War on Ukraine: Storm on the Black Sea

Orysia Lutsevych

…room, but also many people who are joining us online, via Zoom, over 400 registration. So, we are launching today a new series called War on Ukraine, and we will be discussing various dimensions of that war, and today we will focus on the Storm on the Black Sea, and what is happening on Ukraine’s Southern front.

I’m really pleased to have two excellent panellists with me. One is Dr Ilulian Chifu. He is a State Counsellor for Foreign Affairs, Security and Strategic Affairs to the Romanian Prime Minister, and Ilulian is a Founder of the Center for Conflict Prevention and Early Warnings, so it’ll be interesting to see what kind of early warnings we were missing in the run-up to this horrific war. But also joining us straight from Ukraine, from beautiful Odessa, is Hanna Shelest, Dr Hanna Shelest, I was told; on the plaque there it’s not mentioned, but Hanna is the Security Studies Program Director at the Foreign Policy Council, “Ukrainian Prism.” We at Chatham House with Ukraine Forum has worked quite a lot with Hanna, I believe in 2019 hosted a “Great Expectation” conference right after the election of President Zelenskyy, as indeed there were many great expectations, both in Ukraine and especially in Ukraine.

So, we’ll be discussing what is happening on the Southern flank, and mainly how is Ukraine responding militarily to Russian hostilities in the Black Sea, what is the response to Russian aggression from NATO, and how it’s strengthening the southern flank and the Black Sea area, and what is the impact of that on security, but also on economy? What does that mean, such dominance of Russian military power, for Ukraine’s trade and export, and for other states’ trade and export? And also perhaps we’ll touch upon a possible outlook of any kind of an agreement that would be achieved on a diplomatic front, because we do have, especially today, some hopeful messaging coming both from Kyiv and, to a certain degree, from Moscow, and what would that mean?

So, I will, without further ado, pass the floor to Ilulian, who will say a few statements, like, opening remarks, and then we’ll go over to Hanna, and then bring you all in. Ilulian.

Dr Ilulian Chifu

Yes, since we are – hello, everybody, I am very glad to be here in…

Orysia Lutsevych

Sorry, just to mention, before I forget, that we are on the record, this is being recorded and will be uploaded on our website. Sorry, Ilulian.

Dr Ilulian Chifu

Yeah, no problem. Thank you very much, thank you for inviting me and having me here. Because it’s a public, I have to underline the fact that there are my personal approaches and this doesn’t involve Rom- necessarily the Romanian Government, and I had to do that because it’s no longer Chatham House, and with everything. So, I would like to make three points first, and then to talk you about an awkward war, at the same time about some bad bets of Vladimir Putin. So, the three points are about Fulda Gap 2.0. What we are seeing nowadays actually is the fact that Vladimir Putin decides that NATO is advancing, is approaching and actually he doesn’t take part of this debate on the Fulda Gap. You all know what Fulda Gap means; 9th of May ‘45, the fall of Berlin, the suicide, or whatever, of Hitler, and there’s a gap in between the River Fulda, left and right.

The army is be – the Soviet Army on one hand, the Americans, Brits and French on the other hand, didn’t reach the contact line, so it was a rush beginning with this point where it’s going to stop, where we actually had the border between Western, Federal Democratic Germany, and Eastern Germany. It’s what is happened nowadays, so Putin decides, “It’s time, high time for me to take the lead.” We had the type of Anschluss of Belarus look at the military doctrine of the common state. Actually, it’s a limited sovereignty, it’s Brezhnev Doctrine +++ in military matters.

On another point, with Ukraine it’s a kind of – you know, comparison is not reason, so I will not go too much into this, but actually it’s like the type of Poland happening in the Second World War, and the references to the Second World War is not by chance, because what we have seen, it’s not more than army, 21st century, doing targeted, well-done, state-of-the-art military operation, but it is destroying cities, destroying civilian buildings, hospitals, and so on and so forth. So actually Second World War type of – or if you want to come closer, it’s Grozny plus Aleppo plus Eastern Guta, plus now we can add, unfortunately, Mariupol, which goes the same way, and we can find some other cities.

So, my first point is that with the Fulda Gap, what we are seeing is that Putin would like to push the border, enforced border of – between East and West, between Western democratic world and the Russkiy Mir, somewhere at the border of NATO EU, East – West – Eastern front, if it’s possible. We have since how possible it is.

The second point goes with the ‘Thucydides Trap’. You know, when you’re betting – it’s one of the versions for sure. When you’re betting too much on the perspective of having a war and trying to obtain as much as possible from the perspective of doing war, from using the great power politics and power politics, using military actions to do that, and I will call it directly war, invasion, aggression, direct aggression to our neighbour state, you arrive at some point where you don’t have a way back. It’s another type of ‘Thucydides Trap’, and I believe that at some point in time Putin arrive at the position where he couldn’t go back.

In spite of the fact that they have these sacrifices done by the US intelligence services exposing very valuable networks, by the way, exposing perspective of Russia doing this and this and this, so preventing them from beginning the war even earlier, in spite of the fact that normally each leader will try to make a little bit of cleaning house to see where it comes from, why it’s happened and so on, well, it couldn’t be prevented, and at some point because of entering that situation, Putin has no way back, he needed to go ahead with this.

The third point goes with symbolist – the symbolism. You know very well that Soviet Union first, Russian Federation afterwards, and so on and so forth, they attached a very big importance to symbolism. One symbolic thing is 23rd of February, the day of the Soviet Red Army, then the day of national armies in the post-Soviet space, it is still celebrated, it happens the next day.

