«MODERN RUSSIA HAS NO FUTURE», — Alexander Likhotal, Doctor of Historical Sciences, an associate of Mikhail Gorbachev

Source: apbspeakers.com

What do Putin and the King of France have in common? Is there an alternative to a military solution to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict? Are there red lines in this war? Why is it time to reconsider the concept of sovereignty and establish a new world order? You will find answers to these and many other questions in an interview with Professor Alexander Likhotal of the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations.

Alexander Likhotal is a prominent figure on the intellectual map of the post-Soviet space. He is a professional historian and holds a Doctorate in History. At one time, Likhotal led a group of consultants in the International Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He was one of Mikhail Gorbachev’s key associates and like-minded supporters, serving as Deputy Head of the Press Office of the President of the USSR from 1989 to 1991.

In the post-Soviet period, he worked as an advisor to the President of the Gorbachev Foundation and headed the International Relations and Press Contact Service. His career includes experience in globally renowned organizations, including serving as President of the International Green Cross. Currently, Professor Likhotal teaches at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations.

Due to his background, he has found himself at the center of many pivotal historical events. We are confident that his assessment of the current global situation and the prospects for resolving the Russian-Ukrainian conflict will be of great interest to our readers.

MODERN RUSSIA HAS NO FUTURE

I have not been to Russia since 2019 — first due to COVID, and then, after February 24, for obvious reasons: I would not want to spend the last years of my life behind bars. Although I know that the current Russian regime cares little about what is said and written abroad — I have been living in Switzerland for over 20 years — and I do not overestimate my influence on events in Russia, but you never know…

I will return as soon as the opportunity arises, and I hope it won’t be too long now. It is obvious that in its current configuration, Russia has no future. That is why, in a strategic sense, I am an optimist. However, in the short term, I would not want to make baseless predictions.

WHAT REALLY MATTERS TO PUTIN?

It is often said that an argument is not what you say but what your interlocutor hears. For Putin, the real situation itself is not important — what matters is how it can be perceived by Russian society. He needs to sell the idea that Russia has gained something from the war against Ukraine. But Ukraine, in turn, cannot afford to lose either.

I have immense admiration for Zelensky’s courage. I can say that Ukraine is very fortunate to have such a leader in this situation. Constantly reading Ukrainian news, I understand that more than 70% of Ukrainians reject even the possibility of ending the war until all Ukrainian territories are fully liberated.

POLITICS — A HOSTAGE OF WAR

By the most conservative estimates, more than 100,000 people have already died in this war. The most terrifying thing is that we have found ourselves in a surreal situation. Carl von Clausewitz said that «war is the continuation of politics by other means». But today’s reality is that politics has become a hostage of war.

It has become a derivative of what happens on the frontlines. This is completely abnormal. We must think about how to untangle this knot. But naturally, while ensuring that Ukraine is given guarantees that fully satisfy its future security needs and align with its sense of national dignity.

SEARCHING FOR A DIPLOMATIC ALTERNATIVE

I am fully aware that talking about a ceasefire today means playing into the Kremlin’s hands. Nevertheless, I think it would be appropriate to create some kind of contact group at the level of department heads and relevant ministries. They could try to find common ground and develop a roadmap.

I hope that Ukraine will liberate as many occupied territories as possible in the near future. However, it is essential to consider that one party in the conflict possesses a nuclear arsenal and has no intention of retreating.

This means we need to consider how to resolve the conflict through other means, seeking diplomatic solutions alongside military actions. Politics and diplomacy must not remain hostages of war.

UKRAINE’S DEMANDS AND RED LINES

Talking about whether the Kremlin could accept these conditions puts us on very shaky ground. I have not been to Moscow for about three years now. Therefore, I have not been in contact with people who move in circles where decisions are made. For this reason, it is very difficult for me to judge the mood at the top.

But one thing is clear: the more occupied territories Ukraine liberates, the easier negotiations will be for it. However, there is certainly a red line, crossing which could lead to an utterly unpredictable situation.

PUTIN IN ZUGZWANG

In my opinion, some underlying processes are taking place in Russia that are invisible to an outside observer. I know how this works. It all starts when the balance between the habit of obedience and the instinct for self-preservation is disrupted. People who have believed for many years that the slightest disagreement with the supreme ruler would end in disaster begin to realize that self-preservation outweighs fear of the ruler.

At some point, they understand that inaction in this situation will cost them much more than trying to change something. Look at Putin’s latest decisions, such as imposing martial law in the occupied territories. It seems he is close to despair. He is floundering because he does not see an optimal way out. He is in a zugzwang situation, where every move only worsens his position.

NATO EXPANSION — A PRETEXT, NOT A REASON

The expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe is used by Russia as a pretext to justify the war. But it is not the real reason. If NATO truly posed a security threat to Russia, then why did Putin remain so calm about Sweden and Finland’s intention to join the alliance?

The special attitude toward Ukraine is explained solely by Putin’s belief that Russians and Ukrainians are one people. But the real issue is different: Putin is dissatisfied with the modern world order. He believes that Russia is not taken into account, that his point of view is ignored.

That is why he has set himself the task of destroying the existing world order. In this sense, Ukraine is the brick he is trying to pull to bring down the entire structure. He expected this to happen easily and quickly. But things did not go as planned.

