The president of the Institute of International Affairs: “The Kremlin has made it clear that it is only on its terms”
“It’s the Russian response to the Kerch Bridge attack. An attack on a strategic infrastructure whose responsibility is still unclear, but Putin preferred to attack indiscriminately using more than 80 missiles and I believe 17 or 18 drones against civilian targets. About 13 cities were hit, mostly civilian and non-military targets. A show of strength that, in my opinion, meets some objectives». Ferdinando Nelli Feroci, president of Istituto Affari Internazionali, is convinced of that.
What are these goals?
“The first is in front of the house. The missile attacks serve to silence criticism from the nationalist and radical component of the Russian establishment, which accused the Minister of Defense and the Armed Forces of conducting the special military operation insufficiently effectively. The second is to send a message to Zelensky and Ukraine to signal that Russia intends to continue its military operation. Despite the defeats on the ground and the successes of the Ukrainian resistance, Moscow can still attack as and when it wants. The third objective is yet another message to the West that Russia has no intention of loosening its grip on Ukraine and has no plans to initiate diplomatic dialogue for a political solution to the conflict.”
Does this prolong the time of war?
“In my opinion, today, as yesterday, there are no glimmers of a political solution to the conflict. I hope I am wrong, but I would say that on the Russian side there is no intention to start a negotiation process, except under Russian conditions.”
What would those conditions be?
“A confirmation of the annexation of the territories where the referendums were held, completely devoid of any legitimacy. And it is obvious that this condition, put very directly and explicitly by Putin, is not acceptable either by Ukraine or by the West which has taken up the defense of Kiev. So my fear is that the conflict will last. It’s a matter of how intensely. A reduction in the intensity of the fighting was expected. But what happened in Kiev and Zaporizhzhya and in other Ukrainian cities shows that the conflict still brings many casualties and much damage.”
India asked the escalation to stop. Could India and China play this mediation role that has not been done so far?
“I don’t know whether these two countries intend to play an active role in mediation, but it would be very important for significant countries like India and China to distance themselves more explicitly from Russia,” or at least to take a less ambiguous stance. So far, on balance, the most worrying fact is that Putin has had a certain solidarity, sometimes implicit and sometimes explicit, from a very large number of non-Western countries. And this evidently strengthens him in his determination and conviction that he is fighting a battle against the West along with the rest of the world. If China, India and other important countries on the international chessboard start to distance themselves and realize that this violation of fundamental principles of international law is against their interests and express their disagreement with Putin, this could perhaps change the data of the general situation. lead him to a less arrogant and aggressive attitude. A development of this kind would not be enough on its own, because Putin has a home front that he has been too exposed to to satisfy. It is therefore unlikely that he will be able to suspend hostilities or retreat without having achieved some results. However, the lack of solidarity from countries like China and India could change the picture.”
Russian Foreign Minister Serghiei Lavrov said Russia is ready to consider a possible meeting between Putin and Biden at the November G20 in Indonesia, if this is forwarded. Do you think possible? Would that be a positive sign for the start of a ceasefire?
“A meeting between Biden and Putin would undoubtedly be a positive development. In order for it to materialize, however, it must be prepared very carefully. It should be a meeting where the two presidents can announce something tangible towards a suspension of hostilities and perhaps a political solution to the conflict. Something that can be spent by the two presidents to give some satisfaction to their respective “constituencies”. A meeting that serves only to reaffirm one’s positions would be of little or no use. And, in conclusion, at the moment it does not seem to me that the conditions for a Biden-Putin summit are still met”.
Source: IL Tempo
Emma Fitzgerald is an accomplished political journalist and author at The Nation View. With a background in political science and international relations, she has a deep understanding of the political landscape and the forces that shape it.
