Sergei Stankevich
Photo: Ivan VISLOV
The debate on Tucker Carlson’s two-hour interview with Vladimir Putin, which answered the American interlocutor’s questions not only about the conflict in Ukraine and relations between Russia and the West, was watched by more than 60 million people on the Internet until 10 a.m. on Friday.
On Radio Komsomolskaya Pravda we discuss some points of the conversation between the Russian leader and former Fox News host with the historian and former advisor to President Yeltsin Sergei Stankevich.
– Putin told Carlson that in the early 2000s he spoke with President Clinton about Russia joining NATO, and Clinton mentioned earlier that the doors to the alliance were open for Moscow under Yeltsin…
– Shortly before this great interview with Putin, documents dating back to 1994 were declassified in the United States. Then Clinton spoke with Yeltsin. And the declassified documents contain transcripts of their conversations. And there the question of NATO’s expansion to the east was already raised.
– What did Yeltsin say then?
– A position was expressed that Yeltsin had previously discussed with his closest circle. It was like this: if you want to do something in Europe, move NATO somewhere, first contact Moscow. Because any new system of collective security in Europe – and Europe needed such a system – cannot exclude Russia. And this will be carried out at the expense of Russia. And first you must make us the offer. If this system is based on NATO, then invite Russia there.
– Is this what it sounded like in 1994?
– Yes, and now in an interview with Putin it was said that a few years later, at the beginning of the century, Russia was ready to consider the issue of collective security on the basis of NATO, if that was the position of our Western countries . partners.
– But on both occasions the West rejected the option with NATO?
– Yes, for the West, not for us.
– If Russia had joined NATO in 1994, would it have participated not only in collective security, but also in collective aggression, for example against Yugoslavia?
– If Russia had then joined NATO, and we must remember that the alliance operates according to the principle of collective responsibility in decision-making, Russia would not have then allowed aggression against Yugoslavia. And then, the alliance proposal was like this… The call “come on, accept us!” – This very idea could cause stupor among Western partners, such a giant is joining this structure. It was a negotiation proposal: they say that if the West refuses, it will offer some other solution, also collective and including Russia. This was not just negotiation, it was diplomacy.
– Carlson said after the interview that if they think the Russians want to drive tanks through Vienna, then they are idiots. And in the interview itself, Putin, speaking about Poland, said that we have no interests there, only threats.
– It makes sense for Poland to reconsider its previous attitude. It was formed artificially and is partly related to the air tragedy near Smolensk, when one of the Kaczynski brothers died along with the leaders of Poland. Therefore, Warsaw needs to eliminate this historical attitude towards the conflict with Russia. It is pushing the country in the wrong direction. Polish history and future state building cannot be oriented towards the supposed inevitability of a conflict with Russia. Anti-Russian rhetoric should not be aggressive or dominant in Polish political thought. If we can get rid of this at least partially, then everything will get better.
– So what signal did this interview send, for example, to Europe?
– The sign is simple: do not create threats. The type of situation in which you are perceived as an existential and strategic threat.
– But didn’t it sound too soft?
– That sounded reasonable. But simply refusing to create a threat is not enough. In fact, a new collective security system is needed in Europe. And it worked when the USSR existed, the Yalta-Subdam system, later confirmed in Helsinki. But after 1991 everything changed and no new system emerged. A high price has already been paid for the absence of such a system.
– So we still have to speak harshly about some things?
– When talking about interviews, you don’t have to take some things out of context.
– Putin talked about negotiations, but what about complete victory?
– The main positive reason for this interview is that Putin spoke several times about his fundamental readiness for negotiations, and in two ways. And to negotiations to end hostilities and negotiations to resolve contradictions between Russia and the collective West. Here’s the main thing: why it was worth having such a conversation.
– How will this affect Western audiences?
– It will definitely have an impact. By morning they had seen 60 million and will see several dozen more. Westerners saw a real path to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, which until now frightened them with the prospect of a global war. Putin showed that global wars are not inevitable.
