The view from Russia: The Ukraine conflict is entering its final phase

As Washington shifts the Ukraine burden to Europe, Andrey Sushentsov examines the EU’s strategic limits and its costly confrontation with Russia

Andrey Sushentsov, dean of the Faculty of International Relations at MGIMO and a member of the Scientific-Expert Council under the Security Council of the Russian Federation, discusses why Western Europe is so afraid of a direct confrontation with Russia, how the US is shifting the burden of the Ukraine crisis onto the EU, why the “pyramid of trust” surrounding Kiev is crumbling, and when the Ukraine conflict might come to an end.

His interview, first published in Russian by TASS, was translated and edited by the RT team.

America sails away, Europe gets the bill

Evgeny Kuznetsov: You have noted that the US is seeking to extricate itself from the Ukraine crisis by shifting the burden onto Western Europe. If Washington does indeed distance itself, are these Europeans prepared, politically and economically, to assume the role of Ukraine’s principal “security guarantor”?

Read more

Andrey Sushentsov: The US strategy in the Ukrainian crisis initially reflected its archetype as a maritime power employing a “continental sword” in its confrontation with a major continental power. This involves a neighboring country with military resources, which the maritime power supports in order to weaken its rival.

Ukraine was well suited to this role, as a large state with substantial armed forces, motivated to confront Russia. But the limitation of such a strategy is that you can’t fully control the behavior of the “sword.” Nor is it entirely resource-efficient, there’s a limit to the resources that can be allocated to it, and if no turning point is reached in the confrontation, further support yields no additional gains in effectiveness.

The Americans realized early on that many of their interests in this crisis had been achieved and prepared to withdraw. They did what a maritime power usually does when it decides to turn its attention elsewhere as they sailed back to their own region. The main difference between a maritime power and a continental power lies in the freedom to choose where to deploy military forces. A maritime power can choose where to deploy them and launch strikes across various parts of the world’s oceans. This is usually carried out in the form of raids, as large-scale expeditionary campaigns rarely prove successful. The US decided it was time to leave.

But they didn’t want the withdrawal to be accompanied by the collapse of the Ukrainian regime. The US incorporated its withdrawal and the reorientation of its priorities towards East Asia into its policy towards its NATO allies. It handed over responsibility for supporting Ukraine to them and assumed the role of “moderator” as a negotiator who, rather than being the instigator of the crisis, is steering it towards a resolution. US strategic documents state an interest in bringing the Ukraine crisis to an end.

Yet the US behaved treacherously toward both Ukraine and its European allies, saddling them with this burden without warning. The Western Europeans lack military resources, technological capabilities, strategic thinking, and awareness of their own interests comparable to those of the Americans, qualities that enable them to weigh up causes and consequences, to discern what is achievable and what is not by military means, and to identify where their bloc’s interests lie in this crisis.

These Europeans currently have a financial instrument of considerable weight at their disposal, in essence, the only one they can draw upon. They are using it wastefully, given the domestic debt of most major European states is approaching or exceeding 100% of GDP. They can’t obtain external compensation for their military expenditure, and there’s no hope of a Ukrainian victory.

If there were any hope, they would be counting on recouping their losses through Russian resources, through new deals with Russia on new terms. None of these hopes is being realized.

Read more

Moreover, due to a lack of strategic experience, lost as a result of American patronage and the nuclear umbrella, these Europeans are beginning to deny their own geography. To deny that Russia is on the continent alongside them.

Geography is a constant, an immutable part of the foreign policy system. Governments and historical circumstances may change, but geography remains unchanged.

The course towards a long-term confrontation with their largest neighbor, a source of many benefits for the Western European economy, which they have now lost, demonstrates the narrowness of their vision. Domestic political processes in the EU suggest that, following the Americans’ example, it is time for these Europeans to reflect on what their interests are, which of these are achievable in the course of the Ukraine crisis, which are not, and what the possible trajectory might be. So far, the Western Europeans haven’t made any good moves.

When there are no good moves, it is better to pass a turn and stop making mistakes. So far, as our President [Vladimir Putin] put it, it looks like a series of mistakes, one after another.

Big spending, little strategic power

Evgeny Kuznetsov: Won’t they get tired of playing this game?

Andrey Sushentsov: Western Europeans states don’t possess the full strategic autonomy enjoyed by Russia and the US, and are not entirely capable of acting collectively from a unified position. Every major decision requires the consensus of nearly 30 countries.

The European Commission doesn’t have a very substantial budget of its own but relies on the budgets of the nation states. Despite the single currency, debt is measured separately for each country.

There is no unified army. It’s a far cry from even the most loosely organized confederation. They would carry strategic weight if they were capable of acting in unison, but there’s no sign of this. Western Europeans are terrified of being directly drawn into a military crisis with Russia. Speculation about sending troops into Ukraine always ends with the caveat that this will only happen once a lasting peace and a ceasefire have been achieved.