By joining the Huxley friends club, you support philosophy, science and art

Join the friends club

PUTIN WILL GO, RUSSIA WILL REMAIN

Let us not equate Russia as a country with the regime that governs it. Regimes can be many, and they can change frequently. Even Stalin once acknowledged: «History shows that Hitlers come and go, but the German people and the German state remain».

Undoubtedly, Russia will have to pay in full for what it has done in Ukraine. I have no doubt about that. But it will still remain in its place, and the world will still have to engage with it.

UKRAINE AS PART OF THE RUSSIAN MYT

«History teaches nothing, but it punishes severely for unlearned lessons», said Klyuchevsky. As a historian, I can say that the argument Putin uses to justify aggression is completely false. First, I find it inadequate to seek answers to contemporary world issues in the past. History has already happened, and we need to think about how to move forward into the future.

However, a powerful propaganda machine has been created in Russia that forms a certain mythology. Like any ideology, over time, it begins to bear fruit. A key component of the Russian myth is the idea that Russians and Ukrainians are one people.

Of course, one can imagine that both nations are like fledglings that flew out of the same nest. But then their historical paths diverged. For centuries, they have developed in completely different ways.

WHAT DO PUTIN AND LOUIS X HAVE IN COMMON?

I cannot name a single period in history, starting from Peter the Great, when Russia was more secure than before February 24, 2022. Putin distorts reality by claiming that if Russia had not invaded Ukraine first, it would have inevitably been attacked.

This reminds me of King Louis X, who ruled France in the 13th century. He attacked the small region of Flanders because it stopped paying tribute to France, which he saw as a personal insult. However, the official reason he gave for the invasion was different: he claimed that if France had not started the war first, Flanders would have attacked it. History does not repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

RUSSIANS HAVE A VERY HIGH PAIN THRESHOLD

Historical experience shows that revolutions do not happen under dictatorships. They occur only when the regime begins to soften. Even if the number of casualties reaches tens of thousands, it will not change anything. And this is not just a Russian phenomenon. Look at pre-war Germany — most Germans were not deeply concerned about what was happening.

In every society, there is a minority capable of reflection, analyzing the situation, and thinking about the future. These are mostly people with liberal views. And they become the first victims during periods of war and conflict.

Meanwhile, the majority rallies around power. They believe that doing so will keep them safer and help them survive. Therefore, waiting for a revolution in Russia right now is pointless. History shows that the Russian people have an extremely high pain threshold.

A TAIWAN CASE FOR RUSSI

If we assess the role of the UN in resolving this conflict, I believe that «the patient is more alive than dead». But just a little more, and the situation could become irreversible. There are many opportunities that the UN is simply afraid to use.

Do you know who signed the agreement on the establishment of the UN in San Francisco on June 28, 1945? One of the countries was the Republic of China — now Taiwan. After losing the civil war in 1949, its government fled to Taiwan.

But in 1971, the Republic of China was expelled from the UN. As a result, it lost both its UN membership and its seat on the Security Council, which was handed over to the People’s Republic of China. Why is this precedent not being discussed today? It is clear that the chances of using it are slim, but as a tool of political pressure, why not? The problem is that the UN is too afraid to even raise a finger.

NEW SOVEREIGNTY AND A NEW WORLD ORDER

Given the declining effectiveness of organizations like the UN, I believe that Putin is right about one thing. That is, we really do need to think about a new world order. However, this means an entirely new order — not just a modification of the existing one to suit Putin’s wishes. We have reached a point where state sovereignty is already being perceived differently, and the role of the state is gradually declining.

As a result, it is becoming impossible to resolve all issues at the intergovernmental level. The concept of sovereign states emerged in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. But today, we seem to have moved beyond it. It will likely take decades to bring about real change in this direction. But it is inevitable.

THE SHERIFF AGAINST THE CRIMINAL

What must be done to prevent similar conflicts in the future? This question reminds me of a story by Franz Kafka about an engineer who designed a more «humane» guillotine. You cannot make war humane. Especially considering that, statistically, more than 60% of armed conflicts in the 21st century last longer than 10 years.

As long as states exist, there will be conflicts between them, and they will try to resolve them by force. Roosevelt once sought to eliminate the very concept of conflicting sides. There could be only a criminal, a lawbreaker, and a sheriff who restores order. Essentially, the UN Security Council was supposed to play the role of the sheriff. The idea was to eliminate the possibility of resolving conflicts through military means.

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

Of course, if the UN did not exist, the world would be in a much worse state. So, thank goodness there is at least such an organization. But its effectiveness is steadily declining and will continue to decline. Therefore, we must work on creating an entirely new system that will introduce new players into the field. In this new system, not only states will play a role, but also transnational corporations, major cities…

In the modern world — and even more so in the future — the role of network-based structures will grow. Even today, companies like Google, Meta, Alibaba, or Amazon have greater influence on global development than many states.

Moreover, the global system itself will shift away from the flat «chessboard» model toward a multidimensional network structure. In this new structure, the primary advantage will not be brute force but the role and degree of integration of actors within the network. And simply «reassembling» a new system from old elements, like «I made you out of what was available», is unlikely to help.