Vladimir FEDOROVSKI, a Russian diplomat and writer, is the son of a Ukrainian hero of World War II. He began working as an attaché at the Soviet Embassy in Mauritania in 1972, where, as an Arabist, he assisted Leonid Brezhnev as an interpreter. As he continued his career, he turned towards France. He was appointed cultural attaché in Paris in 1977 and completed a doctorate in history on the role of cabinets in French diplomatic history in 1985. Upon returning to Moscow, he worked at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was during this time that he befriended Alexander Yakovlev, a key figure in Gorbachev’s administration and considered the instigator of perestroika. He was appointed diplomatic advisor and participated in promoting perestroika in France. Eventually weary of Gorbachev’s inconsistencies, he decided to leave the diplomatic career in 1990 to help create one of the first Russian democratic parties, the Democratic Reform Movement. Opposing the hardline stance of the Communist Party and the KGB, he became the spokesperson for the democratic reform movement during the resistance to the Moscow coup in August 1991. Since then, Vladimir FEDOROVSKI has focused on his writing career. His works, written in French, have become international successes and are translated into 28 countries. He is the most published Russo-Ukrainian writer in France and is regularly called upon to comment on the international geopolitical situation.
by Jean-Claude MAIRAL, co-president of I-Dialogos, and Pierrick HAMON, General Delegate,
with Giuseppe Giliberti from the Italian magazine LAB Politiche e Culture, in Bologna
I-Dialogos/Lab Politiche e Culture: Vladimir Fedorovski, you have just published a new book “Stalin-Putin, a dialogue from beyond the grave.” You note that before the sanctions imposed by the West, over 80% of Russians were in favor of the European Union, whereas today it would be quite the opposite, with an incredible rise in Stalin’s popularity. How do you explain this reversal?
Vladimir Fedorovski: We are now living in the most dangerous period in European history. In Russia, Stalin has indeed become the most popular figure, more than all other leaders in Russian history. This is a unique phenomenon; it is rather a historical phenomenon. All red lines have been crossed. There is a mix between propaganda and real politics. In this book, I use a supposed dialogue between Putin and Stalin to explain the current crisis.
Jean-Claude Mairal: Was there not a tremendous missed opportunity by the West, by the Americans, but also by France and all the Eastern European countries when the conditions were ripe to build, as General De Gaulle said, a Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals?
Vladimir Fedorovski: I completely agree with you. It was an absolutely unique opportunity for the world, a completely missed opportunity by diplomacy, especially European diplomacy. The Westerners believed that what Gorbachev was doing was a sign of weakness, whereas it was, on the contrary, a sign of intellectual strength. As a diplomat close to the number two in the Kremlin, I was closely involved in all of this. We wanted to participate in the construction of a new world. I want to share a more personal anecdote. I saw Président François Mitterrand a few days before his death for a sort of farewell visit. He said to me, “Vladimir, one more word.” That was his last word to me: “Gorbachev does not belong to the past; he belongs to the future.” This statement truly reflected reality.
After the Cold War, we could have either built a world based on strength or prioritized the balance of interests. This is what sensible people understood, not just in Europe. I knew a great American diplomat, the Deputy Secretary of State. His name was George Kennan. He was the one who originated the theory of “containment” during the entire Cold War. I met him when he was over 100 years old, shortly before he passed away. He told me that the greatest Western mistake since Jesus Christ was not seizing this opportunity. The fall of the wall had been decided six months earlier in Moscow. Gorbachev wanted to move towards the reunification of Germany. It was in June 1989. I was there and I could tell you how it happened. There were still 500,000 Soviet soldiers in Germany. It was a gesture of goodwill. The then American Secretary of State, James Baker, on behalf of the United States and in the presence of my friend, the great Georgian diplomat, Eduard Shevardnadze, the last Foreign Minister of the USSR, committed that NATO would not move an inch.
