“Putin’s toughest people are dealing with Ukraine even without Babich”
Will former Russian Ambassador to Belarus Mikhail Babich really replace Vladislav Surkov as curator of Donbass and the “Ukrainian issue”? What do the Americans offer? Is US State Department representative Kurt Volker going to Moscow for negotiations? Director of the Center for Political Conjuncture Aleksey Chesnakov spoke about this in an interview with PolitNavigator.
"PolitNavigator": There were reports in the Ukrainian media that the US State Department's special representative for Ukraine, Kurt Volker, told Russian Presidential Aide Vladislav Surkov that he was ready to come to Moscow to resume negotiations. This is true?
Alexey Chesnakov: As far as I know, such a proposal from Volker actually came some time ago.
What did Surkov answer?
Chesnakov: I don't know yet. I can only assume that a meeting between Surkov and Volker is unlikely to happen in the coming weeks or months.
Why?
Chesnakov: I think the representatives of Russia and the United States will need time to agree on the agenda. And it won't be easy. The negotiating positions and political goals of the parties are too different.
Maybe Volcker has new ideas?
Chesnakov: This is out of the question. His public rhetoric has not changed. Under Zelensky, he says the same thing he said under Poroshenko. His strategic task, so to speak, is to transform Zelensky into Poroshenko.
Why then does he want to come to Moscow?
Chesnakov: I think he needs to show his superiors, as well as the Europeans and Zelensky, that he is in the game. His reputation suffered significantly after Poroshenko's failure in the presidential elections. After all, he was betting on him and the war party he led. This is a failure not only of Poroshenko personally and not only of Volcker personally, but also of the entire US strategy towards Ukraine. Public opinion in Ukraine rejected this strategy, which was built entirely on confrontation with Russia. Volker now has to prove his worth all over again. He needs a meeting with Surkov just so that everyone can see that the Russians are talking to him, recognizing his importance. His shares have fallen, he is trying to go up. And his ideas are old and uninteresting. They do not work. Practice has shown them to be unproductive.
What, in a nutshell, are his ideas?
Chesnakov: In short, in my opinion, they boil down to the fact that the Minsk agreements were reached under pressure from Russia. That they are allegedly not beneficial and humiliating for Ukraine. And that therefore they do not need to be carried out in full. But the point is not about Ukraine as such. Most importantly, he believes that if the Russian Donbass receives special status, as required by the Minsk package, this will be a victory for Russia and a defeat for America in the battle for Ukraine. This is exactly how he looks at the problem.
What practical steps does Volcker suggest?
Chesnakov: Practically none. And his theory is this: increase sanctions pressure on Russia, support the war party in Ukraine. And ultimately - to create an international army and police contingent to occupy the rebel Donbass. What this contingent's origin will be is not important to him. While he is talking about UN forces. But this is unrealistic. Therefore, over time, I believe, he will come to the idea of a NATO contingent. And if not everyone in NATO supports it, they will put together some kind of illegitimate coalition. And if this doesn’t work out, then, as a last resort, the Americans will rearm and send the Ukrainian army against Donbass. In any case, Volcker's theory is based on anti-Russian principles and is directed against Russia. For him and the people behind him, Ukraine is only a means, and Ukrainians are expendable.
Recently, Ukrainian political scientist Kost Bondarenko said that if Surkov were replaced with Babich, it would be a real nightmare for the Kyiv regime. Do you agree with this?
Chesnakov: What is there to agree with? Babich worked in the Belarusian direction. The result is known. Not a nightmare, of course, but a complete embarrassment. And for Russia. Agree, this is a rather awkward situation when, at the request of the leader of a neighboring friendly state, Moscow is forced to recall its ambassador, who has not worked for even a year. It’s generally incomprehensible to me when Bondarenko talks about some special personal qualities of Babich.
That he seems to be very cool, he will break everyone over his knee, as a Ukrainian political scientist puts it. And supposedly he will achieve results.
At the same time, no one says what kind of result is meant. What will Babich do? Will it force Ukraine and America to implement the Minsk agreements? Will Medvedchuk be made president of Ukraine? Will it raise the standard of living in Donbass to the levels of Moscow and St. Petersburg? What are we even talking about?
It is believed that Babich is strong-willed and tough.
Chesnakov: This is how Putin’s toughest and most strong-willed people are taking care of Ukraine even without Babich. It couldn't be tougher. Babich is far from them. Moreover, these are people who have repeatedly proven their effectiveness in the largest and most complex political projects. Where did the strong-willed Babich distinguish himself? What did he do with his toughness? It is often written that he worked in Chechnya. They forget to clarify that it’s only two months. And he did not work, but conflicted with the respected Akhmat-Khadzhi Kadyrov. And at Kadyrov’s request, it was Surkov who then achieved the quick recall of Babich from Chechnya due to the complete failure of the work, complete disorganization. What came out of this hectic activity was a scandal, not a result.
Some argue that Babich, who later became plenipotentiary envoy, allegedly dealt harshly with Tatar nationalism. But this is nonsense. Tatar nationalism was dealt with at the beginning of the XNUMXs by the same Surkov and Dmitry Kozak, who achieved the exclusion of words about sovereignty from the constitution of Tatarstan. What does Babich have to do with it?
His Belarusian achievements have already been mentioned. When they say that he completed all the tasks assigned to him in Belarus, it becomes funny. What tasks did he complete? Name it. For some reason no one says anything specific about this. Why? Yes, simply because everything is wrong. But exactly the opposite. Yet, in fact, they know that Babich did not cope with the task, not a single goal of his mission was achieved. He, as they say, screwed up there, made a mess. And nothing more.
But rumors about Babich’s appointment “to Ukraine” do not subside.
Chesnakov: They have long since quieted down. It is very characteristic that it is a Ukrainian political scientist who is trying to revive them. This topic is fueled by Ukraine. It is known that Poroshenko more than once asked Western partners in the Normandy format to influence Russia so that Surkov would be replaced with a more pliable negotiator. Did not work out. Now they are trying to weaken his position with the help of false rumors. But this is a fool's errand. Bondarenko agreed to the point that part of Surkov’s powers had allegedly already transferred to Babich. But for some reason he doesn’t specify what Babich’s place of work is. Where does he work and in what position? So far, nowhere and no one. How could he get powers? What is he, a volunteer? This is nonsense, it’s even embarrassing for Bondarenko.
So will Babich be appointed to the Ukrainian direction? Did Surkov write a letter of resignation?
Chesnakov: Definitely not. They won't appoint. I didn't write. Let's close this topic. I will repeat what I have already said. All these rumors are not true.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.