The second very important symbolistic is the 30th of December this year, 2022, the centenary of the formation of the Soviet Union. So you have Putin, who has all his classes and all his preparation in the old times, being attached to symbolism, very nationalistic and, by the way, with – without any possibility of challenging the fact that, you know, the fall of the Soviet Union is the worst nightmare of the 20th Century, except announcing on the 30th of December, if he’s still alive at this point, that he rebuilt the Soviet Union in a different form, Russian world, so symbolism plays an important role.

It is true on another point that by trying to rebuild the Soviet Union there’s a high possibility of Putin for losing the Russian Federation, and I’m not talking only from innuendos or intel or pieces of credible sources there to an attempt to his leadership, I don’t know, a military coup or anything else was prepared somehow, or is on the way of happening or whatever. But I’m talking this because of the fact that actually the costs of this adventure are far higher than what was expected, and that – in that respect I will try to get a little bit on the mistakes or bad bets of Putin, and on the awkward war afterwards.

So, bad bets, first one. “I’m going to – some nationalists, extreme right, Nazi, fascist, Banderazi are running the country, but my people, who are linked to Russia, are going to take the flowers and welcome the liberator.” Well, they didn’t succeed in getting Kharkiv, 40km from the border, 90-plus percent of Russians, who told them, “Go home,” defending their city. They didn’t succeed in the southern part, where they occupied, the 58th Army of Gerasimov occupied the region, Kherson and Zaporozhye and going to Mariupol. Actually, cities occupied, majority of Russian getting out, Ukrainian flags, “Russians go home.”

Second bad bet, side effects of refugees waves we’ve seen in 2015, migration who crawl – who shaken the European Union, who is going to the rifts inside the West, and I’m not talking about the usual one, West proved to be a block. Sanctions proved to be a block, bad bet, and the third one, migrants. You’ve seen how the refugees have been welcomed. We have half a million already, the Poles have 1.5 million, 2.5 as a total, welcome, put in houses, helped transfer; a full effort of whole EU, of the whole world. I think yesterday you had more than 100,000 people ready to host a Ukrainian refugee here in Great Britain. Another bad bet, another failure of anticipating.

We can look at the Generals, some of them sacked, some of them on the first line.

Orysia Lutsevych

Some of them killed, right.

Dr Ilulian Chifu

Killed, which means that the Generals were pushed in the front line because things are not working, put together with the troops trying to get – because normally a General shouldn’t be in the first line. The other part with the FSB, with the intelligence guys arrested, house arrest, questioning, whatever, it’s another very important point. And if you look at the show of the so-called Security Council that they had, people shaking and then asking him, “What would you like to – me to say, boss? I will say so.” You can imagine what is the level of intelligence that can reach a leader, 70s, who has stayed too long, far too long, and when you do so, you have the side-effects.

And I’m arriving at my last point, on an awkward war. What we knew about the Russian Federation was the fact that they have some very important weapons, in some field, hypersonic in the aircrafts, whatever, electronic warfare. We didn’t saw this being used on the ground, so big question mark. Either there’s enough – there’s not enough capabilities, they were just for show and for pleasing Putin when he visited. Second, there’s no enough persons to use them, qualified or – third, and that’s the – there is a different Army prepared, with different types of weapons, prepared to do a different war, and it’s very questionable what’s next, because on the ground we have 20% of the Army, 50% of the combat troops of the Russian Federation, still 50% of them in return. We have the troops from Finland, from the Northern part, we have the troops from the Baltic states, we have the troops from Caucasus, from the South, Central, from Far East, all of them getting together here, and now a new wave of recruiting down there.

So, a awkward war. Why? Why those capabilities, if existing, were not being used? We would have expect with an electronic warfare the capabilities that they have in hand normally would have blinded completely radars and anti-aircraft capabilities of the Ukrainians on the – then, no superiority in air. It haven’t – it hasn’t been established. Look at the number of airplanes and helicopters downed. So, all of these are creating a situation where we have to look very attentively. The big question mark is the fact that we don’t have in hand at this point a way of – a way out, to save face…

Orysia Lutsevych

Maybe, Ilulian, if I…

Dr Ilulian Chifu

…or a victory for…

Orysia Lutsevych

Do you mind if I stop you here? Because we can…

Dr Ilulian Chifu

Yes, sure.

Orysia Lutsevych

…discuss that, exactly how that victory may look like for Kyiv, for Moscow, for our collective West, because I think we also would like to have a certain outcome of this, we are – nobody is indifferent to this, and I think it’s interesting, this big picture you’ve outlined, because I remember after the annexation of Crimea, many in Ukraine said that Putin got Crimea but it lost Ukraine. Now, Putin unleashed this war on Ukraine, but he risks losing Russian Federation, the way we know it, because of all this, you know, head-on conflict with Ukraine, proxy in the West and quite unified position of the West, so it’s a…

Dr Ilulian Chifu

Sure, and Ukraine should be discussed as well.

Orysia Lutsevych

…it’s a big bet. Yes, absolutely.

Dr Ilulian Chifu

Ukraine should be discussed as well in our debate.

Orysia Lutsevych

So, we’ll now go to Hanna in Odessa. So, maybe, Hanna, you can tell us what is the situation in Odessa right now, what is the – do you think Russians are trying to achieve on the coast, right, because you’ve – are they trying to capture Odessa and the coast, and how is Ukrainian armed forces jointly with the civilian resistance, mayors, civil society, everybody, mobilising to resist, and what is the mood a bit? Tell us how you feel.