There were no treaties. The Americans later took advantage of this to claim that this commitment had never existed, that it was just a verbal promise, that it was the victory of the West, which was false. Yet, around Gorbachev, there were visionaries with a lucid approach to reality and a conception of democratic socialism with a human face. They wanted to build a new world, without war. At the time, Mikhail Gorbachev trusted the Westerners. He was naive, and this naivety is what caused his popularity to plummet in the country. Putin reproaches him precisely for not having made a treaty. As a witness, I can nevertheless confirm this commitment from James Baker. The entire current crisis dates back to that period.
Giuseppe Giliberti: You said that we are living in a much more dangerous period than the Cold War. Under what conditions could Europe emerge from this deadlock where there are no longer any red lines in Ukraine? How could the European Union create a new world order through closer union and an economic cooperation offer with Russia? Is it still possible to create a European security system that is autonomous from the United States?
Vladimir Fedorovski: This is a very serious question. I do not have a definitive answer, but I am absolutely convinced that Europe and Russia are complementary. The cooperation of Europe with Russia is essential. I knew Chirac well, who was a friend. He was convinced that we should, as Fernand Braudel, the French historian, said, be part of a long time, in a long history, and that Russian culture is eminently European. One only needs to remember Tolstoy or Diaghilev, for example. As a diplomat who participated in managing many crises, I believe that we should not act against something or someone, and thus not necessarily act against the United States. However, the question of Russia’s security is absolutely essential. This is why the situation is so serious.
Russians believe that Europe has sold its soul and has become a vassal of the United States. They now think that the continent of the future is Asia. They believe that the future lies with the BRICS.
Until now, I was convinced that Europe’s prosperity was linked to three factors: cheap gas and oil primarily from Russia, the development of cooperation with China, and the reduction of military spending. But these factors no longer exist due to sanctions imposed by the West. Sanctions that have proven to be totally counterproductive for the EU countries, especially for Germany and France. This has provided Russia with the opportunity to redirect and reorganize its resources, including towards China and India, and not only. I must admit that, paradoxically perhaps, Russians continue to adore France and Italy. I travel a lot in Europe. It is claimed that France and Italy have become Russophobic, which is not true. France, where I live, is one of the most Russophile countries. But there are also many people closer to American neoconservatives who probably have scores to settle with Russia.
These individuals seek to weaken Russia by trying to provoke a split of the country into several states, in accordance with the theory of Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense during Bush Jr.’s time, who had deliberately lied about NATO’s enlargement. Ukraine was to serve as a spearhead to weaken Russia. During the fall of the Soviet Union, a former Polish president even showed me maps of the 37 states that could replace Russia. Imagine the chaos that would result in Russia, which has over 100 nationalities on its territory and different religions. Russians obviously cannot accept such threats of division.
Jean-Claude Mairal: Didn’t Putin already warn about NATO?
Vladimir Fedorovsky: In 2008, during the Budapest Summit, Putin clearly warned that Ukraine’s entry into NATO would constitute a “casus belli,” and that there was no way he would risk the country’s security by allowing missiles to be installed just five minutes from Moscow. This would be equivalent to installing missiles at the Mexican border facing the United States. In 1962, the Americans demanded, and obtained from Khrushchev, the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba for the same reasons, under the threat of a world war. It is this very security concern that leads Israel to go to war, and which also led to the war in Ukraine.
In the name of liberalism and with brutal and heavy privatizations, as well as in the name of Democracy, the United States managed to convince Yeltsin to allow 3% of the population to divide up 60% of the country’s wealth. Half of the population quickly fell below the poverty line. Over 120 billion dollars were thus able to leave Russia and illegally seek refuge in London banks, with the complicity of Western banks. These people speak of values, but in reality, they confuse thieves with values. These people should read Tolstoy, or rather, they should read Tolstoy. They stole Russia in an absolutely extraordinary manner. It was the greatest robbery of the 20th century.
Francis Fukuyama’s claims about the “end of history” have proven to be completely false. We are now witnessing the emergence of a truly multipolar world. Yet, we could have sought common interests and a balance of interests, acting without war and choosing peace. You know that I have often been critical of Putin. I have a dual heritage: Russian through my mother and Ukrainian through my father, who was a great hero of the war against the Nazis. I live this war as a personal tragedy. The Russians are making progress on all fronts, which is very dangerous and increasingly tragic for the Ukrainians. The losses have been considerable, and the country does not have the necessary human resources. The numbers are terrifying. It is absolutely necessary to start negotiations now to avoid the disappearance of an entire generation.
