Filenews 7 March - Rafaela Dimitriadi
It is difficult for Putin not to proceed with his invasion of Ukraine to the end, Kostas Ifantis, Professor of International Relations at Panteion University, appreciated. In an interview with philenews, he analyses why the Russian President is seeking full control of Ukraine, saying Moscow's goal is broader than cancelling the country's NATO membership prospects.
At the same time, he described Putin's threatening reminder of his nuclear arsenal as more immoral than the invasion of Ukraine, recalling that "the only country that has threatened in the post-Cold War era with the use of nuclear weapons is North Korea".
He also explains why the sanctions imposed on Russia are unprecedented, stressing that the foreign exchange reserves gathered by Moscow will not help to hold out for long. The severe sanctions are expected to have an impact on the West's economy as well, according to Mr. Yfantis. He believes, in fact, "that the energy price crisis that began last autumn was deliberately triggered by Moscow to serve this planning."
-Because Russia declares its refusal to admit Ukraine to NATO. What are Moscow's concerns?
One could discuss Russia's legitimate concerns about NATO enlargement in some respects. Obviously, with the historical weight of the Cold War confrontation and the ideological but mainly the strategic defeat of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact, the current leadership in Moscow is taking on the expansion of the Alliance in terms of threat. But this whole debate is in its essence a pretext. Firstly, enlargement has been completed for many years. Secondly, it is more than clear that no one has seriously discussed Ukraine's NATO prospects after 2008. Third, Russia had already invaded and mutilated Ukraine since 2014 and maintained military control of the areas it either annexed, such as Crimea, or "autonomous". But the main thing is that Russia had no threat to deal with. Neither NATO collectively nor the US has threatened Russia. On the contrary! As early as the 1990s, the West only helped Russia financially with billions of dollars of programs and investments and strategies. The NATO-Russia cooperation and security agreement in 1997 and the establishment of the NATO-Russia Council in 2002 with Putin's signature set out a very substantial framework for cooperation and consultation. At the same time, the West barely annoyed Moscow when it razed Chechnya to the ground with mass bombings or when it dismembered Moldova and Georgia.
- Russia with the invasion seeks control of Ukraine, what are its goals, what does it want to gain?
Moscow's objective is therefore broader than to negate the unlikely prospect of Ukraine's accession to NATO in every respect. It seeks full control of Ukraine. As things stand at present, control includes full military control of the country. We can hardly imagine that Putin will not go all the way to the end. If he does not do so, however overwhelming the defeat may be, Ukrainians will never settle for an undemocratic and violent regime like Putin's. And the part that he will possibly decide to leave out of the Russian "occupation" will be a permanent thorn in Russia's side. Beyond the operational and narrow political dimension, the question of why Moscow would want to control Ukrainian territory has only one answer. It, too, has geopolitical references. Putin's Russia is an unsatisfactory country. His address on the eve of the invasion is revealing of the historical and strategic culture that accompanies Putin's view of Russia's place in the world and competition with the liberal democratic West. Putin believes that in all the pivotal milestones after World War I, Russia – imperial, Soviet, post-Soviet – was wronged by history and by the West. What it seeks is a geopolitical renegotiation of Russia's position in the world and believes that the only way to do so is by using military force as it lacks any other soft power tool that could be attractive to the countries of Eastern Europe. The only countries that support Russian policy are countries whose regimes do not want the democratic influence of the liberal West near them.
- The European Union has imposed sanctions against Russia, how much will these sanctions affect the country, what are the consequences? Will the West also have repercussions because of these sanctions?
The package of sanctions that has been imposed is truly unprecedented and there is no doubt that the cost to the Russian economy will be significant. The $630 billion foreign exchange reserves it has amassed just with an eye on sanctions may sound like a lot, but they won't last long. The needs of a country of continental proportions with a poorly competitive industrial and production base – with the exception of the energy sector – are enormous, especially when its economy is fully integrated and dependent on the global financial system. The consequences for the West will also be significant as it is almost certain that the growth prospects of the European economy, which has also suffered the consequences of the pandemic crisis, will be damaged. High inflation and rising production costs will hit European economies. It is also certain that Russian planning also took account of this juncture in the hope that the prospect of an economic recession would undermine the unity of the Union in the face of Moscow's violent revisionism. As it is clear that the energy price crisis that began last autumn was deliberately caused by Moscow to serve this planning.
- What will be the impact of a long-term war on Russia?
