Many consider putin's speech on May 9 gray and toothless, but it is somewhat cautious not to take responsibility because military achievements are not as significant as expected. However, Putin is not going to admit defeat by agreeing to talks. Especially when other countries try to persuade Ukraine to leave the "golden bridge" to save putin's face. OPORA analysts Oleksandr Kliuzhev and Oleksandr Neberykut spoke about this during Friday's live broadcast of "War Speeches" on May 13. The guest was the former Foreign Minister of 2014-2019, Pavlo Klimkin.
According to OPORA`S analyst Oleksandr Neberykut, there were two key points this week. 1) May 9 is a symbolic date for russia, and many expected them to try to increase military gains. 2) The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Dmytro Kuleba, said our goal is the complete liberation of Ukraine.
"In the example of this contrast, we see the further self-isolation of the russian federation. It sounded in putin's thesis. As well as the preparation for such a long war. Instead, on the part of Ukraine, we see a certain increase in dynamics and counting on, I will not say, a quick result, but a certain beneficial result for us in all respects," Oleksandr Neberykut.
According to OPORA`S analyst Oleksandr Kliuzhev, everyone expected resonant statements from putin at a parade in Moscow. And one cannot rule out that the Russian side itself fueled these expectations. He notes that putin didn't express any cardinal and visionary views on the future development of the war with Ukraine and the security situation in russia in general. And many saw this as a putin's weakness, especially in Western intellectual circles and media.
"There was significant disappointment in russian discourse. It was reflected in the fact that russian politicians didn't discuss their leader's speech. On the other hand, both democratic opposition who remained in russia or abroad and nationalist circles expressed disappointment that the russian president has no vision for the future. In my opinion, the lack of a future vision in putin's words is such a characteristic of his speech. On the one hand, we can say that this is putins' weakness. On the other hand, this is also the traditional behavior of the russian dictator: he always tries to avoid responsibility in difficult situations," Oleksandr Kliuzhev said.
Oleksandr Kliuzhev suggests that putin learned a lesson from his ambitious speech before the war, by which he claimed his responsibility for the war outcome. But there was no result, so putin returned to his traditional way of avoiding clarity and making statements about developments.
According to Kliuzhev, for statements about the future and threats, they have dmitry medvedev. And a few days after putin's vague speech, medvedev was already making threats to the collective West and talking about the possibility of a full-fledged nuclear conflict.
Pavlo Klimkin, the former Foreign Minister of 2014-2019, emphasizes that putin never mentions the name of the state of Ukraine in his public speeches, and his speech is vague because putin wants to continue to "trade" with the West but not influence expectations inside russia (this is a task for propaganda). "putin is well aware that he'll need to negotiate with the West for the existence and maintenance of his regime, especially with the US. Will this agreement be formal? It's unlikely. Most likely, if there is one, I emphasize that it will be conceptual. And it is obvious that today's russia, with all putin's miscalculations about us, our resistance, russia's potential, and the unity of the West, must somehow return to the new status quo. I say "return to the status quo" on purpose. It sounds paradoxical, but this is exactly what putin wants," Pavlo Klimkin said.
According to the former Foreign Minister, putin has several reasons for his war against Ukraine, two of which are fundamental: 1) his irrational fixation on the history he created for himself; 2) this is his war against the West. "Of course, it's absolutely critical for him in today's reality to understand whether the West will agree with him and on what terms. And he understands perfectly well, being in the logic of war today, that the logic of economics will also work," Pavlo Klimkin said. According to Pavlo Klimkin, putin's fundamental mistake is that the West began to play in the medium and long-term perspective, realizing that today's russian regime in the 21st century is unnecessary and very dangerous for all.
"Our victory must consist of two fundamental things. The first is the liberation of territories and people. This is perfectly understandable, it is not even a question, and it is not even raising the stakes. And the second, no less important, I emphasize, no less important, is to avoid a situation where russia, this regime, some other regime, some future russia, or the present would pose an existential threat to Ukraine. This is also an integral part of our victory. The victory of us and the West. putin is well aware that we will never feel safe as long as the regime wants to destroy us. And in putin's image of the world, Ukraine does not exist, and it is artificial," Pavlo Klimkin said.
Pavlo Klimkin thinks we'll liberate all our territories and people, but the liberation of Crimea will be associated with the reset of russia (regime change or government change). In his opinion, the military liberation of Crimea will lead to nuclear weapons use. "Today, I do not see a consensus of the collective West supporting our desire to liberate all our territories, including Crimea. But there is consensus that Ukraine must return everything in the event of a reset of russia," Pavlo Klimkin said.
