The temptation of the "Finlandization" of Ukraine

American foreign policy "realists" recommend US Congress to think about achieving a compromise with the Kremlin

Why does an influential American political scientist recommend that Washington not insist on the right of Ukraine to join NATO? How to resolve the conflict between the right of the people to choose from the path and political reality? How can the West and Russia disperse the following on a counterclaim? Is Vladimir Putin capable of soberly assessing the situation in which Russia ended up?

We discuss these and other issues with Richard Pipe , an American historian, the closest adviser to President Reagan, Oleg Kalugin , former KGB General, and Vladimir Shlyapentokh , a sociologist, professor at the University of Michigan.

On Wednesday, the Committee of the Armed Forces of the US Senate Armed Forces, chaired by Republican John McCain, was heard on national security issues. The experts were two largest American professionals in the field of foreign policy strategy: former advisers of two American national security presidents Brent Skowroft and Zbignnev Brzezinsky. The recommendations of Skokucroft, who served in the administration of the President of Bush Sr., the president who at one time urged the Ukrainians not to leave the reforming Soviet Union, and Brzezinsky, who insisted on the opposite, that the world would benefit from the split of the USSR, were somewhat unexpected. While they talked about the need to support Ukraine in its confrontation with Russia, including weapons, in their statements constantly shown the thesis that close relations with Moscow for the United States are more important than the unconditional support of Ukraine’s right to choose from allies. Brzezinsky even suggested that Ukraine should have gone through Finland, that is, to give guarantees to Moscow non -alignment, at least to NATO.

Brent Skowucroft

At the hearings, both former politicians stated that the main task of the United States in the field of national security should be the prevention of nuclear conflict: “First of all, we need to pay maximum attention to our nuclear structures and our relations with Russia in the field of nuclear security, because in no case we do not want nuclear war,” said Brent Skokucroft, answering the senator’s question McCain, that, in his opinion, should be put at the forefront of the American strategy in the field of national security. According to Skokucroft, the United States and Russia must structure their nuclear forces in such a way that neither one or the other side even had a desire to think that it can deliver the first blow in such a way that this will destroy all the offensive nuclear forces of the enemy.

Zbignnev Brzezinsky

Zbignnev Brzezinsky believes that on the issue of nuclear security, the United States and Russia should not forget about the lessons that history presented to them. "It is quite obvious that we are controlling to each other, and in the past we had to deal with crisis with situations. I hope that we learned from this lessons and that the Russians also made it." However, Brzezinsky is not sure that we can expect from Vladimir Putin. "It is alarming that in the conditions of a crisis situation around Ukraine, and this situation is a limited crisis with elements of ground warfare, Putin reminds of the threat of nuclear weapons. Many may not pay attention to this, but Putin said in his public statements that, they say, we have nuclear weapons and nuclear capabilities. And he accompanied his words, namely, with extreme provocative flights Russian military aircraft over Scandinavia, part of Western Europe, and even a distant portugal.

Zbignnev Brzezinsky called on the American government to take steps that would prevent Russia's aggressive actions in the future. "In Europe, Putin plays with fire. He finances the local uprising and supplies weapons to the rebels. Periodically, he even resorts to military intervention in order to destabilize Ukraine economically and politically, thus destroying its hopes for joining Europe. In connection with this, economic sanctions applied by the West in relation to Russia should remain in force until Russia actually fulfills its Oral promises that she will respect the sovereignty of Ukraine. "

The sanctions, however, is the Zbignnev Brzezinsky, is not enough. "NATO, and especially the United States, must provide Ukraine with a defensive weapon. If this is not done, then this will only increase the temptation of Russia to the escalation of the intervention."

At the same time, Brzezinsky believes, the West must be given to Russia to understand that he is ready for a diplomatic resolution of the situation. In his opinion, the conflict can be resolved on the principles of the so -called "finlandization" of Ukraine, which would provide that Ukraine will be a state -oriented state, but not a member of NATO.

How does such a recipe for conflict resolution refer to another authoritative professional in foreign policy issues, a historian, one of the Fathers of the Reagan Strategy for confrontation to the Soviet Union, adviser Ronald Reagan Richard Pipes ?