Dr Hanna Shelest

Thank you, Orysia. Definitely, the situation is developing quite significantly, because you can see how the different theatres of warfare are happening, with sometimes all their different tactics, in the different parts of Ukraine. But in general, what we noticed within the last days, that because the Russians were not able to proceed, to advance on the North, they started accumulating their forces on the South. But also they changed a little bit of tactics, while they started to use much more of the long-range missiles or the aircraft missiles against the cities in different parts of Ukraine, both to distract attention and to bring the panic.

So, as a result, in what situation we appeared on the South? First of all, is we need to remember that the blockade of the Ukrainian ports started several days before the invasion, and it’s been quite significantly covered by the Ukrainian experts, talking that, what Russians are doing, they de facto try to block Ukrainian export. And to understand how serious that is, just the ports of the big Odessa – so, not speaking about Azov, just what is here on the Black Sea – being – ‘cause it was taking around 60% of Ukrainian export, was going through there. Plus from this 60% in general, 90% of Ukrainian grain export was going by sea.

And considering that Ukraine is in the top three of the world exporters of grain and sunflower oil and other types of the foods, you can calculate and estimate what type of the consequences it may have, because it is already more than months that Ukraine is not able to export our grains, our goods, agriculture, and that can very soon influence the situation in the Middle East, in North Africa, in some Asian countries that depends, for example, Lebanon receive 50% of their grains from Ukraine, at the – least that was the results of two – 2021. And I know that already some countries of the Mashriq experienced the raise of the prices for bread and for the grain, and that’s something what we consider as an essentials, in terms of the product, that is not the luxury goods, or something like that.

So, this situation we noted, but everybody thought that the idea is just to make the blockade and to disrupt the Ukrainian economy. As the situation appeared, it became much more serious and when you look to the South, you can understand that Russia immediately started two operations. One is to the East, so, to cover the Azov Sea, and there for them would be an important – not just to cut Ukraine from the seaside, but to control the Azov Sea completely, because for all these years they’ve been dreaming about the route from the Russian Federation to Crimea.

But at the same time, they need to punish Mariupol. When you look now what is happening in Mariupol, you need to remember that in 2014 Mariupol was under the Russian occupation for a few months, and then Ukrainian Armed Forces managed to kick them off, and from different sources we know that Russians didn’t forget it, and definitely their severe damages that they are bringing now to the towns is both because they cannot take the city under the full control, but also because they cannot excuse that Mariupol didn’t want to be with the so-called Donetsk People’s Republic as the Russians expected.

But the second operation is happening from Crimea to the West, and here you see the city of Kherson, the port of Kherson, being occupied, but still not under the full control, because each day, and it’s already five days of occupation, the locals are coming to the streets with Ukrainian flags, and clearly demonstrating that they would not allow any type of the fake referendums in the city. So – but from there you go all the route to Mykolaiv, about which you heard a lot about the Mayor with his wonderful – the Mayor with the head of the regional administration, the Mayor also behaved quite good, so the very serious resistance that is happening there. And Odessa is more or less safe now, because of all this action, because Kherson and Mykolaiv is still not fully occupied, so the Russians cannot provide the full force to attack Odessa. And that is important because without proper supply – and that what we see on the North, that even being in direct border with the Russian Federation and Belarus, just 30, 40km to some of the towns that Russians are trying to take, they’re not able to organise logistics and supply to their forces. So, try to imagine that from Crimea to Odessa, that would be 400km, and definitely without the full control of these roads and of these routes, you would not be able to stage a full-fledge attack.

Regionally they were different experts’ comments that, “Probably Russians can go by the maritime assault,” but that’s also a little bit difficult. For those who have been in Odessa, especially in downtown, we don’t have a lot of the flat places. You have, like, a beach and then a hill, so that is very difficult for any type of the machinery, of tanks or whatever, to come to the downtown, so there are just few places where you can do it.

Paratroopers cannot land if you don’t have a full control from the land or the full control of the air, and air defence systems are working. The beaches are mined, approximately 30km of Ukrainian beaches are mined as for now, and that makes everything very complicated, not speaking about the weather. We are joking that it is the first year that Odessa locals are really happy because of the bad weather in March, and it was -7 and very strong wind few days ago. That’s something extreme for us, for sure, it should be +15 and sunny, but this year we are happy, because it makes the parachute operation, the maritime assault, much more difficult because of the high waves and of the difficult conditions for the boats over there.

But at the same time, what Russians are doing, they’re using several times per day the air strikes, the missiles from the ships that are out of the Ukrainian territorial waters against Odessa region and through Odessa region further, to Vinnytsia and to others. The missiles that they’re using, they are starting from 400km range, so you understand that you don’t need to come to the 12-mile territorial waters, you are easily standing somewhere in the neutral waters and enjoying all your military activities.

As well, they didn’t target anything seriously. The air defence worked well. Just this morning, we shot down two airplanes, they fall in the Black Sea, so, this is happening, but that is definitely not eternal protection, and that is one of the reasons why we are talking that definitely Ukraine need some kind of the additional air defence and the protection of the sky of Ukraine. But at the same time, we definitely need the renewal of the maritime patrolling of the NATO ship that we used to have before, because in this way, the ships are a little bit under the control and have less possibilities for manoeuvring, if you’re standing in the neutral waters, you even don’t need to come to the Ukrainian territorial waters.

