Yuri Felshtinsky: There Is A Way To End The War In Two Weeks
- 28.08.2024, 16:36
You just need to start hitting Moscow with Western weapons.
Famous American analyst and historian Yuri Felshtinsky gave a big interview to Charter97.org. In a conversation with our journalist, he told in detail how Ukraine can achieve victory in just two weeks, which objects in Moscow should be hit and why the liberation of Belarus is the key to a safe Europe.
"They expected that Russia would be frightened"
— Let's talk about the operation of the AFU in the Kursk region. How did the war change after these events?
— We heard a lot about all sorts of "red lines" that Ukraine should not cross in connection with this war, heard numerous threats from the Russian Federation. The Kursk operation showed that there are no more "red lines". There is a war, this war Ukraine must conduct according to the rules of the war that Russia began.
Because the common problem is that Russia is waging a war, but it does not feel this war, since it is being waged on someone else's territory, on the territory that Russia has seized, and in terms of human losses, unfortunately for all of us, Russia is a country that is both historically and really insensitive to these losses. Russia has always lost a lot of people in all wars, always more than all the other participants, and human life in Russia, again, is worth nothing.
Russia lost millions of people both during the internal terror and during the crimes and adventures of its own government, when collectivization and industrialization were carried out, when there were civil wars. Therefore, unfortunately, Russia is insensitive to losses. There were expectations that Russia would see that the price for this war was very high. This is both a human price and a financial and economic one. There were expectations that Russia would be frightened, stop, rethink the situation, change its foreign policy objectives. No, it didn't happen. Therefore, the war has been going on for the third year in a foreign territory, and it is no coincidence that in Russia it was forbidden to call this war a war from the first day.
Therefore, large Russia lives in such a state that somewhere far, far away, some military operations are being conducted, which, I emphasize, the Russians do not feel. And due to the fact that Russia does not feel this war, it actually entered a state when it is ready to fight permanently. And even the last replacement of Defence Minister Shoigu with Belousov is an indication that Russia has entered a state of permanent war.
The collective West, of course, is very sympathetic to Ukraine and really wants to help it, on the other hand, there is an attitude that has been taken (and it remains to this day) that Russia should in no case lose, and Ukraine should in no case win.
"Territories will separate from Russia"
— For what reasons does the West have such an attitude?
— Well, two reasons. One, I would say, is reasonable. And the second one is absolutely mythical. Reasonable is the fear that an escalation of the war will lead to a nuclear conflict. This is a reasonable concern, since Russia is a nuclear power, it is impossible to calculate with absolute certainty and assert that Russia will never and under no circumstances use nuclear weapons. No responsible political figure in Europe and the United States would say with absolute certainty that this is excluded. Accordingly, being responsible politicians and managers, they try to reduce these risks and reduce them to zero. The installation was taken that if Russia felt that it was losing this war, it could resort to nuclear weapons.
— And then what is the mythical one?
— Mythical — if Russia loses this war, it will break up into an insane number of states. Then, instead of one problem called "Russian Federation", there will be several problems under different names. This, of course, is an absolutely mythical fear. But as a result of this war, I think some territories will separate from Russia. Of those that are on everyone's lips.
— North Caucasus?
– Right. Sure, the Chechen Republic, Ingushetia, Dagestan too. Tatarstan is mentioned in this regard. These are the geopolitical changes that should be expected.
But in fact, there are no examples in history when nation states speaking the same language broke up into several. We have only two examples — North and South Korea and East and West Germany. But in both cases, it was the result of the intervention of a third force.
Since we are not talking about the fact that some third force will occupy Russia, along with some fourth force to divide it into several components, this theoretical "threat" could be welcomed. There are many analysts who would quite welcome the idea of the disintegration of the Russian Federation into several states, but historically reflecting, this is a completely impossible scenario, it will not happen.
Therefore, the fears of the West that “Russia will collapse and create several problems instead of one” seem absolutely mythical to me.
