ATACMS, F-16 aircraft are sole path to peace in Ukraine – diplomat Matthew Bryza

A: The visit of the Chinese special representative, Li Hui, to Kyiv, and then there will be shuttle visits to Warsaw, Berlin and Paris. What do you think might be in the diplomatic briefcase of the Chinese special representative?

First of all, in recent months China has tried to position itself under Xi Jinping as a peacemaker. We see that it brokered that unexpected agreement between Saudi Arabia and Iran to normalize relations. And this war, this invasion of Ukraine by Russia really doesn't do anything good for China. I mean remember how important investment target and trading partner Ukraine has been for China, with Ukraine receiving billions of euros or dollars in investment under the Belt and Road initiative. And finally if you look at that so-called peace, it wasn't really a peace plan, but an outline to get to a peace proposal of China's. It was while it didn't condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine, which is bad. Its first point was in fact restoration of Ukraine's territorial integrity, which is very important for China when it comes to Taiwan. 

So for a number of structural reasons, I think China really does not want this illegal war to continue and would like to enhance its own prestige, by maybe being able to broker a peace agreement.

A: Does China seriously want to get involved in the negotiation process or is it some kind of imitation? In particular, we are talking about certain tools that China can use against Russia. China is trying to be neutral, but what would be China's main intentions, what would China want to win in the current situation?

I don't think it's accurate to call China neutral. It's clear that Putin and Xi Jinping have declared that the friendship or partnership between the two countries has no limit. In addition, we should never forget that China and Russia are core members of the so-called BRICS group, the largest developing countries. Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. China is clearly not neutral. I think China would prefer a ceasefire that holds in place Russia's gains of Ukrainian territory, illegal gains: because China wants to see the fighting stuff and because that may be a useful precedent for China as for Taiwan. In other words, the aggressor is rewarded for military action, but at the end of the day, we should all also keep in mind that China is driven by China's own national interests. China does not have enough national interest in Russia being a successful country. China has an interest in China being a successful country and behaving in a transactional way.

A: What is the right way for Ukraine to behave in the current situation? We can't say to China: It's ridiculous to hear your proposals that are not based on your genuine intentions to stop the Kremlin. But now Ukraine is in the middle of a major diplomatic negotiation process.

I think president Zelenskyy is playing this difficult diplomatic game with great skill. As your question suggests, it would be very costly for Ukraine to alienate China. China is the second most powerful country on Earth. If China were to be alienated by Ukraine. God forbid it might provide more assistance to Russia including weapons. So the smartest thing I think for Kyiv and president Zelenskyy to do is just what it's doing, maximize the charm offensive in Europe and with the United States. Make the European allies and the United States feel guilty that while they've provided a huge amount of weaponry. Thank goodness. It's come slowly, too slowly and those long-range missile systems and F-16 fighter jets are absolutely essential if Ukraine counteroffensive, whenever it happens, is to be successful. The smart diplomatic strategy is for Kyiv to be friendly to everyone except to Russia and Belarus.

A: The Kremlin has backed against the wall of courage of our Ukrainian soldiers, and the Kremlin has no strategic deployment now. It is clear that in strategic terms, the Kremlin has lost the war. But the war continues and may continue for a long time, although the Kremlin has nothing to offer, in particular, the use of any additional options for warfare. How do you assess what is happening within the Kremlin and around it?

Yes, as you say the Russian forces are sort of backed against the wall in Bakhmut. They're losing, they're not winning for sure. And you can see that at the highest level in Russia there is absolute disarray with Prigozhin every day attacking politically and rhetorically minister of defense Shoigu, and all the military commanders and threatening to pull out his Wagner criminal mercenaries from Bakhmut, and even according to the Washington Post allegedly offering to tell Ukrainian military forces where the Russian forces are so that they can be targeted by Ukrainian forces. That is an act of treason that ordinarily could be punished by death yet. Putin is letting this happen or either he's letting it happen because maybe he's afraid of his military commanders getting too much power or he can't control Prigozhin. In either case it looks like there's massive disarray around Putin and that then leaves me to believe that he just doesn't know what to do. Putin is stuck in Ukraine. He cannot win. All he can do is send more Russian men to their deaths as cannon fodder in the hope that the United States and its European allies are going to run out of their own will to keep supporting Ukraine's brave soldiers by providing so much military assistance. Other than that, it doesn't seem like there is any real strategy, and the will to continue really seems to be Putin's personal will. Now of course, we know the war is quite popular in Russia, but then how free are people to express their views? And when will the economic pain that Russia is experiencing change perceptions across Russia's Society? Russians are famous for being able to suffer a lot but the elites of Russia have grown used to a certain standard of living and that's gone and maybe forever, and at some point there's a threshold at which the brittle regime of Vladimir Putin breaks.