But we already have casualties, what we call the maritime piracy, because at the very first week, Russians managed to capture three ships, not Ukrainian, one of them being Ukrainian rescue ship, and two others being under the foreign flags, and they’ve been just captured in the entrance to the Ukrainian territorial waters, so departing in neutral waters. And also two ships last week being targeted, one in the port of Mykolaiv. It was a fire, one sailor killed as a result, others evacuated, and another ship was just at the anchorage across from Odessa in the neutral waters. They’ve been not even coming to our waters, something like 20 miles from the shore, and it’s – this ship also been targeted, has been under the Panama flag, and we managed to rescue six crew members.

So, Russians don’t care, “Is it civilian or military, is it Ukrainian flag or a foreign flag?” They’re just attacking and preventing any type of the safety navigation in the Black Sea and, I would say, the whole Northern Black Sea, because the same situation is starting from the Kerch Strait. And that will continue, we see that this tactic will be definitely continued, both to distract attention from other zones where they have – the military operations are happening now, but also to bring blockade to the town and to bring some panic, because honestly, to receive each evening some call from the foreign Journalist with the panic in voice, “Hi, you need urgently to evacuate because we know that this very night it will be a heavy shelling of Odessa,” that’s something that make you much more nervous than the sounds of the air defence system working in Odessa, and I live in downtown, so I can hear most of those sounds when they are happening.

And the last, probably, as for now, because I can go more in the political and the strategic dimension of what is happening, but what there is asked about the civil resistance, that’s probably been the biggest underestimation of the Russian Federation. It can be both because they wasted a lot of money for the so-called sociological surveys and some data from here. But de facto, this money being just spent for the luxury goods by those involved, or because they didn’t want to believe the numbers and the information that they got. But de facto, those cities like Kharkiv and Odessa, that had been expected to be pro-Russian because they are Russian speakers, they definitely demonstrated that this mood been exaggerated by the Russian propaganda, and now you see how the different ethnic and religious communities are working together, how the city is being protected by the territorial defence, together with the navy and armed forces.

Today I needed to spend almost two hours at the blocked ports. I needed to go to one of the storage facilities just at the suburb of the town, and these two hours, being – because territorial defence being, checking each of the car crossing, and that’s really the big work against the saboteurs. And that’s probably one of the issues that definitely – when we speak about the Russian tactics, for the South, for the cities which Russians expected to be easy to surrender, they used a lot of the saboteurs, and especially the first two weeks, the security services caught a lot of people in Odessa that been either putting the light marks as street marks to the possible invasion, they were also bringing weapons and they were doing reconnaissance on the ground.

And when I say weapons, here we come to yet one weak point that is under the question; it is Transnistria, because from Odessa to separatist Transnistria controlled by the Russians it is just 50km. Still, it is not so easy to get from there, they don’t have sufficient capacities, but they have capacity to send people for the undercover operations and, for example, few buses full of weapons been caught when they’ve been trying to cross the border via smugglers’ routes. So, these tactics are also used in full and it seems to me that we will see developments in this dimension, as well.

Orysia Lutsevych

Thank you, Hanna. I think it’s very important, what you emphasised, that as much on the land, as much in the sea, Russians are not respecting any rules of war, violating it by using banned weapons by Geneva Convention, targeting civilians not only on land but in water. I mean, it’s – it shows you the pattern, but maybe, I think, also what is key is that these encroachments that happened before, so-called frozen conflicts, Transnistria, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Belarus, the annexation you mentioned; they are being used to stage military campaign.

This is a well-thought tactic of Russia, to pre-position and use when the time is needed these territories for, you know, attacking a peaceful country like Ukraine, so I think that it’s important to keep in mind what is evolving right now for the future, for whatever peace deal will be eventually achieved, what it means for the future of Europe, because remember all these conflicts before that we are discussing in our region.

So, I would like to bring in the audience, first maybe here with us in the – in Chatham House, and then I have several questions online. So, anybody who would like to speak, would you please introduce yourself, if you have a specific question to one of the speakers, address it, or to both of them. Yes. Just one second, the microphone. Yeah. Go ahead, just – yeah.

Eugenia

Okay, no, I have nothing to say before…

Orysia Lutsevych

Could you please introduce yourself?

Eugenia

Okay. I’m Eugenia, I’m 20 years old. But, like, what really – it’s striking to me, is, like, no-one talk about the responsibility the United States has in this conflict, because I think they’re as much as responsible as Russia here, because they provoked this war in a way. I know it’s an unpopular opinion, but I’m not ashamed of thinking differently than other people, and I think that here they’re setting a propaganda about how Russia is guilty, and I think it’s also guilty, like, no-one is innocent here. But I think the United States played a huge role, because they want to put NATO – it was their plan to put NATO into Ukraine. And they cannot play the angel either because when Russia wanted to put its missiles into Cuba, it was the same thing, like, they were so annoyed.

Orysia Lutsevych

We’ve gone all the way to Cuban Missile Crisis. Apologies to interrupt.

Member

Yeah.

Orysia Lutsevych

I understand your question. We’ll ask – we’ll give a chance to Hanna to answer, because it’s a very common question and I’m sure there’s – this is moral equivalence argument. Anybody else that would like to ask a question from the room? Yeah. Trish, yeah.

Trisha de Borchgrave

Yes, Trisha de Borchgrave. I’m a Current Affairs Writer, and I just – because of the comments that have been made that there is no – that Russia is definitely not respecting the – and is ignoring the, sort of, safety navigational measures that we all, sort of, conduct ourselves under, does that give more argument for not having the – for not imposing the no-fly zone, because of our fears that Russia is quite brazen and quite capable of crossing those red lines that would then spread this conflict in a way we don’t want it to? I’m just – you know, I’m not taking away from the fact that Ukraine needs all our help, but I’m just wondering if that feeds the argument. Thank you.