In Klimkin's opinion, the concept of "collective West" is strange, almost non-existent, but now this collective West is precisely there. It's based on principles and values - democracy, the rule of law, market economy. The list of these countries will expand, in particular, with India. "Depending on what we liberate - Donbas and Crimea - and how we'll fight for the danger to never appear from russian territory - what our American friends call strategic defeat and strategic weakening - here we have understood that this consensus may change. I see now, for example, in Europe different opinions about the liberation of Crimea. And talks that Ukraine needs to be supported politically and morally, but we need to stop somewhere and give putin a face," Pavlo Klimkin said. In addition, Klimkin said he did not believe in a peace agreement with the regime which wants to destroy us. But, in his opinion, even an effective ceasefire agreement is impossible now. Therefore, any ceasefire agreement should include the West and should consist of other issues.
Former Foreign Minister Klimkin outlined one of the many possible development scenarios: "There are total changes in Russia after some events. We won't say which ones. And as a result, for example, Navalny comes to power, although there may be completely different options. The West welcomes this. Or it doesn't, but I think it will. Well, of course, Navalny will not be interested in the liberation of Crimea by us, right? He'll say different words, and there may be some conversations that didn't take place under the putin's regime. Nevertheless, the liberation of Crimea is definitely not, let's say, Navalny's dream. There can be many more creative and interesting scenarios. And then, of course, the West lifts much or all sanctions against russia. After russia liberates other territories. Of course, I'm simplifying because there are still many nuances. But such a situation is quite possible. Therefore, yes, our goals coincide with the West now. Still, in the future, they may not be identical in the context of geopolitics and the context of russia's reset, reset of the regime, and some perturbations with the Russian state system. I mean not only the possible disintegration of Russia, the possible reset of the federation, the possible reset of the confederation. There are several dozens of scenarios."
Also, according to Pavlo Klimkin, discussions on Ukraine's membership in NATO are now back, although not for the whole West. And with the accession of Finland and Sweden, the dynamics for Ukraine will be positive. "In the long run, NATO considers China its main rival. It's a world power that is developing upwards. And russia, on the contrary, is called in Washington, Brussels, or London a country that is going down, e.g., gradually declining. This makes it even more dangerous, especially under the putin's regime. Nevertheless, in the long run, there is a decline. And NATO will gradually adjust to the future world, not just confrontation with russia. NATO will seek new meanings for its existence. NATO will be concerned about the rearmament of the collective West - you see what is happening now. NATO will take care of informational and hybrid wars. And, in general, it cares about the future. Since everything, from artificial intelligence to the next link between living matter and quantum electronics, the world will change in the coming decades, including in a geopolitical context. That's why I am very optimistic about our future NATO membership," Klimkin said.
According to Pavlo Klimkin, for example, we will also be able to cooperate with Turkey, Israel, China, and India if our interests and goals coincide. And to a lesser extent, it is also a matter of coincidence of values and internal trust. "China is working very consistently and strategically to be able to challenge the West somewhere around 2035. Now we see a stratification of the world into two economic areas - one dependent on the Western world and the other on China," Pavlo Klimkin said. According to him, unlike putin's russia, China has an entirely different model of competition with the West - China wants to remain a part of the system. The question is the interdependence as a security model: it didn't work in the putin's case, it may be the same with China. "I see a change in China's position today. We do not know what President Xi and putin talked about on the eve of the Olympics. But I see that China is not benefiting from this war, neither economically nor in terms of image, in terms of projections on Taiwan, nor in terms of violation of fundamental principles, sovereignty, and territorial integrity. This hinders China because it has Tibet and Taiwan. But whether we influence China's position or a fundamental change in geopolitics? I would say the second one for now. We are talking to China. This conversation is taking place both officially and informally. We communicate with both officials and analysts. China, by the way, began to show and represent the Ukrainian position much more than at the beginning of the war. China balances as Hindus balance, Arabs balance, and Latin America. Yet it is clearly moving in our direction. Nevertheless, I do not think this is a direct result of our contacts. It's a Chinese assessment of where they are, their interests, and a projection of confrontation with the West. Therefore, I believe the Chinese position will be cautious," Pavlo Klimkin said. He also noted that China wants to leave a "golden bridge" for putin to save his face.
Regarding the future of the negotiation process, Pavlo Klimkin believes it's better to have negotiations than not to have them. After all, we constantly need to agree on humanitarian and military issues inherent in any war - the exchange of prisoners, local fire cessation, etc. In Klimkin's opinion, no one will accept russia's demands for demilitarization and recognition of Crimea and Donbas. But at some point, we may move from the logic of war to the logic of economics. putin will never switch to the logic of peace. But there could be a ceasefire. According to Pavlo Klimkin, a truce is possible when there is a stalemate in hostilities that has a negative effect on both sides. Such a situation would be an opportunity to continue serious negotiations. "Today, I do not see putin's real desire to negotiate. If he starts the negotiations now, he would admit his almost strategic defeat," Pavlo Klimkin said.
"No one is afraid of putin now. We need to negotiate only from a position of strength. As far as I know putin from all these Normandy summits, this is the only thing he can accept with his mentality. If we reach a situation where we speak from a position of strength, of course, together with the West, we can count on a decent result. If not, these negotiations will rather be a certain context for hostilities," Pavlo Klimkin said.