“Putin wants truce, not peace”: says the Russian diplomat who rebelled against the tsar

“The only real way out is the defeat of the Russian armed forces on the ground.” Which “could lead to a revolt against Putin”. The reasons for the invasion “are not found in international politics, despite the mistakes of the West”. The logic “is only in the self-preservation in power of the president and the elite he has chosen”. While the messianic narrative about a new multipolar world order “is just a veneer under which there is no ideology, no substance”. This is also why “just protests against the war must be directed directly at the aggressor”. Boris Bondarev he has no illusions about the possibility of “pacifying” Putin and reaching an agreement with him that will stop the madness that is taking place in Eastern Europe. Bondarev is – as far as we know – the only Russian diplomat who has renounced the felucca because he is against the war in Ukraine. Fired from his post at the Moscow mission at UN Headquarters in Geneva, he published an open letter in which he explained that he wanted no role in this “bloody, stupid and useless ignominy” and defined the ongoing conflict as “one against the Ukrainian people.” and Russian.” Today he lives under police protection in a secret place in Europe. Fanpage.it reached him via zoom. “I don’t think about dangers for myself, I try to carry on normally but I’m still without work”, he says. shirt, speaking politely. He looks worried.

Russia is open to negotiations with Ukraine, Putin said recently. Is it a turning point?

Putin would like a ceasefire. At the moment he is losing. Better stop at current positions. You can now pass as partial success. But after regrouping, he would return to the attack. To turn defeat into complete success.

Were the missile attacks on civilian targets in Kyiv and other Ukrainian cities an escalation to prepare for some kind of negotiation?

Certainly not a negotiation involving concessions from Russia. Putin only wants Ukrainians to recognize as Russian the territories that Moscow annexed. The only way to achieve peace is to accept all its terms. This is a one-way street.

But would a plan recognizing the annexation of Crimea, new referendums in Donbass under the aegis of the UN and the return of the other occupied territories to Ukraine be on the terms Putin wanted? Could you accept?

If he just wanted to keep Crimea and solve Donbass’ problems, he could have done so all those years ago. There were several scenarios that could be discussed with Kyiv: referendums, joint governors and even payments of hundreds of billions to Ukraine. The offerings were on the table. The negotiations, of course, would have been lengthy. But Putin didn’t care.

And they don’t care today, just because he’s losing?

If he accepted anything today, it would only be for a while. To allow your armed forces to regroup and resupply. Then he would strike again. Because Putin cannot “pacify” him. The situation is similar to that observed on the eve of World War II. In 1938, at the Munich conference, Hitler got what he asked for about the German-speaking territory of the Sudetenland. British Prime Minister Chamberlain returned to London saying “I bring you peace”. They applauded him. After a year, the biggest conflict in history broke out.

So is a diplomatic solution really impractical?

Depends on what you want to achieve. If Putin gets even a piece of Ukraine, the war is over for now. But next year, the Russian armed forces may deploy on the borders of the European Union. And Russia could also openly interfere in the internal affairs of EU countries, supporting friendly political factions and independence movements.

And if China and India, becoming the points of reference for Moscow, in an international conference under the aegis of the UN, ask the West together for a serious agreement. Not like 1938 Munich. An agreement whereby Putin retreats to the battlefield and renounces aggression in foreign policy. It’s a possibility?

In theory, the West should build an anti-Putin coalition. As wide as possible. But China sees no reason to join US positions. Because he believes that, after the fact, the Americans would come back to face Beijing. The same is true of India: it has a tradition of good relations with Russia. Buy weapons, develop economic ties.

It is the multipolar world imagined by Russian foreign policy. You can’t decide everything in Washington.

The multipolarity imagined by Putin envisions authoritarian countries with their own sphere of influence. In the case of Russia, it is about re-establishing the area of ​​influence of the USSR, having the exclusive right and doing what you want with it. Not just the US and NATO, but not even the UN or the EU could put their noses up and recommend what is good to do and what not to do. The Russian president can say that he is in favor of the multipolar world, that he wants a movement of non-aligned countries, that he is against slavery, that he is anti-liberal. Or pro-liberals. It’s just words. He only cares about personal power. The messianic narrative is just a painting. If you scratch, underneath you will find greed.

In short, you see no way out?