A: The key task is the withdrawal of the Russian invaders from our territory and a well-thought-out plan for reparations, compensation for our huge losses, and security guarantees for Ukraine. This is the triangle on which a peace plan between Ukraine and the West should be based. When do you think it will be possible to get Putin to accept such demands and will he be ready?

I think it's the same answer as always - victory on the battlefield. Ukraine must find a way with all of the support from its friends, and future allies to cut off the Russian forces in Crimea from the rest of the occupying Russian forces, and thereby create de facto, very painful military security costs to Russia that force them to sue for peace on terms that you just outlined.

There is one NATO ally that has fought Russian forces on the ground in recent years and compelled Putin to sue for peace. And that's Turkey. It happened as we've discussed before in Northwest Syria and it happened in Libya. So in cases where Putin suffers a serious defeat on the battlefield, he changes direction and that's what must happen now. There's no other answer. 

I was at a conference at my old Institute in Tallinn last weekend and the US analyst Sam Charap was coming up with all sorts of excuses for why the war should stop now, which as we know will hand Putin a victory if there's a ceasefire. Putin would control all this territory and then just live to fight another day. When one of us asked him, how do you get Putin to come to the negotiating table, if not victory on the battlefield by Ukraine. He had no answer. So people like this are out there doing Putin's bidding by hoping the war can be frozen now and Russia can hang on to the territory that it's grabbed. But that must not happen, and Ukraine is the one who has to prevent with our strong support such a victory on the battlefield by Russia.

A: The Kremlin felt that the war has come to their territory. Strange explosions are not just happening on the territory of the Russian Federation - we saw two drones explode over the Kremlin. This is extremely serious and reminds us of the story of Matthias Rust, a German amateur pilot who landed on Red Square in the late 1980s. This had a tremendous psychological impact on Moscow's military elites. And now we have received long-range Storm Shadow missiles from the UK, which is a pretty serious story because we still haven't received the American ATACMS. But the UK has now moved to break the so-called psychological paradigm.

There's been a pattern where the United Kingdom takes the first step and then the rest of the Alliance including the US eventually comes along. Remember back in January when the United States and Germany in particular were refusing to send their battle tanks to Ukraine. The United Kingdom went ahead anyway and sent its Challenger tanks to Ukraine. And then of course the deal happened afterward with Germany agreeing to send Leopard tanks to Ukraine if the United States sent and M1 Abrams. Similar with longer range missile systems, at first the United States said no and then eventually sent HIMARS or air defense systems. Right after the war began, Ukraine was begging for the US and its allies to help close the skies and establish a no-fly zone. We all argued that was to provocative and now there are Patriot missile systems the most advanced one in the world defending Kyiv and all of Ukraine. So there's a pattern whereby once the UK provides a weapon system, the US eventually comes along. Storm Shadow cruise missiles are highly capable. Their range is around 250 kilometers. The ATACMS don't have much longer range, it is about 300 kilometers. And so I'm hoping this move by the United Kingdom will lead now to the attitude shifting in Washington, which really means President Biden and his National Security advisor, Jake Sullivan, will recognize that providing ATACMS and F-16s is the way to de-escalate. It's not an escalatory step. It's Russia that keeps escalating. The only way to get Russia to de-escalate is to defeat it on the battlefield and these longer range systems and fighter jets are needed for Ukraine to win on the battlefield. 

So I feel the attitude shifting in Washington, but the big question of course is next year's election. It's so important that Ukraine have sustained and significant success on the battlefield long before that election and long before US politics and the Republican Party makes limitation of US military assistance to Ukraine an issue for the election campaign. We're not at that point yet. When Ukraine wins on the battlefield, I think that debate will be kept at bay.

When I listen to my former colleagues in the European government speak, their resolve is stronger than I have ever heard to help Ukraine. And that includes Germany, where foreign minister Baerbock has really been a staunch supporter of Ukraine and where president Frank Walter Steinmeier has admitted being humiliated by his soft Russian stance throughout recent decades.

A: Yes, it is an extremely significant paradigm shift. But the U.S. position is key, particularly what is happening in the Biden administration. The indicators here are the supply (or not) of ATACMS missile systems and F-16 fighting jets to us. There is some debate on this issue, as well as on macro-financial assistance to Ukraine. After all, what we have been receiving from the United States - we are talking about about $46 billion - is now coming to an end. Accordingly, we expect that the United States may make a big strong-willed decision to continue to help us.

