NOTOT A LOT non-Russians know Russia as well as Oleksandr Lytvynenko. Ukraine’s new national security chief spent five years training in Moscow as an elite cryptology cadet KGB Academy. More recently, as head of Ukraine’s foreign intelligence services during two years of war, he was busy undermining and extracting information from his former peers. At the end of March, he took over one of the most critical positions in the country.
Mr Lytvynenko therefore deserves to be listened to. And he issues a warning to Western politicians (Donald Trump being the most notorious example) who plan to promote a premature peace deal on Ukraine that would force it to cede territory. “Putin has lied, is lying and will continue to lie. » Ceding territory to Russia in exchange for peace would be a “cruel betrayal” of Ukrainians under violent occupation, he said. More and more innocent people would be killed and more would be thrown into cellars.
But there is also a more pragmatic reason to reject it. A deal made with a compulsive liar probably means only one thing: that he regroups, re-arms himself, and tries again in two or three years. The Russian leader is “addicted” to the idea of conquering Ukraine, says Mr. Lytvynenko. “Next time he will not make a mistake, but will prepare his operation much more carefully, according to all the laws of military art.”
Of course, things should not have turned out this way for Russia. Ukraine was not expected to fight. Russian soldiers were supposed to march in kyiv a few days after the invasion. With his “blitzkrieg”, Mr. Putin’s goal was to present to the West a accomplished fact, says Mr. Lytvynenko. “He meant: Ukraine is over, guys, now let’s talk on my terms.” Ukraine’s heroism foiled this plan. It also fundamentally changed the negotiation. “A victory over the West can now only take place if Putin first achieves victory in Ukraine. For Russians, victory in Ukraine means victory over the United States.”
Has the message reached those who need to hear it? Mr. Lytvynenko sighs and presents a policy line, emphasizing Ukraine’s “essential partnership with the American state…whoever is in power.” This week, Congress could finally begin approving much-needed military assistance. But even if that’s the case, the focus is on giving Ukraine just enough to stay in the game, rather than the tools needed to secure a victory. And all this before a possible Trump presidency, which could make things much more precarious.
Mr. Lytvynenko is a keen observer of American politics and says he understands how concerned the administration is about the escalation and global implications of the war in Ukraine. But he says a Ukrainian victory would reduce, not increase, the risk of confrontation. “Leaders would become reluctant to take risks. » On the other hand, a Ukrainian defeat would be interpreted as proof that the invasions work, with domino consequences in China, Taiwan and beyond. “If aggression works once, everyone will think about giving it a try.” Too many people are watching this war too closely.
The security chief says Mr. Putin has not yet given up on his maximalist goals of “destroying the Ukrainian state and making it a buffer zone.” The recent declaration of “sacred war” by the Russian Orthodox Church against Ukraine only underlines this determination. This announcement, no doubt made with the Kremlin’s blessing, was an “attempt to untie Putin’s hands” and sanction further harsh campaigns against civilian infrastructure in Kharkiv, Odessa, Zaporizhia and beyond. The newly fanatical rhetoric is “something better compared to the Islamic State,” the official continues: “It is crucial to understand that Putinism has not yet completed its evolution. It could be even worse. If the West does not stop this situation, it will end up paying more later, and at the cost of its own lives. Helping Ukraine is not a question of charity.”
After hopes of a breakthrough faded in 2023, the dynamic on the battlefield shifted decisively against Ukraine. Vladimir Putin and his militarized economy are now preparing for a long war, and the West is not yet prepared to unequivocally challenge him. Frontline positions are under constant threat, with Russian guns firing six times faster than the Ukrainians and planes taking advantage of patchy air defenses to drop more and more guided aerial bombs. The situation has become “very difficult,” says Mr. Lytvynenko. “The Russians don’t care about their losses and that makes the situation even more difficult.” When asked how Ukraine could return to a winning position, the official was noncommittal. It is unclear whether Mr. Putin will ever be able to stop attacking Ukraine, he said, but Ukraine must adopt a military strategy that attempts to coerce him into doing so.
Drone strikes deep inside Russia are a key part of this strategy. The Biden White House publicly opposes these operations, arguing that they are counterproductive and incite escalation, but according to Mr. Lytvynenko, they are necessary to maintain pressure on Mr. Putin. “First, it restricts its room for maneuver and second, it helps to persuade Russian society and elites that continuing the war is more expensive than ending it. » Unlike Russia, Ukraine does not target civilians, the official says: only warships, warplanes and oil infrastructure. And this asymmetrically, at a peanut price. “A strike on an airfield can damage seven, ten, 15 planes. Each of them costs more than $30 million each. We can do the operation for less than $2 million. It’s incredibly profitable.
Mr Lytvynenko insists it is not unrealistic to imagine that Russian elites could one day turn against their leader. “There are still a number of rational people in management. They will think and act when they understand that the cost of staying with Putin is higher than moving away from him.” But Ukraine’s first priority is to obtain real security guarantees. Ideally, this means NATO a membership or comprehensive security agreement with America of the type it has with the Philippines, Japan or South Korea. Achieving this in wartime will not be simple, he admits, but bilateral agreements with Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Canada could be seen as “stepping stones” towards this objective. “For the past 300 years, Russia has posed a constant security challenge in this part of the world. It would be fantastic if we could eliminate this threat for at least two generations. » ■