"There is another mystery of Great Russia"
The Kursk operation is a transition to a stage when this war becomes not a war of Russia on foreign territory, but simply a war for Russia. Why is this important? Because we know from the results of more than two years of war that until Russia feels this war, there is no chance of stopping it. Since Europe has, the United States does not really have the task of seeing a winner in this war.
I do not like it personally, I would like to see Ukraine as a winner, but this is not the task that Europe, the United States and the collective West have. The collective West has a task to stop this war.
When this war started, frankly, the West didn't care how it stopped. Through the capitulation of Ukraine, it is fine. Through Russia's rethinking of the tasks of this war, it is also normal. Over time, it became clear, and this was best seen from the position of French President Macron, from the way France's priority changes its point of view, that this war cannot be stopped through the capitulation of Ukraine, because Ukraine is not going to capitulate, but is going to fight for its independence. That this war cannot be stopped through the victory of Russia, because Russia is not able to win this war. And now, for the third year, Russia has been stubbornly conducting military operations. What’s the result? To the slow, gradual destruction of the occupied territories, which Russia receives without a single inhabitant and without a single unscathed house. It's just scorched earth.
And, of course, it is possible to wage this war with such speed, but this is a very slow way to advance, because Ukraine is a rather large country. Therefore, Ukraine started receiving more weapons gradually and some offensive types of weapns, but with serious restrictions.
The main of these restrictions is that Ukraine has no right to use these weapons to strike the territory of the Russian Federation. The initial conditions are that Ukraine receives Western weapons, but has the right to use them only for strikes on the territories occupied by Russia. Again, in its own territory. If you think about it, this is a completely absurd statement of the question, because it is impossible to win a war or stop a war if you cannot strike at the enemy's territory. It is absurdity.
Another lesson of the Kursk operation is that Ukraine finally began to use Western weapons for strikes on Russian territories (maybe, having received permission, maybe, having put its allies in front of the fact). And I sincerely hope that the Kursk operation is only the first step.
Because there is another mystery of big Russia — it is the country of one city. And Russia is arranged in such a way that the authorities care only about life in the capital, no one cares about the province and it does not influence any decision-making in this country.
Therefore, operations of Ukrainian troops in the Belgorod area can be carried out, because this is required by military necessity. Now the operation is being carried out in the area of Kursk, because this is required by military necessity. But as long as military operations are not carried out against Moscow, Russia will not feel this war anyway, because no one in Russia cares about Belgorod, Kursk, Voronezh, or Rostov.
— In confirmation of your words, Russians from the Kursk region are being evacuated to the territory of the occupied Zaporizhzhia region of Ukraine. They are trying to hide not deep into Russia, so that they talk about the horrors of the war, but try to send them away somewhere.
— That's what we're talking about. Donbas is still more important to Putin, despite the fact that Ukrainian troops entered the Kursk region, seized some Russian territory. And Russia still does not transfer combat-ready units from occupied Ukraine, because they do not care about their territory, it is more important for them to continue to occupy someone else's.
This is the full meaning of this Russian aggression. As long as Moscow does not feel the war, nothing will change. The main thing is that, in a broad sense, the leadership of the state is also concentrated in Moscow. And until these people feel that the war has come to them, to their city, to their homes, they will have no incentive to rethink what is happening.
"The purpose of strikes on Moscow is to end this war in two weeks"
— Does Ukraine now have any range of weapons capable of reaching Moscow?
— There are some long-range missiles. Ukraine still does not have permission from the allies to carry out these strikes. We just recently saw a rather serious drone attack, but this, unfortunately, is not the weapon that can reach Moscow. There were statements from the Russian leadership that all these drones were shot down. It is quite possible that this is the case. The strike on Moscow requires, of course, more modern weapons than the drones that are produced in Ukraine. It must be a different generation of weapons. And for this, of course, in order not to anger the allies, Ukraine must enlist their support in this matter, but this means that the allies must change the strategy of war.