- Professor Pipes, during the hearing in the Senate, former national security advisers of the two US presidents Brent Skokucroft and Zbignnev Brzezinsky said that Washington was extremely important to cooperate with Moscow in the nuclear security and neutralization of Islamic extremism. This is a noticeable position among the American supporters "Real Politician". How much, from your point of view, it is likely that such considerations can outweigh the intention to support Ukraine?

Richard Pipe

“I think they are wrong.” I do not see that Russia really helped us in resolving the Syrian, Iranian problem or in the fight against the Islamic State group. Do we have examples of such cooperation? I would say that Russia does not contribute to resolving any of the problems of Islamic radicalism that we had to face.

- Another proposal of Zbignev Brzezinsky and the Real Politician group is to, so to speak, to calm the Kremlin, giving certain guarantees of Ukraine’s non -compliance in NATO, and, even more, organize the “finlandization” of Ukraine, that is, guarantee its non -block status. How do you feel about this proposal?

- I agree with this. I have always been against the accession of Ukraine to NATO. Moreover, I was against Poland's entry into NATO. It is known that most Russians consider NATO as an enemy of Russia. Attempts to bring Kyiv closer to NATO will inevitably cause very serious and deep problems in relations with Moscow. Ukrainians, it seems to me, do not realize this sufficiently. Ukraine, I think, should remain neutral and not move sharply towards the West.

-Professor, but what if the people think differently? Are you ready to deprive Ukrainians of the right to choose?

From my point of view, Washington should in private should warn Ukraine against too sharp steps

- They have this right, but from a political point of view, such a step is unreasonable. In politics, you cannot act based on your rights, you act on the basis of the circumstances in which you are. For most Russians, the Union of Ukraine with the West - economic, political or military - is simply unacceptable, and I do not think that Ukrainians should do this. From my point of view, Washington should in private should warn Ukraine against too sharp steps. And if the Ukrainians are prudent, then they will listen to this advice. Naturally, no one should talk about this publicly. In the end, Ukraine is a sovereign country, if it wants to get closer to the West in any form, it has the right to do so. Rattle closer to the European Union can be more realistic. But it is necessary to realize that the reality is that most Russians will support almost any action that Moscow will take against Ukraine.

- Professor Pipes, how can this crisis be resolved? There are no signs of the readiness of the West to make the concessions of Russia, President Obama just spoke about sanctions as an example of the success of his foreign policy, Putin does not give any readiness to retreat. What can all this be brought to?

Russia is painfully obsessed with America, and this is the problem of Russians

- In Russia, anti -American sentiments are so noticeable that, reading the Russian press, it can be assumed that Russia is in a state of Cold War with the United States. I recently read the Pravda number. It seems that the confrontation with America has turned into an obsessive idea for them. We can’t do anything about it. Russia is painfully obsessed with America, and this is the problem of Russians. Say, Washington is to blame for everything, he tries to dominate the world, he undermines Russia and prevents her to become a great country. In such a situation, it is possible, as it may seem, to hope that the aggravating economic crisis will make them turn to real problems and distract from the idea of conducting the Cold War with the United States and Europe.

- As for the sanctions, do you believe that they are able to achieve the declared goal - the Kremlin’s refusal to interfere with the affairs of Ukraine?

- In the future, sanctions will work. Putin's current behavior is understandable. He was face to face with sanctions that look like a serious threat, a challenge, abandoned Russia from the outside. He could not immediately turn around one hundred and eighty degrees, saying "sorry, I was wrong," and leave Ukraine. It will take time. Now there is no doubt about the effectiveness of sanctions. Obviously, Russia was a victim of a very serious protracted economic crisis. In conditions when such serious problems hung over it, the Kremlin will not be able to afford to continue interference in the affairs of Ukraine, resisting the pressure of the West. It can be assumed that during the year, one and a half, maybe for two years we will see changes in the behavior of Moscow, and among these changes there will be departure from Ukraine.

- Do you think that Putin will inevitably decide to leave Ukraine?

Whoever is in power in Moscow, they will have to give in, because the Kremlin will be incredibly difficult to maintain such a level of confrontation with the international community, and Ukrainians, in my opinion, will not yield

- Putin or the one who comes after him. In the end, in Russia, in a few years, the presidential election should be held, there is a very small probability that someone will replace him, although it is much more likely that manipulations in favor of Putin will be carried out with the election results. But whoever is in power in Moscow, they will have to give in, because the Kremlin will be incredibly difficult to maintain such a level of confrontation with the international community, and Ukrainians, in my opinion, will not yield. The calculations that the European Union will weaken the regime of sanctions, I think, are also unrealistic, because the fact is that we have witnessed an egregious invasion of a sovereign country, this situation cannot last infinitely, the West will maintain pressure, ”says Richard Pipes, the historian, the head of the Soviet department in the administration of Ronald Reagan.

