Russia's invasion of Ukraine is part of Moscow's attempt to restore the empire that existed before the emergence of the Soviet Union. RFI's Jan van der Made talked to Professor Serhii Plokhy, director of the Ukrainian Research Institute at Harvard University on how the West failed to read Russian President Putin's signals and what can be done to counter him.
Van der Made: To what extent does Putin's actions fit a pattern in which Russia tries to dominate its neighbors?
Serghii Plokhy: This is a continuation of a story not just about the disintegration of the Russian Empire, but also the story of the disintegration of the Soviet Union.
The Soviet Union fell apart in 1991 one week after Ukrainians overwhelmingly voted for the independence of their country. Without this partner, Russians were much less excited about the idea of the Soviet Union. Any attempts to recreate Russian control over the post-Soviet space and build a sphere of influence would not work without Ukraine. So the whole project of Russian domination of the post-Soviet space is doomed without Ukraine on board.
At stake is more than just Ukraine, at stake is Russian control over the post-Soviet space.
PODCAST: Serhii Plokhy Mykhailo S. Hrushevskyi Professor of Ukrainian History
That is the reason why Russia attacked Ukraine. What is at stake is more than just Ukraine - it is about Russian control over the post-Soviet space.
Van der Made: Reading the speeches and articles by Vladimir Putin on Ukraine over the last decades, it is incomprensible that the West never saw this coming?
Serghii Plokhy: It is quite difficult to imagine in the modern world a leader who not not only rhetorically looks back to the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, but also tries to base his actual ideology, practice, even the war itself on outdated ideas.
Most people believed that it was just rhetoric and not a trigger for major geopolitical moves.
Even when people saw worrying signs, they refused to see them for what they were. With the Russian invasion of Georgia, the assumption was that it would be an exception.
Looking at the Russian annexation of Crimea, the reaction was comparable to Hitler's Anschluss [with Austria in 1939]. As the majority of [Crimea's] population are Russian, it was assumed that the annexation was probably the limit of Putin's aspirations.
But February 2022 really brought home like no other development in recent times that things have changed. This is not a one-off thing, or a one-off step, that we are dealing with, but a very dangerous phenomenon.
Van der Made: In July 2021, Putin published a lengthy article called "On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians." It was hardly noticed in the West. It outlined his reasoning behind the current invasion. What exactly did he say?
Serghii Plokhy: He said that Russians and Ukrainians were one and the same people. However, in that sense, Ukraine was an illegitimate brainchild of the Bolsheviks. By saying that, he really returned back to the [pre-Communist] Russian imperial ideology of the late 19th and early 20th century [thinking] that claimed that Ukrainians or "Little Russians" were part of a big Russian nation.
He wants turn the clock back to the times before1917, before World War I, with the idea not just of reinstating Russian control over the post-imperial or post-Soviet space, but also reimagining the Russian nation, and Ukrainian nation in imperialist terms, with Russians and Ukrainians part of the same nation.
And what he meant was that Ukrainians were Russians and had no right to exist.
Van der Made: In 2014, Russia annexed Crimea. Then the inhabitants of the Donbass region, as well as Luhansk and Donetsk, started to claim that their rights were being ignored and started to push for independence. To what extent were their complaints legitimate?
Serghii Plokhy: The war in Donbass started with units of mercenaries and Russian nationalists led by Igor Girkin, a former officer of FSB, the Russian successor of the KGB, taking over government buildings in the city of Slovyansk.
Those forces were able to find enough supporters or activists. They were never the majority, but they were mobilised and whatever issues existed in this society were brought to the fore to justify what was happening.
But none of that would have happened without military aggression by Russian Federation.
Van der Made: What is different from earlier centuries is that Ukraine has now powerful allies in the shape of EU and NATO. What difference does that make?
The alliance with EU and NATO, with Western and Central Europe, is essential for Ukrainian survival. There are two major components in this war: the resilience of Ukrainians and the assistance of the allies.
These two things should go together for bringing a lasting peace and a just peace.
Van der Made: There is concern in the West that if Western support increases, and fighter jets and long-range missiles are added to the equation, that Putin is going to use the nuclear option. How likely is that?
Serghii Plokhy: It's completely unrealistic. Western politicians were concerned about the HIMARS. They were concerned about Javelins before.There was concern about tanks. Now there is concern about jets. Before that, there was concern over the offensive versus defensive weapons. This has been going on for years. And the only conclusion that I draw from that is that these red lines exist only in the imagination of the West.
When it comes to the nuclear weapons, one thing that hasn't changed since the end of the Cold War is that Russia is not the only country that has nuclear weapons. Their use would come at enormous cost for Russia, including losing of its allies or semi-allies that it still has, such as China or India or others.
That is not in Russia's interest whatsoever. There will be real threats, but these won't work as Russia doesn't have the monopoly. I don't see Putin going on this suicidedission, either politically or literally.
