Putin’s former diplomat speaks

The “Italian message” launched in the press conference with international agencies on the sidelines of the 27th St. Petersburg Economic Forum “is pure electoral propaganda”. Putin “hopes for a victory for the right at the EU polls” and hopes that Italy “will join Hungary in leading the more moderate front towards Moscow”. The threat of arming friendly countries to strike NATO is not realistic.” And Putin, at the Forum in his hometown “feels alone”.

Boris Bondarev he is the Russian diplomat who resigned, with much fanfare, in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine by Moscow’s armed forces. We speak with him via video conference. He is in Switzerland, in a secret location. Under the protection of the security services for fear of attacks against him.

Doctor Bondarev, the St. Petersburg Economic Forum will be subdued compared to the past, but Putin’s press conference with foreign news agencies that preceded its start made headlines in the newspapers. Especially in Italy. What did the Kremlin leader want to tell us, explicitly and between the lines?

Putin wants to show himself strong, confident in what he is doing. And with these premises to influence European politics to promote those who actually support it. In this sense, the “Italian message” is clear: Putin has in fact addressed the voters, who – as people of common sense – hope for peace. In doing so he indirectly gave his blessing to politicians, even within the majority, who do not consider Russian aggression against Ukraine a danger for the country. It is a support for the “appeasers” who, even if after the invasion of Ukraine they had to review some of their official positions towards Moscow, maintain ancient sympathies towards him.

Are you referring to Matteo Salvini?

Also, given that he is part of the government and has said he will not vote for new shipments of weapons to Kyiv if they were intended to hit military targets in Russia. But it’s not just Salvini. I know well enough how Russian hetero politics works to be sure that the Kremlin has not forgotten the positions that were once very different from the current ones and all in all benevolent towards Moscow of part of your government.

But why should the Kremlin be happy if President Meloni’s party or the League got a lot of votes in the European elections? Our government is Atlanticist and extremely firm in its military support for Ukraine. Meloni is not pro-Putin.

In the past he has repeatedly praised the Kremlin leader. And today the Italian government has a different position from that of most European governments on the issue of using missiles supplied to Ukraine. It has a position that is starting to get closer to that of Orban’s Hungary.

Are you telling me that in the press conference in St. Petersburg Putin campaigned for the European elections?

He sent an electoral message. In the Kremlin they have strong expectations of an avalanche victory for the right in Europe. The climate is similar to that which preceded the election of Donald Trump to the White House in 2016. Officially it was said that for Moscow he or Hillary Clinton would have made no difference. In practice, they tried to favor Trump’s victory in every way and toasted the result, even if the new president did not remove the sanctions and did little of what Putin would have wanted.

The political debate in Russia is now limited to theses that support the regime. Even political scientists who until two or three years ago proposed objectively interesting opinions and positions have dried up. How much does this matter for decisions at the top?

It matters a lot. We are back in the days of the Soviet Union. Then it was important to contribute to the construction of socialism and say it out loud. And thus criminal regimes such as that of Menghistu in Ethiopia were legitimized and helped (Menghistu Hailé Mariàm, known as the Red Negus, dictator of Ethiopia from 1977 to 1991, who took refuge in Zimbabwe after the collapse of his regime, sentenced to death in absentia for genocide and other crimes, ed.). Everyone understood that it was neither communism nor socialism. But the narrative justified the free shipments of armaments. Today, the same thing happens. The Kremlin narrative justifies anything. Because the level of political analysis has returned to being low. They are not analyses, they are justifications of policies useful for maintaining the system of power. The level of understanding is extremely low. And this makes Putin and his collaborators dangerous, because, in light of the recommendations and analyzes they receive, they can do absolutely stupid things.

Until a few years ago, the St. Petersburg Economic Forum was a place for exchange of opinions between Russia, the West and the global South. It hosted economists, politicians and scholars from all over the world and proposed discussions – often thanks to Russian intellectuals – which were part of the agenda to improve relations between states. What is this Forum today?

It is the shadow of a past of a certain grandeur. If nothing else, it is desired and actively sought. Putin wanted to make it one of the major world forums. As influential as Davos. A place where all global decision makers come together and try to figure out how to improve the fate of humanity. This was his dream. It was also a personal matter. St. Petersburg is the city where Putin was born. And it was the capital of the tsarist empire. Putin’s dream was destroyed by Putin’s own policies. Which I think today at the forum he feels a little alone.

But there are heads of government and economists from around the world. Many African leaders. How can you say that Putin feels alone?