This is not just a territorial conflict. Putin is right to say that it is a conflict between two systems. One more or less democratic and based on legal certainty and the other dictatorial and based on corruption and the prevalence of the strongest. So what kind of output can there be? The problem is that Putin cannot back down. He would lose everything. The only way out is Putin’s final defeat in Ukraine.

But maybe I can stop sooner. Being satisfied with some goal achieved. Accept mediation. It would save a lot of blood.

Putin started this war just to keep his power. If he could have told the Russians that an economic boom is coming, he wouldn’t have needed a war. But the regime is extremely inefficient, even in economics. Putin has exhausted all options. All that remained was a short and successful war. He planned to reach Kyiv in three days. And then, a beautiful parade in Red Square. To recreate the excitement that followed the annexation of Crimea in 2014. Crimea gave Putin time. Because before 2014, his popularity with the population was decreasing. There were large street protests against him. In recent years, Crimea’s effect has diminished. It had to be recreated. Putin thought that everything could go just as well in Ukraine as in Crimea. He made a mistake.

And the mistakes of the West? Undoubtedly, there was.

The West made the biggest mistake in 1991 when it considered the collapse of the Soviet Union simply a victory and assumed that the ex-Soviet countries would build democracy on their own. It would have been necessary to help them with a new Marshall Plan. Instead, he left the countryside to chaos and poverty. In Russia, people who had security with the USSR were overnight without work, without money, without identity. This created resentment. We feel humiliated. Putin built on that. If Putin’s regime collapses, and I don’t expect that to happen anytime soon, the West must not repeat the mistake of 1991. It must help Russia rebuild.

George Kennan, the American diplomat who inspired the USSR’s “restraint” and who understood Russia better than many others, said in 1998 that NATO expansion would be a colossal mistake.

And maybe he was right. But it should be understood that Putin and Russia are two different entities. When Putin says that NATO expansion threatens Russia’s security, what he really thinks is that NATO expansion threatens its own security. While Russia as a country would have no problem having constructive relations with NATO and the West.

What is the mood in the Russian diplomatic community?

In the early days of the war, many were shocked and depressed. Also within the mission at the United Nations in Geneva. Personally, I was in pieces. I could not sleep. Every war means you failed as a diplomat. In this case it was not our fault. The drawing has the signature of only one person. Unfortunately, Russian diplomacy has been reduced to a merely “technical” role. What it does now is receive instructions from the Kremlin, translate the documents and read them to ministers and diplomats in other countries. Saying that Ukraine started the war, that it’s not Russia’s fault and so on. It’s not a dialogue. It’s just repeating some slogans

Does the Ministry of Foreign Affairs no longer count for anything?

He is called upon to implement decisions made in the Kremlin, which does not consult him. And we don’t even know by whom decisions are made. In theory, from the president. In practice, it is not known who is involved in the process. Probably even people who have no official office. Friends, associates.

Do you see the possibility of a coup? There is unrest among the elites.

Putin personally selected his elite. Having as a parameter the fidelity of the chosen ones. And also your lack of honor, integrity and initiative. He just co-opted people ready and doing his bidding. And this is very dangerous. Because if he orders a nuclear strike, the order will be carried out. These people, however, do not have an ideology. They are used to doing what the president says for personal convenience. If they understand that wealth and positions are in jeopardy, they may even turn against them. This could be the case if there was a defeat of the armed forces that would convince them that the war in Ukraine is lost.

Is the nuclear threat realistic?

It’s part of the climbing game. Putin is convinced that he knows how to play him better than anyone else. For now he is successful. In fact, voices are multiplying asking for a softer approach towards it. Of course, nuclear war must be done to prevent it. But can we surrender to a terrorist? After that, you will have to keep giving up again and again. And you will always remain under his control.

Peace protests are organized in Italy. “We have to negotiate with Putin”, asks the square.

Every disaster has its name and category, said Kaganovich, Stalin’s minister. It’s always someone’s fault. This war has a name and a degree: it is the fault of the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. When people say: stop the war, we want peace, they should turn to Putin. He’s the one who started it. Nobody forced him. Nobody wanted this war. Europe certainly did not: it needed everything but a war. Not even the US, they were fine like that. And, paradoxically, Russia didn’t want to either. Only Putin wanted. And only he can stop it. The pacifists’ slogan should be: “Withdraw your troops, Putin.” There is no other way.