For ten months that have passed since the first sanctions entering into force, their range has expanded sharply. The United States, the European Union and other leading countries of the world do not give any reason to think that they will deviate from the demand for Moscow to stop interference in the affairs of Ukraine. Nevertheless, at the hearing in Congress, the ideas of the "Finlandization" of Ukraine and the proposals of concessions to Moscow are first sounded. What can the Ukrainian strategy of the United States look like in the future? Can certain changes in harmony with the views of the adherents “Real Political” can follow? Question to Oleg Kalugin , former General of the KGB.

- I personally support the sanctions, but I would not go too far in this matter. Because we live in the nuclear century, and God forbid these sanctions will bring the matter to an extreme point, the whole world will collapse. I would not want that.

Oleg Kalugin

- By the way, about this during the hearing in the Senate and said Brent Skokucroft, he mentioned nuclear relations with Russia as the first criterion, why it is impossible to press much to Russia. Do you agree with this?

- Yes, absolutely. This common sense suggests that I do not see any other way out.

- What about the idea of the "Finlandization" of Ukraine is the idea of Brzezinsky? He says that Ukraine and the United States should provide Russia with guarantees that Ukraine will not join NATO, that it, in principle,, as I understand it, will be a non -enlightened country. How do you like this idea?

- I generally support this idea. I think that we must stop in time and prevent the further development of events that may end tragically, ”says Oleg Kalugin.

- But does this not look like a proposal to the United States, roughly speaking, to surrender Ukraine?

- What does it mean to pass? It is still part of the former Soviet Union, and if you go to history-Kyiv, the mother of Russia, as they say. In this sense, I belong to Ukraine, about what is happening, with great chagrin, I feel sincere a sense of pain for what is happening there.

- Professor Shlyapentoch, in the speeches of several American masters of foreign policy, is visible a clear thesis: for the United States, relations with Russia are more expensive and more important than unconditional support of Ukraine, that Kiev should partly abandon hopes to complete integration with the West to resolve the crisis. How do you like such proposals?

Brzezinsky’s proposal about "Finlandization", from my point of view, is almost ridiculous

- Of course, Brzezinsky’s proposal about “Finlandization”, from my point of view, is almost ridiculous, ”says Vladimir Shlyapentoch . - The fact is that Putin does not want any settlement of relations with the West, he does not accept any offers from the West, he is ready for new sanctions. It is important for Putin the state of military hysteria in the country, Putin is important to the state of a patriotic upsurge, this requires military operations in the Donbass, which now unfolded with renewed vigor. And the sanctions in a sense work on Putin, because they have the basis of its propaganda-the anti-Western nature of propaganda and especially anti-American. The United States and the West remains to deal with a dangerous politician, to understand what needs to be prepared for various options for the development of events. Because Putin can continue to maintain an adventure in Ukraine to maintain his popularity, to begin, if necessary, and another. Therefore, in addition to vigilance, in addition to developing plans in case of new Putin initiatives, the West has no possibilities.

- Oleg Kalugin, by the way, this is a very common point of view among those who insist on continuing and even strengthening sanctions against Russia. It consists in the fact that Putin’s real goal is not to agree with Ukraine, but to maintain an eternal conflict in Ukraine.

- I am not inclined to this point of view. I think that Putin’s main task is to stay at the power of the authorities. Fear that something can happen, that will undermine his position-this is the most important determining in the politics of the current Russian leadership.

- You say that the main task of Vladimir Putin is to preserve power in his hands. But is not the stimulation of a sluggishly local war in the east of Ukraine not one of the tools for maintaining ratings and power?

- In this sense, there is truth. Because it is the state, relatively speaking, the Cold War holds the current order in Russia, otherwise the population can take a different position, ”says Oleg Kalugin. - True, in Russia it is not a lot depending on the population, but, nevertheless, times have changed, and everything can happen. Putin would not want this, so he adheres to the positions that he considers patriotic, the corresponding interests of strategic Russia and, of course, to our fraternal sympathy for the Ukrainian people, who fell into a difficult situation.

