What are Putin's immediate and long-term objectives in Ukraine? Expert panel discusses on IntelMattersPod
"Intelligence Matters" transcript - Experts including former Deputy Secretary General of NATO Rose Gottemoeller, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Russia and Eurasia Andrea Kendall-Taylor, and former senior CIA operations officer John SipherMICHAEL MORELL: Let me get the discussion started by asking, and Andrea, we'll start with you.
But I also think it's, you know, I personally think that there are legacy issues at play here. I think Putin is thinking long term. I think he believes that he is the last Russian leader who would be willing to take such risks to reassert Russia's role as a great power. And so I think for him, the time is, his clock is ticking, time is ticking. And so he is getting ready to break things. I mean, I think he really sees this. He sees the West as being in decline.
And in retrospect, it looks like he saw that as weakness. That is, if he decides to sort of yank our chain, he'll get something out of it. We don't show great strength. We really don't push back. And so now he's he's sort of thrown down the gauntlet and we have less means to sort of deter this type of action.
MICHAEL MORELL: So Rose, Andrea and John talked about why this is important to Putin. Why is this important to the United States? There's been a little bit of debate here, right, about whether this should matter or not to us. What's the answer to that question? Why does this matter to the United States and why does this matter to the American people?
Now why is it important to the United States? The United States, of course, came out of World War II the dominant global figure and global country, the superpower that was able to define the institutions that have governed us internationally since World War II. I think that system is worth preserving and of course, evolving it in the direction that makes it also modern and able to cope with the current situation.
ROSE GOTTEMOELLER: May I just say a word, perhaps mention why I think there may be a bit of a growing momentum in the direction of diplomacy. Putin, in recent times, including in his press conference or a couple of weeks ago, has been talking about that he was going to take the advice of his military, of his military experts.
Presumably in eastern Ukraine, we're seeing, you know, in Crimea, the Russian military down there is now on its highest state of readiness. We're seeing the arrival of significant naval assets, including things like amphibious assault ships. Those ships can't stay there forever, right? And they've sailed all the way down from the north through the Mediterranean and now into the Black Sea. They're fully loaded. They're ready to go.
He can only be deterred, I believe, like a bully who is going to just keep pushing and pushing. He has to be scared of what deterrents mean. There has to be threats that are credible to him that he thinks going to hurt him. So there's all sorts of things that are important to him. I think he wants the U.S. out of Europe. I think he wants NATO to be weaker, NATO to go away. I think he wants countries on his border to be vassals, to be supportive of Russia, namely Ukraine.
But Rose, do you think diplomatically, do you think there's space for an agreement where the U.S. does not essentially give away Ukraine and Putin doesn't fully back down? Is there space for such an agreement? So in other words, there's some useful stuff that Putin has been proposing that we should be willing to explore. And as far as I can tell from hearing what our diplomats have to say, we have put a clear message out that we are ready to start negotiating on some of these things.
JOHN SIPHER: Can I add something quick? Frankly, I think we would have been glad to negotiate all of these things without this threat, without a threat of war. I mean, these are issues we brought up before, we were glad to talk to Putin about those kinds of things. So I think diplomatically, they all should be there if Putin wants to use that opportunity to back off to move away from this.
And so I think I've seen kind of coming out of the congressional briefing that got read out from last week that I see a kind of warning about a pincer movement where they really can come around from three sides. They've got the attack from the north and from the east and obviously from the south through bases through Crimea. So I think to me, if he is actually looking to accomplish that most maximalist objective, that is likely what it would be.
And so I think he can achieve his goals without having to occupy the country. And I just want to add one thing here is that I think we in the West and especially United States are a little too cavalier about this. I think we're sort of foolish if we think there can be a major war in Europe, a bloody war with huge refugee flows and these type of things without NATO, the U.S., others somehow getting involved in this.
And so he's really managed in the last, you know, since Lukashenko's fraudulent election, where he's been Lukashenko's only lifeline, he has totally eroded Belarussian autonomy and he's not leaving. And so what if he is in this legacy mindset? What if Putin really is looking to increase his control and influence over Belarus? Take all of eastern Ukraine, and now he holds a swath of territory.
The watchwords are start high and stay high, so they are planning working very closely together to extract some significant - I would say financial penalties, might not extract but impose some significant financial penalties on the Russian Federation. So this is all about deterrence, clearly at the moment, but I think I do see really much more significant cohesion with the European countries than I have seen in the past.
ROSE GOTTEMOELLER: Of course, there will be some retaliation. No doubt in those areas where Putin can retaliate, the energy sector is front and center there. But there are other areas, too. You have to remember that titanium production, for example, is very much front and center as part of how the Russian Federation earns its keep these days. So there are critical minerals that are important to Western economies as well.
JOHN SIPHER: Andrea, I agree with that. And also one more point on the sanctions, though the other thing Rose is right I think the focus is going to be the financial institutions and that will have kind of immediate economic pain for the Russians and hearing people talk about, you know, if our last set of sanctions, I think estimates say about to cost Russia about two to three percent of their GDP, that is what they're talking about.
ROSE GOTTEMOELLER: Well, taking us back to my concern about the hybrid space, I think, frankly, here it is difficult to know. And there's been some concern in my mind that if the attacks do start in that hybrid space, then there is the possibility of some escalatory pressures. But there's also the possibility that we won't take sufficient deterrent action in that space. Time and again, it's difficult to judge the direction of attack. The focus of the attack.
One of the reasons I think we are seeing some of this leaking of intelligence and these types of things where the administration has sort of leaked it, that we have insight into some of the stuff they're trying to do, to do a false flag attack or do these kind of things, I think it's part of the deterrence factor that - showing them that we have real insight into what's going on in the Kremlin in there and that he ought to take that into his calculus, that we may be better poised...
I think it serves two functions, one, I think it is a deterrent. And alongside sanctions, we've clearly communicated to Putin that if he invades Ukraine, we will increase our force posture in Europe. And I actually think that's the more deterring step rather than sanctions.
"We're able to also support opposition inside. Countries were also able to do these kind of things, cyber attacks. And then, you know, we're able to take your money away and steal it and do all those kind of things that you claim we're doing. We can do those. And if you want to play this game hard, we do have the capability to do it. And you know we haven't done it so far, but, you know we can.
But again, all bets are going to be off. But I only say that to point out that Biden's been willing to have his contacts with President Putin, to speak with him on the phone, to meet with him when it's worthwhile. And I think that would be my advice to keep that channel open because we're going to need to have channels of communication open no matter how bad it gets.
So regardless of what happens, if we do find a diplomatic path out of this or if it's a full invasion, I think we need to entirely shift and rethink what the U.S. and European approach to Russia is going to be.
United States Latest News, United States Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Putin: Russia ready to discuss confidence-building measures amid Ukraine crisisThe move came after Russia’s foreign minister indicated the country was ready to keep talking about the security grievances that led to the Ukraine crisis.
Read more »
Ukraine's comic-turned-president finds Russia showdown a deadly serious matterSome Ukrainians are starting to wonder whether their neophyte leader has the smarts and strength to lead them through a moment of peril.
Read more »
Biden to Putin: Consequences of invasion into Ukraine would be 'swift and severe'President Joe Biden warned Russian President Vladimir Putin that the consequences of a full-scale invasion of Ukraine would be 'swift and severe,' according to a White House description of the conversation.
Read more »
Russia's top diplomat says talks should continue because U.S. has offered missile deployment limitsForeign Minister Sergey Lavrov of Russia suggested that Moscow should continue a dialogue with the U.S. and its allies even though they have rejected Russia’s main Russian security demands.
Read more »