Orysia Lutsevych

Sure, and there’s also a question from Michael Harri, who says, “How confident are the panellists,” and I probably address it to Ilulian, “that the United States will honour Chapter 5 of the NATO’s constitution should Russia encroach into the Black Sea or other NATO member?” That kind of – maybe we’ll go first to you, Ilulian, and then we’ll give floor to Hanna.

Dr Ilulian Chifu

Okay. It’s a common thing of trying to equalise somehow or to put people together, and the reason or the guilt is somewhere in the middle. Well, I can tell you, there’s no equilibrium, balance between the victim and the aggressor, there’s no question mark. There’s no question mark about respecting the international law, beginning when – and I will not quote this, beginning with the chart, where it is said that we have an equal sovereignty. Now Ukraine does not have – but is not entitled to have a sovereignty. It’s a, kind of, withdrawal of recognition of a state, considering that Ukraine is a part of Russia and does no longer – I’m going through the final act of Helsinki, I’m going through with ye founding act, Budapest Memorandum, Chart of Paris for a new Europe, which decides that each state is able to choose the way that it wants to solve its prosperity or alliances, it’s free to have it. We have the signature of Soviet Union, then we have the signature of Russian Federation in Budapest.

We have the founding documents, Alma-Ata, independent states. Where does the recognition of sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of each of the states? So, there’s no Big Brother, there’s no somebody who has the right of do whatever around and there’s not no-fly zone, and the same with the freedom of navigation. It’s a responsible way of acting, first because some of those issues could lead to escalation and, as President Biden put it, the Third World War.

Okay, here I have a different approach in the sense that it’s not about Ukraine. If you take the ultimatums, the two so-called agreement put on the table, it’s about all of us, it’s about the West, it’s about challenging what we have now. But there’s a different question and it’s responsibility. It’s okay to try to defuse the conflict, try to solve it, try to minimise or to squeeze it at a certain level, try to avoid the escalation, it’s responsible to do so, in spite of the fact that you have some costs about not transferring, I don’t know how many aircrafts from Poland, or for not establishing a no-fly zone, or for not forcing, for instance, for the freedom of navigation, I don’t know, a ship going to – or a group of ships going for humanitarian assistance to Odessa. All of this could help, but it’s responsible, and as long as it is possible, as much as it is possible, we need to stay into those lines, trying to avoid that becoming really a war.

And you asked, Chapter 5. They don’t – there are not question marks. By the way, it is already happening. Look at the reactions of NATO, how it has reacted. We moved from reassurance to defence and deterrence and to the very quick development, deploying on the ground of the NRF, squeezing the terms, moving troops on the ground, practically overnight, and it happened so in all the fields, including the maritime one, even though we don’t have vessels in the Black Sea, we have the aircrafts in the Aegean Sea, and the capacity of reaching which covers Novorossiysk as well, and Ukraine and all the others, because of the…

Orysia Lutsevych

So you don’t need to, in a way, unprovoke – in an unprovoked way, you can do it in a smart way, obviously.

Dr Ilulian Chifu

So, you have the instruments at this point to defend your allies. The problem is how to find a way out for Putin, what victory means for Putin, what could save face for him, because beginning to negotiate something or moving from the war or stages or – to a, kind of, exit strategy, a, kind of – you need to draft somehow or to prepare somehow something that could look, at least for the internal consumption in Russia, a kind of victory for him to sell somehow internally.

Okay, we all know he’s out, we all know it’s the end, he knows that it’s the end, he knows that he – his first problem will be with Russia, with the leadership, with the oligarchs, with the instruments of power inside Russia. He never expected such a huge reaction, unity, sanctions, at this level, with this much of the impact, and I suspect when he cut a deal with China and they had the common statement on the 8th of February, I sus- which could be approximated with the Ribbentrop-Molotov, to have free hands on another site and not having had a con- he didn’t realise that China will not take his bill to pay.

Orysia Lutsevych

Yeah, and also China is not a big fan of chaos as such, and probably…

Dr Ilulian Chifu

On the contrary, they have different profile. China is used to make business. They have build their power on economy, on development, on – they don’t need chaos. On another hand, the strategic weight of Russia at this point is so low that the only thing to punch above the weight is to do chaos, to be the – you know, the bullying in town, and to try to do something with the neighbours, and to show that, “Nothing can happen except if I’m there.”

But I suspect, and that’s my last point, that already if there were countries that were sceptical in Europe, in the EU, in the world, about this – and we did had, they realised that Russia is in Syria, is in Libya, is in Central African Republic, we have the coups in Mali, in Burkina Faso, so it’s no longer about the East with Russia and us in the South with tourism, with radical Islam, with things like – no. It’s already Russia, and the – what you can see is Germany moving to rebuild its military, who deliver weapons, lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine. Would you imagine this three weeks ago?

Orysia Lutsevych

No.

Dr Ilulian Chifu

And on another point, Switzerland accepting some parts of the sanctions, the independent Switzerland. The debate in Finland, we should see in two months’ time, for entering NATO. Sweden, with a government of social democrats, traditionally neutral, who begin already to think twice and to look at the debate in Finland and maybe how it should – so, actually it happens what happened after 2014. Actually, Russia pushed Ukraine towards NATO. We had the figures, remember, yeah, and I get…

Orysia Lutsevych

Before it was around 20, now it’s 17.