In part, their enthusiasm is fueled by what they perceive to be the relatively low cost of supporting Ukraine and this proxy conflict. They have no qualms about Ukraine. They are indifferent to what will become of it, its borders or its population. They express rhetorical outrage, flock to summits, pose for “family photographs,” and make categorical statements. But in essence, this is a gathering of onlookers who are not directly involved in the military crisis.

Read more

The tool at their disposal is debt financing at Ukraine’s expense, amounting to nearly $500 billion. An astronomical sum which has failed to deliver the strategically necessary results, whilst worsening their own position. All that money has gone up in smoke.

Russia as the glue holding Europe together

Evgeny Kuznetsov: The EU is not abandoning its plans to impose ever more restrictions on Russia. Incidentally, Brussels has also added you to its sanctions list. At the same time, some European leaders are calling for dialogue with Russia. Is that possible at present?

Andrey Sushentsov: Western Europeans are using the Ukraine crisis as a platform for unity, to become a more cohesive entity. Their strategic lack of autonomy, the prominent role of the Americans, and their internal fragmentation mean that the only platform for solidarity is an anti-Russian one.

The relevance varies from country to country. For Southern Europe, it’s not so obvious. For Spain, despite its anti-Russian government, Palestine and the Middle East are more important. The Baltic states and Northern Europe have an alarmist and militaristic outlook. Some share a border with us. The people in charge are a peculiar lot; one can expect all sorts of things. But no one wants to involve their armed forces in the Ukraine crisis, as North Korea has done on our side.

They are using Ukraine to strengthen their own agency and take steps towards coordinated action. These steps are not particularly effective. However, joint plans are being drawn up and substantial funding is being allocated.

One unresolved issue is the restructuring of the Western European defense industry; it’s fragmented and produces around 15 different types of main battle tank with guns of varying calibers. Standardization is a major and difficult challenge. A catalyst is needed. In other words, they are, to some extent, tackling an internal challenge.

Peace alongside Russia – or a strategic dead end

Evgeny Kuznetsov: Do the NATO Europeans want to sit at the negotiating table with Russia, representing a “united Europe,” in order to compensate for their strategic lack of autonomy?

Read more

Andrey Sushentsov: Their tactics for establishing agency include providing financial aid to Ukraine, the theft of Russia’s gold and foreign exchange reserves, the withholding and disposal of revenues, and an attempt to share the blame for this crime amongst everyone. If it’s a crime, then it’s a collective one, so that no single country is held solely responsible. And they are resolving many technical issues.

The US doesn’t resolve such issues, nor does Russia. We can afford to take strategic, autonomous, purposeful and consistent action. These Europeans take a step back, a step forward, two steps back; they look over their shoulders and seek consensus.

It’s in Russia’s interests to invite them to the negotiating table only if it is clear that these Europeans prioritize a stable world on the continent, based on the principle of “peace alongside Russia,” rather than against Russia. The “peace against Russia” approach is inherently unstable and a dead end for Western Europe. It dooms them to fall behind, to strategic defeat, and to never becoming a true player on the world stage. The more internal contradictions there are within the bloc regarding priorities, the more fragile it becomes, and the Russian question is gradually becoming precisely such an issue.

Ukraine’s ‘pyramid of trust’ is crumbling

Evgeny Kuznetsov: You said that the “pyramid of trust” surrounding Ukraine will soon crumble. When will this finally happen?

Andrey Sushentsov: From the Russian perspective, the logic behind this crisis is that we are waging a war to wear down our opponents and deplete their resources. We are targeting their rear lines and breaking their “continental sword.”

We are demonstrating that their strategy is irrelevant; its objectives are unattainable. And the resources they are expending will, over time, be needed in ever-greater quantities. The existing ones are becoming obsolete, as are the systems for utilizing them on Ukrainian territory. They need to be replenished and rebuilt.

Building infrastructure is extremely costly; in wartime conditions, it is simply impossible. In time, Western countries themselves will realize the unviability of this strategy. The opposition within those countries is already openly voicing its outrage and stating that this is a dead end.

Read more

[Friedrich] Merz’s visit to Kiev was heavily criticized by the entire opposition, at a time when Germany’s national debt is rising, the chancellor travels to Kiev and once again promises money and resources, essentially at the expense of the German people. The scale of the resources being invested is becoming so significant that the question arises as to what justifies it. What are Berlin’s objectives, what is it achieving, and what is it failing to achieve?

There are increasingly insistent calls for the Ukrainian leadership to take a realistic view of the situation and understand what is achievable and what is not. The “pyramid of trust” is crumbling. One after another, the parties involved are adopting an increasingly detached stance on this issue.

Their primary and secondary hopes have not been realized. Now they are almost left high and dry. We must admit, it was a mistake.

No one wants to take responsibility for it. It has not only a political but also a financial dimension. Who should be held to account for the hundreds of billions of euros spent on a strategically futile venture that has antagonized Russia and undermined security on the continent?

That is why we are talking about a short-term historical perspective. It may come to an end in the coming months, or perhaps in the coming years. But we are not talking about a decade-long war. The point is that this will still remain a crisis with its own distinct phases, and we are currently in the final phase of its resolution.