He has no comparison with those he considers his equals. No familiar faces arrived from the West. The world in which he wanted to count as one of the greats is not present. This forum is proof of the isolation of Putin’s Russia, even though there are many important people from countries considered friends. It became an internal event. It no longer has global significance.

However, the countries present mostly agree with Putin on the need to recognize the multipolarity of the world instead of what was defined as “American exceptionalism”…

In the Kremlin they really believe in this “multipolar” world. But it is a “multipolarity” in which each power has a sphere of influence to be imposed even by force. Each pole determines the life of neighboring countries. The problem is that alongside autocracies there are progressive, more advanced countries with greater freedom. And that allow creative people to live better. There will always be a flight, material or spiritual, towards free countries. Therefore, autocracies will have to wage war on their neighbors to avoid anti-regime revolts or other threats to established power.

In fact, Russia wants multipolarity but not for Ukraine, invaded to conquer what it defines as “Russian space”…

This multipolar world will inherently lead to endless wars. And the more the poles, the more instability there will be. It doesn’t seem like a well thought out concept to me. Like many other nationalist political concepts. They are not carefully thought out. They are made of slogans. They are not complete projects.

In the press conference in St. Petersburg, Putin returned to threatening nuclear responses to any NATO escalation in Ukraine. But so far every time a red line has been crossed he has not carried out the threats. Is it a bluff this time too? Or does the limited green light to strike military targets in Russia make it more realistic?

This narrative reflects Putin’s way of thinking, the way he sees the world. He talks about escalation, scares Western leaders and believes it works. So, he escalates the war. But the West then crosses the red lines. Putin invents others and threatens again. To the point of creating an increasingly dramatic situation. The latest case, the possibility of Kyiv striking across the border with the American Himars, is a big problem for the Russian armed forces. And so Putin raises the bar. And he talks about the most populous countries within reach of his nuclear warheads to influence the minds of Western leaders.

But is this different from the threats of the past?

Yes. These are not the fantasies – personal or induced – of a Medvedev or other people without real responsibilities. Putin is the one who can push the button. His words in the press conference before international agencies certainly carry weight. But it seems to me that his bravado is a sign of insecurity. Precisely because so far the threats have not worked. And because he doesn’t want to press the button: it could also turn against his friends. Or maybe not. Maybe someone in the Global South would approve. But the uncertainty is too much to take a test from which there is no turning back.

Indeed, Putin has said that he could supply long-range weapons to third countries to attack NATO countries. It means that he trusts his friends…

And which countries would ever start a war against the United States? Because that’s what it’s about. Any comparison with the situation in Ukraine is simply ridiculous. Maybe Cuba? Iran? Does this seem like a plausible scenario to you? More worrying would be the intention to arm terrorist groups for attacks in the West. Possible, but it doesn’t seem in the cards at the moment. And then, with what weapons? But what if Russia has to ask on its knees for drones and missiles from Iran and technology from China? Where are all these Russian arsenals?

Are you not underestimating both Russia’s arsenals and the Global South’s resentment against the West and particularly the United States?

The Global South is not a monolith. There are a hundred or more different countries. It’s China, it’s India, it’s Pakistan which is at loggerheads with India. And there is Brazil, with its new president who has a singular perception of the world to say the least. Of course, Putin could always justify using nuclear weapons by saying that he was forced by the USA and NATO. But only the most fanatics would actually believe him.

The fact is that for the first time in decades, especially in Russia, nuclear war is being talked about as if it were something normal. An eventuality like any other. To take into consideration…

It’s a psychological game, as always when deterrence is involved. It is based on whether or not the opponents are likely to press the button. And today the game is even more dangerous because it is less balanced: the moves are no longer mirrored and therefore even less predictable.

Can you explain better?

Just look at the facts: Russia uses the nuclear narrative to intimidate and stop the West. But the West does not do the same thing towards Russia. Traditional deterrence, which during the Cold War more or less guaranteed peace between the great powers, has been shattered.

The danger is great. Putin says the West creates it. He is doing it now – on the eve of the European elections – also to bring votes to parties willing to say no to sending weapons to Kyiv and yes to the Kremlin’s requests in Ukraine, she said. But can he really convince the pacifists?

Certainly. Who wants war? Nobody. Putin’s Russia, which invaded Ukraine and started all this, can really convince many voters in the Union – in perfect good faith – to vote for those who actually support those who started this war and foment it. It’s easy to blame everything on the US. Anti-Americanism in Europe is widespread. It’s a hot topic.