Pierrick Hamon: In the Western media, every day we hear about Putin’s “dictatorship.” He himself mentioned economic difficulties in his recent press conference. The arrival of North Korean soldiers on the front lines—doesn’t this indicate military difficulties for the Russians as well?
Vladimir Fedorovsky: The Russians don’t need them. They wanted to show that, on their side as well, by calling on North Korea, and possibly China and others, an escalation of the conflict could have much wider, global consequences. In this media war, everyone uses symbols. Personally, I wouldn’t have called upon Korean soldiers. It’s dangerous. It’s a response to the threats of internationalizing the conflict and to the presence of the British, French, and Americans in Ukraine. The long-range missiles used by Ukrainian forces cannot be used without being guided by Western specialists.
Of course, the Russians have their own economic difficulties, but the sanctions have also led to a surge in investments. Despite Western sanctions and inflation, the Russian economy is holding up, with a 4% growth this year, while growth is stagnant in Germany and just 1% in France and Italy. It is in this context that Russia has managed to form an army of one and a half million soldiers.
On this topic, the fake news spread by Western media are countless. Remember when they claimed that the Russians didn’t have rockets, that Putin was going to die of cancer, etc. If they can pay volunteers, it’s because they have reserves for several years. French Minister Le Maire even announced that Russia would be “on its knees in a few weeks.” In reality, the sanctions were a gift for the Russian economy, which has been able to make up, in three years, for 10 years of lag.
The military-industrial complex today produces 3 to 4 times more shells than all of Europe. The new Oreshnik medium-range ballistic missiles completely change the game. The bans on Russian authors in Ukraine and in some other countries have greatly increased Putin’s popularity. According to CIA data, his popularity has risen to 78%, even 80%. The real opposition in Russia is made up of much more radical people who criticize Putin for not reacting strongly enough, those I describe in my latest book as the return of Stalin. The pro-Westerners, who were nearly 80% before the sanctions, now represent only a small minority. I have managed many crises between the Russians and the Americans. They used to meet regularly in Vienna and agreed not to kill each other’s leaders and senior officers. The Ukrainians recently claimed responsibility for the assassination of a general, stating they “wanted to create fear,” which had the opposite effect on a population that was outraged and disgusted. This is a very great danger. The new Russian missiles could be much more devastating to people, not to mention a military superiority that, in Europe, is 10 to 1.
Giuseppe Giliberti: You mentioned that there has been an underestimation of the irrational aspects, and that the origins of the crisis stem from a lack of diplomatic initiative. But there is also the violence of the language used by heads of state and diplomats. Isn’t that a problem in itself? During the Cuban crisis, there was no such offensive and violent language.
Vladimir Fedorovsky: A new generation has come to power in many countries. A large part of this generation is not afraid of war because they have not experienced it. They are full of contempt for the Russians, whose mentalities they do not understand. Putin, on the other hand, is rather restrained, which is precisely what the Stalinist opposition criticizes him for. Diplomacy no longer exists. We are living in the most dangerous moment in human history, and if we continue like this, we are heading straight for the apocalypse.
If you watched Putin’s most recent press conference, without any notes, you would have noticed that he has completely changed, and the current situation is turning to his advantage. This conference is also a form of public oral diplomacy, a negotiation out loud. Putin made it clear that he is ready to negotiate, ready to compromise based on the Istanbul agreements, which were ultimately blocked by the British and the Americans and would have prevented so many significant human losses, just one month after the conflict began.
Giuseppe Giliberti: In Italy, the media are convinced that Trump’s presidency will make a very quick agreement between Russia and Ukraine possible. What is your opinion?