From the strategy, which is that Russia in no case loses, and Ukraine in no case wins, go to the strategy, when the goal is a victory for Ukraine in this war, and Russia is defeated in this war. Therefore, there are two elements: weapons that should reach Moscow, as well as a change of concept.
— And what are the goals of Moscow? Ukraine, on the other hand, cannot follow the example of Russia by hitting civilian infrastructure in order to sow panic among Russians.
— The list of military targets in Moscow is infinitely large. Starting from Ostankino, because it is a military facility, ending with the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the building of the SVR (Foreign Intelligence Service), the building of the Lubyanka, I do not even mention the Kremlin, we will consider it a historical monument. The list of these objects is endless, because, indeed, everything is concentrated in Moscow. This was the same in 1917, when the revolution in the capital began, and in August 1991, when everything was decided in Moscow, and now.
We saw on the example of Prigozhin's rebellion how Moscow is actually vulnerable. Utkin tweeted that they were going to Moscow, and Moscow just died out at that moment. Putin ran away, Medvedev ran away, they hid in a bunker, no one knew where, the streets were deserted, some abandoned tanks drove around the capital, the soldiers took some buildings under protection, although no one attacked these buildings. It was the result of one tweet that someone was going to Moscow. Therefore, Moscow is a very vulnerable place in Russia.
— Then the question is with a change of concept. Can the current White House administration change it? Even in the context of strikes on the territory of Russia, Biden said that "in no case should Moscow and the Kremlin be hit." How will these changes happen?
— I think the West has no choice. As I said, there is a task for Europe, for America to a lesser extent, to stop this war at any cost. Because Europe has suffered twice in modern history from world wars. And both of these wars were absolutely devastating for it.
Therefore, Europe reacts very painfully, naturally, to the flaring fire of war. The only way to stop everything is to give Ukraine the opportunity to win. Therefore, we see that the weapon, about which two years ago they said that Ukraine would never receive, Ukraine received it.
As for the strikes on the territory of the Russian Federation, we have now seen on the example of the Kursk region that Ukraine was allowed to conduct this operation. Therefore, Europe is moving in the right direction in this regard. Both Europe and the United States. I think that allowing strikes on Moscow is a matter of some time, I suspect not very long. Because, I emphasize, it is already clear to everyone after these two and a half years that otherwise this war will not be stopped. Otherwise, it will be eternal.
"The purpose of strikes on Moscow is to end this war in two weeks" I said this a long time ago that changing the concept that Russia does not lose to the concept that Russia loses means that this war can be over in two weeks.
"Negotiations under Putin's rule are impossible"
— What is the scenario of events after these strikes? Will Putin be overthrown or will he go to some negotiations?
— You know, I do not really believe in the negotiation process between Ukraine and Russia. Because, unfortunately, Russia is not able to negotiate.
It is necessary to abandon Russia's foreign policy goals to negotiate. The Russian leadership, unfortunately, has a very ambitious foreign policy program. Although, as we can see, the Russian army was bogged down in Ukraine, from a military point of view it turned out to be incapacitated, the goals did not change.
This is easily traced on the telegram channel of Dmitry Medvedev, who, as a former president and former prime minister, a person close to Putin, is exempt from censorship.
At a time when all other texts undergo some kind of censorship, Medvedev is allowed to say what he thinks and believes fit to say. Therefore, its texts are quite frank and bloodthirsty, and it follows from them that Russia has a plan to seize neighboring states. Therefore, Putin, relatively speaking, is ready for negotiations, but on conditions that are unacceptable for anyone: neither for Europe nor for Ukraine.
— Not so long ago, we saw the so-called ultimatum of Putin: the demilitarization of Ukraine, and the territories that Russia recorded itself as a result of the "referendum" are transferred to it. Absolutely unacceptable conditions.
