Yuri Felshtinsky is the world's leading expert on Soviet and Russian intelligence services. The historian has been able to achieve this because in 1978 he left the USSR and emigrated to the United States, where he has lived ever since. There he has published Blowing Up Ukraine: The Return of Russian Terror and the Threat of World War III or From Red Terror to Terrorist State, investigations that almost seem like scripts for a crime action series. Except, of course, that the mentioned dead are real.
Felshtinsky (Moscow, 68 years old) is equally attentive to what is happening with Putin and his special military operation. Proof of this is his essay Ukraine. The first battle of World war III?
Question. What did you think when you learned about Trump's call to Putin?
Answer. It happened just as I expected. I knew that Trump would stop providing assistance to Ukraine on the same day he became president. I was wrong because he stopped providing assistance to everyone, including Ukraine, not on the first but on the third day of his presidency. I expected him to declare the withdrawal of the United States from issues related to the invasion of Ukraine. I expected him to say that Europe should deal with this war without help. And I expected that, in practical terms, the U.S. would withdraw from NATO. That's what Trump proposed to the American people and what they voted for. The irony is that before the elections, foreign policy was the least important issue for Americans. It barely interested 2% or 3% of the population, according to several polls. What concerned them was the economy or immigration. Even climate change was more important than foreign policy. And yet, the most pressing problems have arisen in foreign policy. We are starting to see this now because that is what matters to Putin and, therefore, to Trump. Trump bought into Putin's narrative many years ago, starting with his first foreign policy speech at the Mayflower Hotel in 2016. He then said that NATO was obsolete. Since long before that day, he has not said a single bad word about Putin. He has never criticized him. As we know, Trump is not a very respectful person. In fact, he is famous for insulting everyone... except Putin. He has a certain dependence on him. I have my theories about it, but the reality is that Trump practices a policy not of Russia but of Putin.
Q. Why?
A. In a recent interview, Nikolai Patrushev [former head of the FSB intelligence service (successor to the KGB) and official assistant to Putin] stated that Trump is obligated to hand over Ukraine to the Russian president. Patrushev also said that Ukraine ceased to exist as a state in 1925, something that former President Dmitry Medvedev and Putin himself have insisted on many occasions. Russia's main goal is to stop foreign aid to Ukraine. The Kremlin understands that if Trump eliminates assistance from the U.S., Europeans will be unable to help Ukraine. So we will witness Trump's attempt to force Zelensky to negotiate with Putin. The idea of negotiating is fine. I mean, there is nothing wrong with the idea of initiating peace talks. If there are talks between Hamas and Israel, why couldn't there be talks between Putin and Zelensky? The problem is that Putin does not want to end the war in Ukraine. Putin wants Ukraine. And, in fact, the problem is that Ukraine does not fulfill his political ambitions.
Q. Does this refer to his obsession with rebuilding the Soviet empire and restoring Russian influence in the world?
A. That's right. Belarus, Georgia, and Ukraine are partially or fully occupied by Russia. Belarus was the first country controlled by Moscow because it is a strategic territory: the gateway from Asia to Europe. Then it seized territories from Georgia (2008) and Ukraine (2014). Now we know that in 2015, it tried to do something similar in Moldova, but the Ukrainians did not allow it to reach Transnistria then or now. That is why Moldova, which is a much weaker country and not part of NATO, has avoided war. In 2022, everyone expected that Ukraine would be taken by Russia in three days or three weeks. Everyone, I mean the U.S. and non-communist Europe, would have said: it's sad for the Ukrainians, but what can we do? Russia did not achieve its goal, even though at that time Ukraine is not receiving anything at all. The point is that now Putin wants to stop the aid and have Trump pressure Europe to achieve it. As soon as Europe declares that it will continue to support Ukraine, Putin will call Trump to force Europe to stop doing so. We have seen how the new Secretary of Defense has demanded that Europe increase military spending to 5% of GDP, something he knows is impossible. Europe has to completely forget about any help from the U.S. for the next four years, and I hope only during this period. I even suspect that Trump will try to create an artificial conflict with Europe regarding Greenland on purpose to denounce that it is not a good ally and that, if it were, it would force Denmark to cede the island to him. Trump will say that Putin supports him regarding Greenland and Europe does not. Who is the true friend of the U.S.? he will ask. That's what we are going to see.
