The war in Ukraine becomes more and more terrifying, and not only within its borders. Could we really be facing the start of a Third World War? And could the megalomaniacal ambition of a single man in charge, like Putin, provoke it? Or could it be that others as well are continuing to make mistakes? To orient ourselves in this geopolitical labyrinth that frightens all the peoples of the world, we interviewed the political scientist Rajan Menon in New York in order to get some answers not prejudiced by propaganda, but based on a scientific approach. Menon is Professor Emeritus at CUNY-City College and Columbia University, and an expert in International Security, Global Ethics, and Humanitarian Intervention, with a focus on Russia and Asian countries.
In 2016 you wrote the book “Conflict in Ukraine: The Unwinding of the Post-Cold War Order”. Did you expect that such a war would break out?
“No, not to this extent. But just before the war began, the US government said repeatedly that there was going to be a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and most experts thought that one of two things would happen: that President Putin would raise the temperature by building up forces in order to then force some kind of negotiated agreement on his terms, or that he would use a limited short force to push out the borders of the two pro-Russian mini-states in the Donbas region. But the idea that he would invade Ukraine and launch a full-scale war with the intention of overthrowing its government, I do not think anybody foresaw that. It is a complete surprise”.
The Kremlin has repeatedly explained that the Ukrainian question is a security question for Russia: even the remote possibility that Kyiv joins NATO and hosts weapons of the Atlantic Alliance would be inadmissible for Russia. Do you believe this is the real reason for the invasion? Or are there other reasons for the “special military operation”?
“In this country, there is a debate between those who believe that NATO expansion and the prospect of Ukraine entering NATO was a major reason, and those who say this is not the reason and that the problem is that Putin worries about the spread of democracy. A democratic Ukraine is a particular threat because Ukraine is so similar to Russia, in language, culture, history, and so on. I think the problem with this debate is that both things can be true. In other words, if you look at Ukraine, and if you leave Russia aside, it’s the largest country in Europe. It is a large country which is close to Russia and with a very close history. It is very important to Mr. Putin that Ukraine does not tilt West, but remains in some close relationship with Russia. But it is also true that he worries about the spread of democratic movements near Russian countries in the former Soviet States and worries that in time that will have effects on Russia itself. My sense is that complicated things happen for complicated reasons and there is sometimes more than one reason. I will just add one other thing: I don’t think there was any possibility that Ukraine was going to be admitted to NATO anytime soon. This war was unnecessary because Putin’s decision did not come at a time when Ukraine was about to be admitted to NATO”.
So, do you think NATO has put in place the wrong diplomatic strategy in recent years? In Europe, there are those who say that this crisis is also the responsibility of Europe itself. Do you agree?
“NATO also has to bear some blame because in 2008 it initially announced in a summit in Bucharest that Georgia and Ukraine would be admitted to NATO in the future. Almost 14 years later, they could not make up their minds and the reason is that under the NATO Treaty of 1949, they require all 30 members to agree to admit a new state. Obviously, there wasn’t a consensus but, in the weeks before the war as the Russians were saying Ukraine cannot become a member of NATO, NATO kept saying ‘no, the Bucharest commitment is still alive and we stand by our commitment, Ukraine has the right to self-determination’. So, NATO raised Ukraine’s expectations and, in fact, due to this commitment, Ukraine has in its constitution a statement that NATO membership is part of its aspirations. So, two things happened: the Russians got more and more angry, and when they attacked, Ukraine had no protection from NATO. I think this was a highly irresponsible thing for NATO to do, and it seems to me that they have put Ukraine in a terrible position. I do not think NATO had any intention of admitting them because it doesn’t take 14 years to make a decision like this. No other NATO state has been made to wait outside the door for 14 years. I am not blaming them for the crisis, I am saying that there are no angels, here everybody has made mistakes. Also, the President of Ukraine, Zelensky, has said that they understand this now and that in the peace negotiations, some agreement may now be possible”.
So, is the solution to the conflict only possible with an agreement between the Russians and the Ukrainians? Or should the Russians themselves stop their leader?
