"A full-fledged NATO war with Russia is not in the interests of the West at all" - Valery Karbalevich

Caliber.Az presents an interview with Valery Karbalevich, Belarusian political analyst and publicist, candidate of historical sciences. 

- Valery Ivanovich, what do you think of the harsh statement by the deputy chairman of the Russian Security Council (SB) Dmitry Medvedev about Sweden's and Finland's joining NATO?

Russia's actions in Ukraine have actually given the NATO military-political bloc a second life. The fact is that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact, the question arose, what should NATO do next? With whom should they fight? What is the raison d'être of this alliance? NATO tried to find new functions and tasks, such as fighting terrorism, for example. Accordingly, Russia's actions after the seizure of Crimea and the subsequent attack on Ukraine actually forced NATO to form its own identity, I would even say a return to the old identity of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. That is, the adversary that emerged allowed NATO to regain its former function.

The events after February 24 have shown that the West acts in a consolidated way, demonstrating unity among and within Western countries. As a consequence, all political forces sympathetic to Russia disappeared.

In turn, the decision of Sweden and Finland to join NATO was part of a new consolidated trend in the West, the trigger for which was Russia's war in Ukraine. I do not think that the accession of these two countries will change the balance of power between Russia and NATO much, given that the military potential of Finland and Sweden is not so great. What matters here are not military factors, but political and geopolitical ones. It is obvious that Russia has found itself in serious isolation and the Western world is consolidating against it more and more. These processes are painful for Russia, so it reacts very negatively.

Russia's war in Ukraine dramatically accelerated political decision-making in Western countries. They either changed all procedures or were simply moved to the side. Look at how economic sanctions against Russia were adopted in a short period of time, as well as issues of arms supplies to Ukraine. So I do not exclude that the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO may happen in an accelerated mode. The war dictates its dynamics to all political processes, including NATO accession.

- What specific steps will be taken by the Russian Federation in this case?

I assume that apart from some rhetorical statements on the level of officials or some serious actions on the part of Russia there will be no response. There is information that some troops are being brought to the borders of Finland, equipment is being brought and so on, but this is most likely done for intimidation, not for a real threat. Russia is so bogged down in the Ukrainian swamp, that it is not able to react to any other challenges militarily. That is why some symbolic actions on the part of the Russian Federation are possible and not more than that. Besides, as I have already said, the expansion of the alliance will not change the global balance of power between Russia and NATO.

 - Why do you think NATO did not agree to Poland's proposal to deploy peacekeeping forces on the territory of Ukraine?

Let me explain what the introduction of peacekeeping forces on the territory of Ukraine means. Peacekeeping forces are introduced at a time when the parties have agreed to end the war when it is necessary to separate these troops in different directions to avoid possible military incidents. This option could have been in Donbas even before the war began, before February 24, so that the opposing sides would not shoot at each other. But there are two conditions here. The first is the agreement of the two sides, and the second is that the peacekeeping force must be as neutral as possible, for example, from Asia, Latin America, or under the auspices of the UN. Only under these conditions could Poland's proposal be considered a realistic option.

On the other hand, this step would be regarded by Moscow as NATO's intervention in the war with all the ensuing consequences, up to the use of nuclear weapons by Russia.

- So this is the reason why NATO's decision to close the Ukrainian skies was not taken, among other things?

Yes. Because otherwise it would have meant a full-fledged war between NATO and Russia, which is not in the interests of the Western alliance at all. The current confrontation between Russia and NATO is Russia's conflict with Western civilization. Since Ukraine really refuses to be part of the Russian world and Russian civilization and has made a historic choice in favor of Western integration, at the end of the day we are witnessing a conflict between Russia and the Western world. Ukraine is just a platform for the conflict.

- What was the rational sense for Russia in this war?

I suppose there was no rational sense in starting the war, even from the point of view of Russia's interests. But since the Kremlin makes some decisions not based on rationality, we have what we have.

- How long will the war last and how will it end?

It's hard to say how long it will last, but we can say with absolute certainty that Russia has lost this war, regardless of what the outcome of hostilities will be in Ukraine. Even if we imagine that the Russian army defeats the Ukrainian army and seizes some part of Ukraine, the question arises, what next? How will the occupation army control this territory of Ukraine?

My guess is that it will be a protracted war of attrition. On the other hand, Western sanctions are throwing Russia out of the global economy, increasing Russia's technological gap between the West and China, effectively driving the Russian economy back into the Soviet era. It is likely that even in the case of military success on the fronts, Western sanctions will lead to the degradation of Russia. If the West succeeds in giving up Russian oil and gas, the situation of the Russian economy will further deteriorate.

- What is your vision of the future of Ukraine?

It's a very complicated question. Everything depends on how long the war will last and what situation the country will have after it ends. You see, the military outcome is very important for Ukraine, while it is less important for Russia. Definitely, the war completes the formation of the Ukrainian nation and identity. The war showed that Ukrainian society is consolidated in confrontation with Russia. Note that there were practically no collaborators in Ukraine. In the captured territories of Ukraine, the Russians could not find influential people and politicians who could cooperate with Russia.

I think that once the Ukrainian nation is formed, its integration into the Western community will be irreversible. And it is obvious that Ukraine will have to go through hard times economically and socially. Ukraine is facing a major trial that it will have to overcome with the help of the West.