it increase the risks for Greece, as a NATO member country. Whatever Russia was to do to us, it would do to us anyway.
-There is also an issue of economy though. How do you see it?
-Yes, as we mentioned for Europe in general, there will be economic consequences. The conflict between Russia and the West is not in the interest of Hellenism for two reasons:
> Firstly, why Turkey is being strategically upgraded and,
> Secondly because Hellenism is losing economic and political opportunities. However, once the conflict begins, Hellenism must behave as part of the West. We cannot be neutral, why be neutral? With this Russia you do not want to have many contacts.
"We are entering a period of widespread instability"
-At a global level, are we entering a period of increased instability, after this crisis?
-We have entered a long period of instability. Let me tell you the truth, ten years ago, when I was in the USA with a group of academics and we were asked to write a text, I saw the instability coming, but I expected it to take a little longer. Eventually the instability started in 2014, much faster. We have been in instability for several years, which is expected to increase exponentially.
The international system is not currently multipolar and will not become multipolar. There is clearly one number one power, the US and one clear number two, China. China may be able to outdo the US, it may or may not, that is, it can grow old before it succeeds. All the other actors fall short of power, they are regional actors.
-Are we heading towards the Third World War?
May! If NATO as a whole or its members individually, starting with the United States, do NOT send military forces to Ukraine, we will not have World War III. But if they do that, then we may all be blown up in the air. There is already some nonsense, both on the part of Zelensky and on the part of some members of the British Parliament, about the NATO-led imposition of a no-go zone for Russian flights over Ukraine. This may lead to World War III. Fortunately, for the time being the NATO-led are ruling it out.