Dr Ilulian Chifu

In February it was 17, and after Crimea, after the [inaudible – 39:40], it has been at 71. Support for NATO accession; it’s what is happening in the northern countries, in the Grand North, in – so, actually, if they begin with some rationales and some narratives, what they obtain is exactly the opposite and it could have been prevented. They would have known that if they are acting in such a way, they will rely, the West – they are going to have militaries on the border, and that everything is going to change in the bad way. If they wanted less NATO and less military capabilities, they obtained exactly the opposite.

Dr Ilulian Chifu

Exactly, he’s achieving completely opposite results than that what he states he wants, but I’ll come back to – I want to come back to Black Sea, right, because we really want to focus today on it, and there’s a question from Susanne Stewart from Berlin, right. Hanna, you know her, so, I think I’d like to address this to you. She’s asking, “How do the panellists assess the role of Turkey in the current developments, including the regard of the use of the Montreux Convention, and what is the current status of the North Crimean Canal? Has Russia been able to restore the flow of water through it to Crimea, as some of the sources have claimed?”

So two questions in Susanne’s question, so maybe we’ll start with Turkey, and then Crim- go to Crimea.

Dr Hanna Shelest

Yes, and if you will allow me, I will refer quickly to what been asked in the first round of questions. You know, the – probably for this question about the US trying to grab Ukraine into NATO, I would laugh before February 2022, but now I feel real sorrow for the cynicism of our guest, because she considers that – even if we imagine that US is trying to grab Ukraine into NATO, what is nonsense, but it means that Russia has a right to kill civilians, 100 kids, 2,000 civilians, to destroy 100 hospitals and 300 schools, just because they didn’t like with whom Ukraine is going to discuss the security issues.

And it seems to me that that is really clinical, to excuse the Russian actions by such allegations, that, by the way, been invented by the Russian propaganda and been actively spread in many countries, not only in Ukraine. That remind me of the situation, I would speak now very undiplomatic, but when a woman decided to marry another guy and her former boyfriend is saying that, “I will kill you and your boyfriend just because I don’t like you to marry him.” Does it give him the right that in the past they were together? Definitely not.

And it seems to me that sometimes we need to calibrate our values and understanding that it’s not about Realpolitiks, it’s about the lives of people, and Russians are definitely not protecting what they’ve been sending forth. They said that they’re protecting Russian speakers. They almost destroyed Kharkiv, the biggest Russian-speaking city in the country. They say they’re protecting Orthodoxy. They destroyed already several churches and monasteries, which were of the Moscow Patriarchy and that were of the cultural heritage, and most of them being in the eastern part of the country.

So, it seems to me that this rhetoric about the US being guilty; if US would like Ukraine to be in NATO, they would do much more than what they’ve been doing within the last years, and luckily NATO is not only USA but also other 13 states, and their opinion matters. Even more, Ukraine was neutral, and saying that we are not going to NATO in all our strategic documents back in 2013. It didn’t stop Russia from the annexation of Crimea. So this excuse about NATO enlargement, it seems to me, it’s not even funny anymore.

About North Canal, North Crimean Canal, that’s the easiest question. Russians took under the control it, but they were not able to start water via it, because you need not only to control the premises, you also need to control a lot of the different critical infrastructure mechanisms and being able to do it. But also, after all these years, it was not only that Ukraine switched off water at the North Crimea Canal, but also because Russians themselves destroyed quite a number of the special places at the territory of Crimea, so it’s quite a complicated gidro – how do you call, gidrographical structure to make it possible, so as for now, no water and they’re not able to start using it.

Turkey; a difficult case. Turkey all these years have been trying to manoeuvre into balance between the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and it would – first of all because of their own national interest. They definitely, in the big issues like territorial integrity, sovereignty, choice of Ukraine towards NATO or the Black Sea security or Crimean Tatars’ rights, they were completely on the side of Ukraine. Also you need to remember that the last few years, Ukraine and Turkey signed plenty of these strategic documents about military and military technical co-operation, including Bayraktar, the famous drones, the agreement being signed that they’re going to be produced in Ukraine. So, in this way, I would say that Turkey made their choice and took their side.

Still, we understand that for Mr Erdogan there are much more considerations, just Ukraine, when he’s thinking about relations with Russia. Montreux Convention is one of those very painful moments for the Turkish diplomacy, and they’re still trying to adhere to the letter of this document as much as possible. Nevertheless, they said that they’re using now and implementing the articles of this convention, and they’re not allowing some of the Russian ships to cross Bosphorus and to come to the Black Sea. Because according to the text, Russians at the literal state can bring the ships, but it is one very interesting line, that they can come in case they reduce it in the Black Sea.

So, Turkey used this point, trying to demonstrate this point, that if there are ships from the Pacific Fleet or from the Northern Fleet, they’re now stationing in the Mediterranean and they’re not able to come. What’s really bring the difference, because those ship being not just the landing ships for the personnel, but some of them being capable to bring long-range missiles such as Iskander, for example, so, that would be quite dangerously, and would allow Russians to control the big area in the Black Sea.

And the last but not the least, about the no-fly zone and Russians violating international law, I understand that that is a moral question, and my answer probably would be divided into two parts. First of all, Ukraine is saying that, “In case you are not ready to provide us with no-fly zone, provide us with the capability that Ukraine would be able to protect our sky by ourselves.” You understand that our capabilities are not enormous, they are limited, and already after three weeks of the constant air strikes, we are lacking the ammunition, and we may lack it very soon. So that’s why, in case other countries are not ready to help directly, they always can help indirectly by supplying the necessary ammunition for – including for the Javelins, but that’s where you’re speaking about the law on flights, but also something more serious, and today we had a good news that some of these would be provided to Ukraine.