“The Ukrainians and Russians have met for four rounds of negotiations and, in the most recent round, both of them have said, without going into any detail, that there is some chance. So, this is the first time I have seen any hope. The agreement could be there if it says Ukraine will be neutral. But a neutral Ukraine means it will not host NATO bases, it will not host NATO troops, but unless Ukraine can get weapons and training it won’t be able to have any kind of defensive capacity with respect to Russia, and Ukraine will be completely in Russia’s shadow. However, one of the things that Ukraine has learned from this war–because they have done fairly well in defending themselves–is that it may be a neutral Ukraine with a strong army that is good enough to protect its own security. But it is not just about neutrality. The Russians want Ukraine to recognize that Crimea is part of Russia, they want Ukraine to recognize that the two republics in the Donbas are independent entities. And it gets a little more complicated because those republics occupy only about a third of the provinces in which they are located, and Putin has recognized them. Another complication is this: will the Russians agree to evacuate the territories that they have taken since the February 24th war began? And then, there is another Russian demand: they want the Russian language to be restored and given the status of an official language. So, they are complicated things. Nevertheless, I think two things are happening: the Ukrainians have felt the pain of war because it has been a horrific and brutal war. On the other hand, the Russians thought they could cross the border and within two or three days the Ukrainian government would collapse but that hasn’t happened; they have taken severe losses and so the question now is, are the two sides in a position where they believe that continuing the war is more costly? The only way it can be ended is a diplomatic solution”.
Stalin was the only leader in the Kremlin to have centralized absolute power: he had nuclear power for a short period of time and in fact, he died in 1953. But with Putin, for the first time, there is a leader in the Kremlin with centralized authoritarian powers and weapons of mass destruction. Is this also your view and are you worried about it?
“I am worried. So, there is a war going on in Ukraine. The United States and some of its allies have given Ukraine, even since 2015, lots of arms. Now, the weapon supplies have increased and they are coming in mainly from Poland. Western Ukraine near the Polish border has been largely left alone by the Russians, but in the last few days, Russians have begun air and missile strikes on airfields and military structures very near the Polish border and they have said also that if arms convoys cross from Poland into Ukrainian territory, bringing arms to the Ukrainians, they will regard those as legitimate targets. So, the question is, if armed convoys were to start coming in and the Russians targeted them, what is the next step that NATO would take? My worry–and I am not saying this is going to happen–is that even though it’s something that nobody really wants to happen, this war could escalate into a confrontation between NATO and Russia. President Putin has said that if anybody interferes in the war in Ukraine, they will face consequences such as they have never imagined. I see that as a veiled threat, to maybe use tactical nuclear weapons? We could say that he is bluffing but given the danger, we have to be really sure, because once you introduce nuclear weapons the war becomes an entirely different problem. Again, I am not saying that this is going to happen, I am saying that it could get worse”.
In this crisis, what do you think about the UN? The Secretary-General was criticized because until a few weeks ago he thought the war was impossible. But, days ago, he completely changed his opinion and said that “nuclear war is in the realm of possibility”. Yet he isn’t even able to play his role as a mediator because Putin doesn’t open the door. In the meantime, the members of the Security Council haven’t even reached an agreement to pass a humanitarian resolution. After this crisis, do you think the UN will increasingly look as ineffective as the League of Nations?
“In terms of not expecting the war, I have some sympathy with Secretary-General Antonio Guterres because nobody expected the war except U.S. intelligence. For me to criticize him would not be fair. I think, once the war began, and he saw–to his surprise– what the Russians were doing and that for legitimate reasons the West was aiding Ukraine to defend itself, then he began to worry that this thing could start spinning out of control. The problem with the UN is that any resolution needs to be approved by the Security Council and the Russians have a veto. The UN cannot be any better than its members are allowed to be because it has no army and it has no capacity to force countries to do anything. It has to create a consensus. So, is the UN in that sense powerless? Yes, but it has always been powerless. I think it is drawing attention to the danger of nuclear war and emphasizing the humanitarian catastrophe in Ukraine”.
The International Court of Justice has just ordered the Russian government to leave the territory of Ukraine. Do you think it is possible to bring Putin to trial for crimes against humanity?
“I think there is next to no chance that will happen, of that, I am pretty confident. President Biden has called President Putin a ‘war criminal’ so, any member state of the ICC can refer the case to the prosecutor and the prosecutor can start an investigation, but then you have to have the person who is indicted–if he is indicted–come before the court; and I do not think there is any possibility that last step might occur. For example, had the American President during the Iraq war been indicted for war crimes, would there have been a chance that he might present himself?”
If you were Putin’s closest advisor, what would you tell him?
“This is part of the problem. I sometimes wonder whether anyone is really telling him what is actually going on and how serious losses have been. I would say, this war, even if it ends in a military victory, is going to be a strategic defeat for you, because now American troops in NATO will increase. What’s more, Finland and Sweden are discussing whether to enter NATO, and they were neutral countries. There has been a split between Russia and the West that will last as long as he is there. The Russian economy is under sanctions and it is clear that Russia is going to be more dependent on the Chinese. So, I would say, you cannot turn this into a strategic victory. It is easy for you and me to sit here and discuss this, the question is which of his advisors is going to walk in there and tell him this? This is also the difficulty when you have someone with absolute power: will an advisor tell him something that the advisor thinks he does not want to hear?”