"If Russia is allowed to occupy Ukraine, the Russian-Ukrainian army will be much more powerful than the current Russian army"
Q. What would happen if Ukraine decides not to surrender despite all the pressure and after three years of war?
A. The only guarantee of peace for Ukraine is joining NATO. Not because it is a formal issue, but because if peace is signed without the necessary security guarantees, Russia will invade the country again. Suppose Ukraine agrees to cede some of the territories currently occupied by Russia. In that case, additional demands would arise. The first one is the resignation of Zelensky. This is something we have already heard from Trump, demanding elections in Ukraine. Of course, they must be held, but it is not up to Trump to decide when and how. Another demand is that Ukraine cannot join NATO. The problem is that there are no NATO troops to take over the contact zone and secure the borders, as was the case with the deployment of U.S., British, and French troops in Berlin and West Germany after World War II. This made it possible to achieve and maintain peace in Europe for decades. Without the presence of foreign troops in Ukraine, Russia will not stop. Sooner or later, and I hope it is sooner rather than later, Russia will claim that the Ukrainians are not complying with what was signed and will invade again. Its army now has between 500,000 and 600,000 men. What will Putin do with them, send them back home to enjoy family life?
Q. What can be expected from peace talks that aim to leave Ukraine and the rest of Europe out of the negotiating table?
A. I hope that these peace talks never take place in such a format. The idea that the fate of Ukraine can be decided by Trump and Putin without the participation of the invaded country or its allies is reminiscent of what happened in 1938 [with Hitler]. We know that the Munich Agreements did not help maintain peace. So I hope that Europe will say that it remains firm in its support for Ukraine. And I hope that Ukraine will say that it will continue to fight against Russian aggression. Will it be difficult? Of course. But, honestly, neither Ukraine nor Europe have any other option. The whole continent wants this war to end. But the problem is not with Ukraine, nor with Europe, nor with the U.S. The problem is with Putin.
Q. Do you agree with the criticism of Trump for his policy of appeasement towards the Russian president? You recall the concessions made by Neville Chamberlain and Édouard Daladier. For others, however, the context is more reminiscent of the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, signed between Nazi Germany and the USSR for the division of Poland. What is your opinion on this?
A. The Munich Agreements were worthless, but at least Chamberlain and Daladier wanted peace in Europe. Trump is not doing this because he wants peace in Europe, but because he has obligations to Putin. It's completely different. Munich 1938 was the first moment in history when democracies did not know how to deal with dictators. Now we know what works and what doesn't with them. Implementing similar policies makes no sense and will not work. It would be repeating the same mistake. When Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, everyone who does not know what Russian occupation entails thought: well, this is the culmination of his goals, we will find a way to live as we did before. That's where the problem lies. The U.S. and Europe have failed in the last three years to develop a strategy for Ukraine to win the war. The plan was for Ukraine not to win this war and for Russia not to lose it. Everyone mistakenly expected that Putin would realize that war is costly in terms of lives, money, and political mistakes, and that would stop him. In my book 'From Red Terror to Mafia State' (2023), I explain that we are facing a new and dangerous situation because the security of a large, rich, and nuclear country is controlled by the former KGB [now FSB]. The problem is not Putin. The problem is that the FSB controls the state and seeks to achieve its goals in foreign policy. Those goals are very aggressive. We have to confront them. If we don't, we will end up with the Third World War. The only possibility to avoid it was actually to help Ukraine win the war. But for that, Europe and the U.S. had to develop a strategy for victory, not just wait for Russia to get tired and freeze the invasion. Unfortunately, that will not happen.
Q. Without the US, it seems harder to achieve peace through force.
Q. It will be much harder. But Europe needs to understand that if Ukraine falls, the war will spread throughout the continent. Cynically speaking, or even practically, the cheapest way for Europe to contain Russia is to keep it in Ukraine. It is much cheaper to wage this war on Ukrainian territory with Ukrainian troops than to let the Russians take over Ukraine. By the way, if they do, they will use part of the local population and mobilize men with military experience. If Russia is allowed to control Ukraine, the resulting Russian-Ukrainian army will be much more powerful than the current Russian one.
Q. Would bilateral talks between the US and Russia, blessed by China, confirm that the world is moving inexorably towards a neo-imperialist era?