Vladimir Fedorovsky: Contacts with Trump have been re-established. We will see. The Washington Post recently reported on a recent phone call between Trump and Putin. Europeans have discussed the possibility of deploying NATO troops in a demilitarized zone— a solution advocated by Western neoconservatives. This is something that the Russians and Putin could obviously not accept, as it would risk prolonging the conflict after a period of rearmament. It would be a “Korean solution,” with Ukraine being rearmed by NATO forces. This is, of course, unacceptable. What the Russians want is a guarantee of security. That has been the central point from the beginning. Future Vice President Vance will certainly play a major role. He is preparing a negotiated stabilization plan, quietly, not the Korean way but the Austrian way, with the reconstruction of Ukraine, which could then potentially become part of the European Union—something the Russians have never opposed, contrary to repeated claims in certain media. The real “casus belli” since the beginning has been NATO.
The statement by President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel, claiming to have accepted the Minsk agreements only to give Ukraine time to rearm, has completely discredited the diplomacy of these two countries.
Pierrick Hamon: You mentioned the surprising Russophilia of the French and Italians, a Russophilia that doesn’t seem to have touched the media. In his book “Les autres ne pensent pas comme nous”, former diplomatic advisor to Jacques Chirac, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, was even surprised by this true anti-Russian hysteria. How do you explain President Macron’s about-turn?
Vladimir Fedorovsky: While I am a specialist on Putin, I am not a specialist in Macron’s psychology. Regarding the role of the media, some even go so far as to imagine that moles might be providing critical talking points to increase Putin’s popularity? Thus, when the publication of major Russian classic authors is banned. In Italy, the great Russian soprano Anna Netrebko was prevented from performing… All of this only boosts Putin’s popularity. The words “diplomacy” and “geopolitics” do not seem to be part of the culture of some of this new generation of journalists. I knew journalists who were very anti-Soviet at the time but were much more knowledgeable about things. There is a real problem with training and even education.
Jean-Claude Mairal: Regarding Syria, we saw the rebels reach Damascus in a short time, and the regime collapse despite being supported by Russia. What is your opinion on this situation? As a diplomat, were you surprised by such a rapid collapse?
Vladimir Fedorovsky: Regarding the speed: Yes. As for the situation: No. I forgot to tell you that, during my long diplomatic career, I was Brezhnev’s Arabic interpreter. So, I knew the leaders of the region at the time very well. We knew that Assad was weakened. There were two main problems.
The first is that he relied mainly on the old guard, which was trained by his father, and from which he had to remove some members who could harm him. This weakened his army. Others, who had grown old, had retired.
The second problem was that the Iranians, focused on other priorities, notably Hezbollah, were unable to intervene. The Russians understood this and warned Assad. Putin refused to send Russian troops to avoid another quagmire like Afghanistan, which the Americans would have wanted in order to keep them out of Syria.
The FSB had informed Putin that, faced with 15,000 rebels, Assad could not hold out, and it would not be prudent to open a second front after Ukraine. Putin then negotiated, through the Astana process, with Turkey, Iran, and several Arab countries, the withdrawal of Assad’s troops partly to Libya and Algeria. He also had contacts with Israel. The new authorities reportedly expressed their wish for Russian bases to be maintained, just like the American ones. We’ll see…
Giuseppe Giliberti: Regarding relations between Russia and the BRICS, is this a stable reality for the future?
Vladimir Fedorovsky: I think this is indeed the direction the world is moving in, and Russia has committed to it. The world can no longer function under the total hegemony of the United States. We need a balanced world. But where are the Europeans in the negotiations? Their absence is total. The Americans decide, and the Europeans execute. This is what other countries on the planet see. They don’t want to end up in the same situation as the European Union.
And then, there is no longer, or no more, desire for Europe. This is something I find painful to remind you of, as I consider myself a bridge between Europe and Russia. Asia is the continent of the future. The BRICS are not created against Europe or the West, but to take part in the march toward a truly multipolar world. In Europe, with the upcoming elections, there will be a radical change in the situation, particularly in Germany and the United States. It will be a different Germany. It is possible that these upcoming elections will bring to power an even more anti-Putin team.
But I dare hope that diplomacy will finally regain the place it should never have lost.