- But does this contradict this that you said before that Ukraine, they say, should try to find ways to resolve the conflict and yield to Russia?

- One does not contradict the other. In any conflict, you need to look for a compromise. Because in the nuclear age we must not allow such a development of events that will end with a complete catastrophe, ”says Oleg Kalugin.

- In this case, you have a question as a professional who has worked for many years in the organization from which Vladimir Putin came out ...

- He was even my subordinates.

- That is, you are familiar with him. You will help us dispel or vice versa to thicken Putin’s riddle: what can do on him, make you change your behavior?

Putin will not give up under pressure from anyone, especially since he has a rather firm position in his own country

- Only attempts to find a common language, compromise. Putin will not give up under pressure from anyone, especially since he has a rather firm position in his own country. I do not mean polls by the public opinion of Levada, and the fact that Russia really lives better than it was 10 years ago. Therefore, Putin in this sense can feel quite calm. Moreover, there is no real opposition in the country.

- Professor Shlyapenth, Oleg Kalugin offers us the image of Vladimir Putin, his former subordinate, as a person who will not give in to the pressure with whom it is necessary to compromise?

Putin, like any leader of an authoritarian state, has a dangerous past that does not even guarantee him life, property if he leaves power

- Hopes for some compromise with Putin are practically absent today. Единственная серьезная акция Запада, Америки, которая могла бы повлиять на Путина, – это заявить о том, что Запад, Соединенные Штаты вполне поддерживают его лидерство в России, что они признают его легитимность, легитимность выборов, с помощью которых он пришел к власти, отказаться от любой поддержки либеральных сил внутри страны. Вот на этой основе компромисс, возможно, был бы реален. Но Запад и западные руководители это технически сделать не могут. Между прочим, такие же ожидания есть у руководителя Северной Кореи, он тоже хотел бы таких гарантий власти со стороны Запада, но даже с Северной Кореей этот номер не проходит. А с Россией это совершенно нереально. Поэтому здесь, к сожалению, некая тупиковая ситуация. Олег Калугин абсолютно прав, что ядерное оружие не должно быть забыто ни на одну секунду, и нет таких компромиссов и условий, на которые надо было бы пойти для того, чтобы гарантировать, чтобы мир не вполз в "холодную войну" с опасностью перерастания в ядерную. Но технически таких путей нет. Дело в том, что Путин, как и любой лидер авторитарного государства, имеет опасное прошлое, которое не гарантирует ему даже жизнь, собственность в случае, если он покинет власть. Эта ситуация для него гарантирует, что он должен находиться в Кремле при любых условиях.

–​ Олег Калугин, профессор Шляпентох заговорил об опасном прошлом Владимира Путина, но ведь есть и еще один аспект этого прошлого, беспокоящий многих на Западе. Многие на Западе считают и рассматривают Путина как человека в нейтральном смысле слова ограниченного, человека прошлого и не способного реально объять мир, человека, который в принципе способен сделать много неверных движений в этой ситуации.

- Да, в этом есть много правды. Он человек не только прошлого, он выходец из прошлого.

- Профессор, вы хотели возразить?

Vladimir Shlyapentokh

– Я не думаю, что для нас рационально считать Путина как человека, обращенного в прошлое. Путин показал себя искусным и толковым политиком и вполне современным политиком. Смотрите, как он блистательно действует и в Западной Европе, и входит в соглашение с Марин ле Пен, и организует довольно эффективные антиамериканские акции в Венгрии и в других странах. Просто, когда мы оцениваем Путина как политика, мы должны исходить не из интересов России, тут он, конечно, скорее является преступником по отношению к долгосрочным национальным интересам своей страны. Но если говорить о задачах сохранения своей власти, то Путин достаточно умелый, толковый политик. Посмотрите: он отпускает Ходорковского, смотрите, как он многообразно действует в отношении Алексея Навального, как он ведет себя толково с "Эхом Москвы". Очень смешно, как обсуждают: является ли "Эхо Москвы" проектом Путина или не проектом.

–​ Профессор Шляпентох, из заявлений представителей старой внешнеполитической школы – Скоукрофта, Бжезинского, да и Ричарда Пайпса – можно сделать вывод, что в Вашингтоне есть сомнения относительно возможности, так сказать, идеального разрешения конфликта, то есть полного союза Украины с Западом. Как вам кажется, Вашингтон и его союзники будут продолжать стремиться к идеалу или будут вынуждены смириться с политической реальностью?