The second issue is that, you know, Policeman are understanding what are the risks he or she has when they’re catching for the criminals. They are still trying to do it, and they understand that the criminals are having weapons and criminals are not obliging or not following the laws, but that is the job of Policeman, and it seems to me that now we are in the situation that international community need to understand that the help that they can provide, it’s not just touching Ukraine.

It is a little bit opposite, it is how Ukraine protecting the NATO member states so they would not be attacked by the Russian Federation. We already heard accusations and threats from the top Russian Politicians, including Mr Putin, against several NATO member states, but also against the neutral Finland and Sweden, so you see that ambitions of Russian leadership are much further than just Ukraine, and that for him that is important to humiliate the NATO member states, that’s first of all European member states. That’s why I would say that the price we are paying now, including by the sanctions, it is the price higher because we didn’t do sufficient before the crisis, so we allowed Putin to think that we are weak, and that it is possible to use weapons and to conduct such an operation.

Orysia Lutsevych

Thank you, and would you like to add something else on Turkey and perhaps, you know, the maritime powers, Romania, Turkey? You know, how do you see the cascading effects of that on Romania, for example, in particular? Is there co-operation between literal states of NATO in that regards to protect and shield off? Yeah.

Dr Ilulian Chifu

Here things are more or less knowl-knowledgeable. Turkey is a loyal ally inside NATO. We have the statement of President Erdogan, who was saying, “Okay, we are trying to moderate, to mediate somehow, we recognise the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, our partners, we have a strategic relationship, and, by the way, we are member of NATO.” We have a strategic partnership with Turkey, relationship is very tight. For sure, they are doing their part of the job in the conditions that they always had, because, remember, Turkey was always in the forefront in Soviet time, then border with Iran, then trying to cope with the Middle East…

Orysia Lutsevych

Syria.

Dr Ilulian Chifu

…flooding towards Europe and so on, so, at the end of the day, all in all, Turkey is playing its role the way that they have capacities to do so, no problem on that.

But I think that we have to move from, even from the idea of Russia, NATO, so it’s not Russia, Ukraine, but it’s not Russia, NATO. Look at the vote in the Security Council, look at the vote in the General Assembly of the UN. It’s not about a bunch of Western countries or democratic countries, liberal-democratic countries, as they want to put it. It is about 141 countries and the part about the – actually, the – Russia being isolated completely in the world because of what they’ve done, together with Belarus, together with Eritrea, together with Syria, toge…

So, you – we have to realise that it is about a global coalition of countries from all over the world, prepared to sanction and, by the way, with an abstention of China from the whole – well, the big partner always – “It’s tighter than an alliance.” No, it’s nothing. It is an isolated Russia who exit from the system, with Putin who have no answer to anything, just innuendos, just narratives, just stories, and there we are. And I would make an emphasise on Ukraine, because you’re Ukrainian originally and because Hanna is Ukrainian, I should do that. We had an Ukraine who realise its statehood in 1991, re-establish its statehood, an Ukraine who reaches the democracy and liberalism and freedom with Yushchenko, attack Yushchenko and the Orange Revolution, with the Maidan, the only country who actually fight for European Union.

Orysia Lutsevych

Who died for European Union.

Dr Ilulian Chifu

Who would imagine, for European Union? Saying that to London means completely awkward. And after that, being on the street, contesting the leadership, including against Zelenskyy. Remember, the volunteers were two times ready to put down the gate at the Presidential office and so on, when they believed that there are some negotiations, some betrayals, and so on. They find their freedom.

Then they realised their identity after 2014, basically the real identity and the specifics was established after the Russians took – annexed Crimea and forged the military aggression in Donetsk and Luhansk. And I mean forging the identity, together with the minorities, together with the Tatars too, together with the Russians that had seen their lives destroy in the Eastern part of Ukraine, and moved to Ukraine under the Ukrainian Government, in spite of the allegation of, “Those damn Ukrainians who are eating Russians, or whatever, for breakfast.” And now we are seeing the independence war.

Orysia Lutsevych

Yeah, it’s very much seem like that, that, you know – and whenever there is a question, “What Ukraine can concede in this time,” the – and this question was asked in 2014 when there was told Normandy Process and this whole Minsk protocol. It was clear that we cannot concede sovereignty of Ukraine, otherwise Ukraine will cease to exist. It’s very tragic that it had to come to this, but I think that maybe we have a few more minutes left. Trisha, you would like to comment, and then I would like to ask a question, Hanna, before we wrap up. Yeah, go ahead.

Trisha de Borchgrave

[Inaudible – 54:16].

Orysia Lutsevych

No, but I think, for the audience online, they need sound, yeah.

Trisha de Borchgrave

Oh, right. What I think is – I hate to talk about this in terms of the geopolitics while people are dying right now, and I think it’s – you know, we’re almost, kind of, moving on, but in that context, you say that this is obviously a huge solidarity, global solidarity, coming together on this, but we are pushing – Russia’s got no option but to be pushed into the arms of China at this point. And my question to you is, what does China at this point have to gain, and could – whatever it has to gain, could they then leverage it perhaps as a broker in these peace talks?

Orysia Lutsevych

Maybe just one minute because – and then we’ll go to – yeah.