— It's not even that Russia demands that the occupied territories remain Russian. The fact is that Russia demands that it have an open opportunity to seize the remaining territories. Because the requirements of Ukraine's refusal to join NATO are a carte blanche for Russia's permission to seize the next territories. Because if Putin were really interested in retaining the occupied territories and ensuring eternal peace with Ukraine, with the rest of Ukraine, he would have to insist that Ukraine join NATO.
Because joining NATO would mean that Kiev recognizes the loss of territories and considers the territorial issue closed, since NATO does not take into its composition countries with unresolved territorial conflicts.
So Putin would have to insist on the contrary that NATO accept the remaining Ukraine into its ranks, would provide a guarantee of peace forever. Since Putin insists that Ukraine not join NATO, it is clear that this is a military trick before preparing for a new round of aggression.
So negotiations with Russia are possible, but on the terms that were initial, that is, the 1991 borders, the withdrawal of occupation troops from the territories seized by Russia, the exchange of prisoners on the all for all principle, compensation for the damage caused. This, by the way, is a very difficult question, because it is very difficult to calculate these losses, and the question is how to compensate for these losses, because the amount will be very large. There should be extradition of war criminals to various international tribunals, there will be a lot of them.
There is no reason to believe that Putin will subscribe to these conditions, if only because he should be the first to go to the Hague Tribunal. It can be assumed that a negotiation process is impossible as long as Putin is at the head of the state. When and if he leaves, it will be a slightly different story.
"It is possible to stop the war through the liberation of Belarus"
— Let's talk about Lukashenka. What does the operation in the Kursk region change for him? What motivates him when he sends troops to the border with Ukraine?
— This is certainly a fear, a sense of panic. I think this is the result of the Kursk operation. The Kursk operation demonstrated to the whole world, including Lukashenka, that Ukraine is beginning to look at this war differently, that the Armed Forces of Ukraine are ready to conduct military operations on the territory of the enemy — this is the first thing. Belarus can also be attributed to the territory of the enemy. I think that Lukashenka understood very well that just as Ukrainian troops crossed the Russian border and captured areas in the Kursk region, so Ukrainian troops can also cross the Belarusian border.
Of course, it is difficult to calculate whether the Belarusian army will resist the Ukrainian troops, but I suspect that it will not. I believe that no one will protect Lukashenka. The military plans for Russia, which is a huge country with unlimited human resources, are a militarily complex operation. As for Belarus, Ukraine can solve such problems.
I believe that the Belarusian aspect of this war is the most important, because with the loss of control over Belarus, which is carried out by Russia, the war against Ukraine loses any meaning for the Russian Federation. Because it turns into a continuation of the war in the Donbas in 2014. That is, a slightly more expanded version, but in fact, Russia loses even the theoretical possibilities of capturing Ukraine if Belarus is lost.
Not to mention the fact that Belarus is also Russia's exit to Lithuania and Poland. The whole ambitious plan of Russia, which was voiced by Putin after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, about the return to the Russian Federation of the influence enjoyed by the Soviet Union in relation to Eastern and Central Europe, this whole ambitious plan after the loss of control over Belarus goes away, and Russia remains an isolated state with the main ally – China.
Of course, I would think that the most reasonable thing that can be done, again, from the point of view of solving the main tasks, is to stop the current war, which means liberating Belarus, freeing it from Russian influence, that is, entering Belarus, that is, changing Lukashenka's regime, restoring a democratic regime.
The following tasks already take time: to carry out the necessary reforms in Belarus, to introduce Belarus into the European Union and to include Belarus in NATO. This, in fact, will mean a guarantee of peace in Europe. We have seen that when Belarus is under Russian influence, it becomes a springboard for Russian aggression against Europe. In order to eliminate the threat of Russian invasion of Europe, it is necessary to bring Belarus into the European Union and bring Belarus into NATO. Then peace in Europe will be guaranteed.