–​ Америка ни в коем случае не должна заниматься продвижением демократии в мире – это глубокая ошибка вашингтонского руководства, ошибка не новая, очень старая. Вместе с тем нельзя игнорировать украинский народ – это невозможно сделать. Украинский народ показал себя довольно свободолюбивым во всей этой истории, со всеми его проблемами. Поэтому фактор Украины как страны свободолюбивой, где-то близкой к Польше, с этим фактором Западу придется считаться.

- Россия, Украина, люди, народы, они близки по духу, по истории, по общим проблемам, с которыми они сталкивались, – говорит Олег Калугин. – То, что на Украине когда-то были националисты, люди, которые стремились к сепаратизму, к отделению Украины от России, был такой один знаменитый деятель по фамилии Бандера, он сотрудничал с фашистами и прослыл как символ украинского национализма. Это родственные, близкие по духу, по истории народы. Поэтому то, что там происходит, – это действительно вызывает просто горечь у меня лично. Украина для меня родная страна.

–​ А что в таком случае делать с тем, что уже большинство населения Украины против России, они себя не считают тем, чем вы их считаете?

- Я не уверен насчет большинства.

–​ Согласно последним опросам –​ да.

- Зависит от того, кто считает, как, по-моему, говорил Иосиф Виссарионович Сталин.

–​ Вы предлагаете, тащить их силком в Россию?

- Нет, ни в коем случае, – говорит Олег Калугин. – Если Украина хочет жить отдельно, дай бог ей здоровья. Но никогда не надо устраивать из-за этого войну, тем более войну, которая в наш ядерный век может закончиться катастрофой.

–​ Олег Калугин, каким, как вы считаете, может быть развитие этого противостояния? Всего два дня назад Барак Обама в докладе о положении страны привел санкции против Кремля как один из успешных примеров своей внешней политики. Будет ли готов президент США идти в этой стратегии неуклонно до конца?

- По-моему, это не политика Обамы. Обама будет искать компромисс и возможности как-то позиции Украины, России и Америки, соответственно, Европы сблизить, разрешить конфликт без войны.

–​ Профессор Шляпентох, как вы считаете, будет Белый дом будет финансово-экономически давить на Кремль до последнего?

Я думаю, что Путин, если он будет считать, что это поможет сохранить ему власть, он может совершить нечто похожее на ХХ съезд партии в России

- Трудно сказать, кроме того что прохладные отношения между Америкой и Россией будут продолжаться очень долго. Но вообще говоря, где-то среди вариантов я не исключаю решительный поворот Кремля на резкое улучшение отношений с Западом. Я думаю, что Путин, если он будет считать, что это поможет сохранить ему власть, он может совершить нечто похожее на ХХ съезд партии в России. Шансы не очень велики, но они существуют, у власти такая возможность есть.

–​ Тем не менее, если судить по заявлениям Москвы и Вашингтона, главное, по их действиям, Запад и Россия идут курсом на столкновение. Историк Ричард Пайпс считает, что санкции сыграют уготованную им Западом роль, и Путин либо его преемник будет вынужден уступить. Олег Калугин, как вам кажется, насколько вероятен такой исход противостояния, скажем так, проигрыш Путина?

- Я в принципе согласен, в конечном счете какое-то общее решение будет принято. Путин не заинтересован в том, чтобы эта война переросла в мировую катастрофу, что, к сожалению, нельзя исключать. Но именно желание избежать этого и, тем более, сохранить какое-то лицо и собственную позицию внутри страны – это, по-моему, одна из главных задач Путина.

- И он понимает, как это сделать? Ангела Меркель, например, продолжает считать, что он живет в другом некоем мире?

- У Ангелы Меркель свои есть представления о Путине. Он живет в мире, который называется Россия, а Россия всегда была особый мир, тут надо с этим считаться.

–​ Профессор, как разрешится конфликт?

- Как это ни странно, я скорее согласен с Пайпсом. Я думаю, хотя социальных групп, которые могли бы оказать давление на Путина, в России сегодня нет, тем не менее, общая атмосфера у господствующего класса в России такова, что она будет психологически давить на Путина.