The consequences for Russia are already visible and will become more and more painful, not the longer the conflicts last, but they will continue after the invasion is complete. The next day will not bring the de-escalation of the confrontation. The sanctions will hit the Russian economy and its growth prospects crucially within the framework of global markets. The analysis by some that China and possibly other countries will support the Russian economy is rather superficial. In the short term there will be support but in the medium term their economic interests will impose a discreet at first but increasingly clear distancing from a country that is destabilising the global economic system on which their prosperity depends. Already the big Chinese banks have begun to restrict dollar transactions for imports of Russian goods while the Chinese Cross-Border Interbank Payment System (CBIPS) is far from being considered an alternative to SWIFT. Alongside the economic impact, even more important are the geopolitical and cultural consequences. Russia is alienating itself from the world community with the well-known few exceptions of undemocratic and authoritarian regimes. Very soon we will see members of the Russian intellectual elite trying to escape from a depressing and oppressive past. This does not mean that Putin will not enjoy support. A majority of Russian public opinion will remain manipulated by controlled information and propaganda and will stand by it for at least some time. Geopolitically, Russia will experience the reconstruction of the West and its attempt to immediately formulate a new doctrine of containment. This time, in fact, contrary to what happened in the Cold War 1950s, this doctrine will be endorsed by all the states of Europe, even the neutral ones such as Finland and Sweden. A new confrontation will mathematically lead to another Russian decline. The correlation of power at all levels is overwhelming for Moscow.
- After the dispatch of assistance from NATO countries to Ukraine (military weaponry), the Russian President threatened that his response to them will be harsh, what are his next moves?
NATO member states reacted in the only way they could react. They increased their military readiness in the face of the Russian threat and began to rapidly try to reinforce the unequal struggle of the Ukrainian armed forces. There is no other option than this mobilization. Russia has emerged as a revisionist power for the whole of Europe and not just for Ukraine. Apart from any discussion of morality, Europe and the Euro-Atlantic community as a whole have reacted for reasons that clearly have to do with their security interests. In the face of overt and unprovoked Russian aggression, what is at stake is not the fate of Ukraine but the future of Europe and its ability to develop freely. The threats made by Putin are simply the confirmation of a reality that wants Russia to shape the European security agenda according to its revisionist ambitions. The more Moscow threatens, the more Europe and the US will rally.
- The Russian President, -indirectly- threatened to use nuclear weapons, and this because of the attitude of the West as he says. A development that has caused panic throughout Europe. How would you characterize this threat from Putin?
The menacing reminder of its nuclear arsenal is strategically more immoral and more irrational than even the invasion of Ukraine itself. Irrational, because no one threatened Russia but also because this overt threat could provoke similar reactions on the part of the western nuclear powers. And strategically immoral because as early as the 1960s nuclear competition was founded on the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Putin put in the crisis that he himself caused the possibility of total destruction. The only country that has threatened in the post-Cold War era with the use of nuclear weapons is North Korea.
- In the phase we are in, there can be a peaceful conclusion through the negotiations, what is your assessment?
Russia has no inclination to negotiate. The conditions it sets for a meaningful debate are the unconditional surrender of Ukraine. One wonders what could be the subject of the negotiation. In any case, I do not think that there will be any intention of negotiation on the part of Moscow. If there had been, it would have been seen before the start of the invasion when the American and European leaderships were going back and forth to Moscow and all they were receiving were lies. Moscow will discuss a ceasefire once it has achieved its goals on the ground. Any diplomatic settlement follows the military "solution" that Russia will impose on the ground.
- How different will the world be after this war?
We have already entered a state of permanent escalation between the West and Russia. The strategic competition that has already begun to emerge will have significant geopolitical consequences. Already countries that know first-hand what Russian military intervention means, such as Georgia and Moldova, have applied for membership of the European Union. It is the least move they could make to improve their security conditions, without this meaning that Moscow will be discouraged. What may change the Russian strategic calculation is the revitalisation of the transatlantic link. Although everyone is talking about the strategic emancipation of Europe, it will not have the characteristics of autonomy from the US. The use of brute force in Ukraine highlights the importance of the American presence, guarantee and leadership in Europe. Only this time, the Europeans will be strengthened militarily without waiting for American pressure to do so, but within NATO. What Russia has done is to change the perception of Europe of the Europeans themselves. The European reality is now being understood in military terms and in terms of security. The European Union and its economic identity are being marginalised. Germany's decision to increase its defence spending overnight demonstrates a rapid realisation that without hard power marginalisation is inevitable.
- Do you think Ukraine will be able to resist and defeat Putin?
Given the huge power imbalance, it is unlikely that unrestricted Russian violence will not prevail. Ukraine and its President, however, have already become symbols in the consciousness of every democratic citizen.
Kostas Yfantis, Professor of International Relations at Panteion University and Director of the Institute of International Relations (IAC).