Dr Ilulian Chifu

One minute. So, first, trade. The trade between China and Russia is 3% of their trade. The trade between China and EU countries is 30%. The trade between China and US is 25%. What China will choose? So, no question about this. Will China take the bill of the Russian war? Try never. Okay. Helping, trying to do some mechanism, some way outs? Forget about this. The important for – at this point is, what are you offering, what can you offer to Russia, what victory will mean, taking Mariupol, putting down Azov Battalion and saying that, “We’ve achieved a kind of strategic goal, another piece of Novorossiya,” putting a flag on a rubble, on mountains of rubble in all of the cities, is there a victory, and then fighting an insurgency?

Because it’s not a problem of taking – at the end of a day of taking, if you put all the forces and everything that you have in it, but what is the victory there? And – or taking Kyiv and changing the government – I don’t think that it is possible. It’s a big challenge to take Kharkiv, who was supposed to be taken in matter of hours after the beginning of the war. It’s a problem taking Mariupol on the bombings, and it’s a problem of taking Kyiv. Kyiv is very difficult to be defending, and very difficult to be taken.

Orysia Lutsevych

Yeah, I urge you to take a look on Chatham House website. We had yesterday a conversation with the defenders of Kyiv, those who are there on the ground, and they explained a lot about, what are they expecting, and how they are preparing. Just out of interest, I think it’s – they gave us a lot of insight.

So, Hanna, before we close down, you talked a little bit what victory may look like for Putin, but what does victory looks like for Ukraine, what it is that its – some of these – some people call about red lines, so, what – how Ukraine would like to come out of this so that it’s better off, and what are the pieces of that puzzle that perhaps diplomacy is already working behind the scenes? Would you like to just share with us your view, of course, from civil society?

Dr Hanna Shelest

You know, there is definitely Plan Minimum and Plan Maximum. The Plan Minimum is just to get rid of the Russian Forces from the territory of Ukraine and to be able to start restoration of the country, where we would need a lot of the international support, considering the – what is happening for many of the cities. Some towns even cease to exist anymore in terms of infrastructure, roads and everything, so that will take time and effort, but you cannot do it without Russia getting out.

The Plan Medium will be definitely also returning to Donbas and Crimea to Ukraine and all international institutions are still considering them Ukrainian territories, as well as, first of all, Ukraine is considering our territories. So, it seems to me that just to excuse Russians their attack, the eight years’ occupation of these territories, would be not enough anymore for Ukrainians. And the Plan Maximum would include the continuation with the European Union and NATO membership of Ukraine, because definitely for Ukraine that was about freedom of choice, that it is us who would decide where and with whom we would like to be and how to proceed. Ukraine already applied for the European Union membership, and we have the first decisions, and now we expecting more technical decisions over there, and we can say that Ukraine would go this way despite the results of negotiations or the current warfare.

NATO is definitely a little bit more difficult. We already heard gossips spread by the Russian delegation that they’re discussing Ukrainian neutrality, and not that much confirmed by the Ukrainian side, because for this you would need to change constitution of Ukraine, where it is clearly stated, the prospect of European and NATO integration of the country. But also that is the question about probably the future. Even if now we are joking that it’s NATO who will have the open-door policy in Ukraine, it is, like, the reverse phrase that it’s now Ukraine would considers, should NATO join Ukraine or not. But that is just part of the joke, because we know that a lot of conversations are happening around it, but that should be Ukrainians’ sovereign choice of what future we would like to have.

The very big victory would be Russia that is de-Putinised, I mean, the Russia that is changing and becoming more democratic. We understand clearly that without domestic change in the Russian Federation, Ukraine would be under the constant threat, and that is not just because of Mr Putin and few people around him in the Kremlin, but you can see the numbers, you can see what percentage of Russians supporting this warfare against Ukraine. You can see – and that is Russian numbers, so they are demonstrating it.

You can see them – how ratings of Mr Putin raised within the last three weeks, and you can see the statements like, for example, when 200 Rectors of the universities signed a letter – open letter in support of the military operation against Ukraine, as they call it. So that’s demonstrate that with such an aggressive rhetoric and moods inside of the country, it would be impossible to think about the real security of Ukraine.

Orysia Lutsevych

Well, thank you so much for outlining this. I just want to also point to this Putinisation as an ideology, where young generations are being brainwashed and now carrying the Z letters and rallying around, but also Ukraine’s Prime Minister mentioning that the preliminary, already preliminary at this point calculation for rebuilding Ukraine will be roughly US$500 billion, so we are talking big numbers, and I know people in Kyiv are contemplating on a future Marshall Plan to really rebuild Ukraine.

So, you see hope and despair, victories and losses go hand-in-hand. This is the mix of emotions, but I was struck today by a number, how many people in Ukraine after the war believe Ukraine is going in the right direction. Can you guess? 76%. I am puzzled by this number. Before the war, I think it was over 70 saying Ukraine was going in the wrong direction. There’s a certain confidence and a certain inferiority that Russia was always entrenching into Ukraine to keep control of it, and that simply crashed on the 23rd of February.

What comes out of it is a big question, but this is the emotion, and this is the public mood in Ukraine. So, I would like to thank Hanna for joining so late from Odessa, and wish you well. Stay well, stay safe, take care of your family and your friends and your beautiful city and the Duc Richelieu, that is now covered with sandbags, to Ilulian for coming to us from Bucharest and giving us an overview.

For all you tuning in, apologies, I could not ask all the questions. For you coming in, despite new COVID variants up in the air, stay also well, and follow us on Twitter, follow Chatham House Events. We are here to inform you, and try to make sense out of this horror. Thank you so much for coming.