A. Trump is using China as a decoy when he says that the US should not focus on Russia or Ukraine because the main enemy is China. That is not really what we are seeing. If you believe that China is your rival and consider military confrontation with it, then you need a strong NATO, which is not what Trump is promoting. How can you fight China without Europe, Canada, or Australia? The issue of tariffs is also very interesting. If you consider China your major adversary, why impose 25% tariffs on trade partners like Canada and Mexico... and 10% on China? I do not expect to see a US-China war. Not even an economic war. I think Trump will back down on the tariffs. Politically, we know what China wants. It wants Taiwan. The question is whether China will try to militarily take over the island, and I do not see that happening. China will continue to influence global events with its money, continue to appropriate foreign resources whenever possible, and continue to spy. But I do not believe China will initiate military operations against foreign countries. Except for the invasion of Vietnam in the late '70s, China has never sent troops beyond its borders. Developing an aggressive military policy would be new for China. Unfortunately, China is helping Russia because it is very interested in isolating it from Europe. With each day of war, Russia is becoming more and more isolated from the old continent.
"Putin knows he will not lose this war because Ukrainians are not allowed to attack Moscow."
Q. The Russian economy is showing signs of approaching a critical point after three years focused on maintaining the war effort and with the exhausted military-industrial complex. Are peace talks coming at the most opportune moment for Moscow?
A. Once again, we see how Trump is helping Putin. We will also soon witness the announcement that the US is lifting international sanctions against Russia. Then Trump will say that he does not believe in sanctions or that he is doing it as a goodwill gesture to achieve peace. Let me explain something important that is difficult for Europeans or even Americans to understand. Russia is a huge country, but with only one city: Moscow. The rest of the territory is not important. That is why Putin demands that Western countries do not allow Ukraine to attack Moscow. They can attack anywhere else, oil refineries or whatever, but not the capital. Putin knows that if Ukrainians start attacking Moscow, he will automatically lose the war. Putin has managed to prevent that from happening for three years. This war could have been resolved in two weeks three years ago and until very recently if the Ukrainians had received the modern weaponry they need and if they had been allowed to attack Moscow. Putin knows he will not lose this war because Ukrainians are not allowed to attack Moscow. And to finish: the Russian economy situation is not so terrible. I mean, oil is still expensive, gas is still expensive. Yes, they are selling it at a discount. But they are probably also receiving financial assistance from China.
Q. You mentioned earlier your book 'From Red Terror to Mafia State,' in which you analyze how the FSB took control of Russia. Can you see the FSB manual being used now as well?
A. The only way to stop Putin is not through peace negotiations or rhetoric. He can be physically stopped, and that is what Ukraine has shown in the last three years. It turns out that the considered second army in the world could not reach Kiev despite having the huge advantage of blitzkrieg and considerably more resources than the Ukrainians. What I mean by this is that they are not as good as they thought or claimed to be, but it is impossible to negotiate or trust them. They do not admit they were wrong and miscalculated. Even now, Putin does not understand that he has made political and military mistakes. He sincerely believes that the only reason he could not take control of Ukraine is foreign aid. For him, it is not a matter of territory, just like it was never for Hitler. Russia does not need more territory. If we look at the map, 80% of Russian territory is uninhabited and undeveloped. It is not about Ukraine; it is about influence. When Putin invaded Ukraine, he was thinking about taking over all of Europe. That was Stalin's dream in 1945 when the war ended. As the Americans developed the atomic bomb, he was forced to stop in Germany. He was dissatisfied with the outcome of the conflict even though the USSR had already taken control of half of Europe. Putin has this same dream. Stalin was stopped by the display of force. The same should happen with Putin. Otherwise, he will not stop. If you start negotiating with him, you will have a problem because when you ask him what he wants, he will say he wants everything. It is very difficult to negotiate with someone who has no intention of doing so.
Q. Trump had hinted that the first face-to-face meeting with Putin could take place in Saudi Arabia, although he later talked about sending only envoys to the Middle East. What do you think of this kind of autocratic All-Star gathering?
A. I was convinced that the first meeting between Trump and Putin would be in Budapest, with Orban as the host, or something similar. Surely Elon Musk will also be present. But yes, Saudi Arabia is a perfect setting for that meeting... It is important to gain some time. The key is to understand that Europe is a significant player and that, united, it is as powerful as the US. The game is not over. It is essential to survive the Trump regime. His victory in the US was a major defeat for democracy worldwide. I fear he will try to change the Constitution to allow him to stay in the White House longer. After all, Putin and other friends of his are already doing the same. We will see if he succeeds.