Foreign Affairs: “The World Putin Wants”

Western energy, financial, and export control sanctions have been extensive, and they are affecting the Russian economy. But sanctions cannot alter Putin’s view of history or his determination to subjugate Ukraine, so they have not changed his calculus or his war aims. Indeed, close observers say that Putin has rarely consulted his economic advisers during this war, apart from Elvira Nabiullina, the head of the central bank, who has astutely managed the value of the ruble. This is a stark break from the past, when Putin has always appeared extremely interested in the Russian economy and eager to discuss statistics and growth rates in great detail. Any concerns about the long-term economic impact of the war have receded from his view.

---

Despite calls by some for a negotiated settlement that would involve Ukrainian territorial concessions, Putin seems uninterested in a compromise that would leave Ukraine as a sovereign, independent state—whatever its borders. According to multiple former senior U.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of a negotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries. But as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in a July interview with his country’s state media, this compromise is no longer an option. Even giving Russia all of the Donbas is not enough. Now the geography is different, Lavrov asserted, in describing Russia’s short-term military aims. It’s also Kherson and the Zaporizhzhya regions and a number of other territories. The goal is not negotiation, but Ukrainian capitulation.

Fiona Hill & Angela Stent

This piece is notable for the muted admission that economic sanctions are failing to dissuade Putin from his military actions – and for the detail that back in April there was a tentative settlement between the parties. Some on Twitter have gone further, pointing to reports in the Ukrainian press that these talks came to a halt after a hasty visit in Kyiv by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who would have indicated that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, the ‘collective West’ was not.

It’s almost impossible to assess whether this is what truly happened without more corroboration – unless Boris gets a sudden urge to write early memoirs to make fresh headlines, it will be years until we the public will find out the ins and outs of these crucial moments – and in any event, Putin might have ultimately rejected any deal by that point. But if even remotely close to the truth, it would be damning for the US position in this conflict, confirming their interest to weaken Russia through proxy fighting, regardless of the loss of Ukrainian lives and destruction of their country.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskiy and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson walk along a street after a meeting, as Russia’s attack on Ukraine continues, in Kyiv, Ukraine April 9, 2022. Ukrainian Presidential Press Service/Handout via Reuters/File Photo

A quick note about one of the authors, Fiona Hill, which regularly pops up with articles as a so-called expert on Russia, and has worked in the Trump administration as senior director for European and Russian affairs on his National Security Council staff. Reading a piece about her experience in the Trump White House, I was struck by her utter lack of expertise on Russia: her claim as authority on the topic comes from studying for a year in Moscow before the Fall of the Soviet Union! Didn’t it occur to anyone who hired and promoted her that a country might have changed drastically in more than three decades?! And that as a student she only had contact with a tiny fraction of the population, and virtually none of the decision-makers back then?! Between her and former ambassador Michael McFaul, no wonder US policy towards Russia is a fiasco.

But perhaps she was promoted for the hawkishness towards Russia, which reveals itself in almost each of her published articles – such as this one where she argues that we are already fighting in the Third World War, whether we acknowledge it or not. A position that invites recklessness instead of the measured caution needed to prevent escalation.