As I mentioned a few minutes ago, I think the attitudes are shifting toward the US providing F-16s and ATACMS. I have no way to know whether that decision will ultimately be taken but I think the administration is moving in that direction. 

When it comes to macroeconomic assistance, everybody in Washington understands that Ukraine must survive economically and must be rebuilt. The debate rages about whether or not to use the frozen Russian government funds that are in various financial accounts around the world, to use that for reconstruction of Ukraine. But when it comes to shortage of macro economic support, there still is a lot of concern about the internal health of Ukraine's government, meaning transparency, corruption. On the one hand, it's terrible that the head of the Supreme Court is now accused of bribery and was removed. On the other hand, it's great that that came to light and perhaps that's a sign that President Zelenskyy and his government are taking seriously the need to cleanse Ukraine from really a Soviet legacy of corruption, meaning misuse of state funds. And I sense that certainly the Republicans in Washington are insisting that there be further signs of cleaning up corruption and strengthening the rule of law before bigger amounts of money are transferred from the US Treasury to its Ukrainian counterpart.

A: What do you think the Biden administration is leaning toward now - an accelerated victory or a long-term view of our war? The amount and speed of providing important resources, both long-range systems and Abrams M1 tanks, will depend on this.

Biden’s Administration is totally committed to, as they say, do all it takes to help Ukraine win, but we have a big election next year, and Biden may not win and Donald Trump may be the next president, and he has said what he will do. He said last week in a publicized or the TV broadcast that if he is a re-elected president, he will in 24 hours end the war in Ukraine by bringing president Zelenskyy and Putin together and forcing them to stop the fighting. Again, if that were to happen, which it won't, Trump could have no power to do that. But if it did, if the fighting suddenly stopped, all that would happen is that Russia would be rewarded in a shortened war. So the Biden Administration is willing to keep going for as long as it takes but it's not clear that the US voters are willing to keep going with the Biden Administration for as long as it takes.

A: Turkish elections: there will be a second round soon. President Erdogan seems to have won, but the support is not enough. And now it is noticeable that the Turkish opposition is uniting. How can the situation in the Black Sea basin change now in the event of a particular scenario around Turkish elections?

First of all, I don't think there's going to be any political change after the second round of elections. It's been clear to me for a long time that Erdogan is going to win. He is the most consequential and skilled politician in modern Turkey's history after Ataturk. I'm not saying I have a favorite in this election or somehow involved. I'm just observing and saying nobody is as skillful as Erdogan in Turkey in understanding Turkey's electorate. He has won every single national election he's ever participated in, and his opponent has lost every single national election he's ever participated in. So the opposition picked a weak candidate, one who has no charisma. Well the second biggest party in the opposition demanded not be chosen as the candidate because the leader of that party, the so-called good party or e-party, she understood just what I said that Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu would never win the national election. 

There won't be a change in policy and we'll see Turkey's approach as it has been to the Black Sea and to supporting Ukraine with very important military support and diplomatic support, even not joining the sanctions against Russia, but while mediating the grain deal that will continue. However, let's say hypothetically had Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu won or if he were to win because nothing's 100% certain. I also think that he would simply continue the same policies. For structural reasons Turkey has this for foreign policy, it strongly supports NATO enlargement to include Ukraine and Georgia. The opposition party CHP agrees. The opposition strongly supports Ukraine's territorial integrity and sovereignty and condemns Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

But at the same time, the economic ties binding Russia and Turkey will remain the same. And so Russia is a very important export market for Turkey both in terms of agricultural production and tourism. I mean Russian tourist money coming into Turkey and energy is such an important connection between Russia and Turkey both in terms of natural gas and atomic energy now with the first atomic energy plant in Turkey, built by Rosatom to start functioning soon. It's a 20 billion Euro project. So those underlying structural realities will not change, no matter who is elected the president of Turkey, but it's going to be Erdogan.

A: Would the collective Erdogan be ready to give up power if he lost? Or would everything turn into a possible confrontation?

Look what happened in the United States with Donald Trump. He still to this day claims that the 2020 election was stolen with absolutely no evidence thereof, and last week he said he would recognize the 2024 elections results if he deems them to be fair, which means if he wins.

But the political climate in Turkey is totally different. Number one Erdogan has already said he will respect the results whatever they are. Yes, as you say, the elites around him, if the results or if the margin of victory by the opposition were to be very small, they may try some trickery. It could be court cases. It could be recounts of the vote, but that's not likely to be tolerated by Turkish voters. The beautiful thing about this last election is how enthusiastic Turkish voters were to participate. It was a record turnout by Turkish voters 88% of Turkey's registered voters participated. By comparison in the United States a very high electoral turnout is only 65%. So this is 88, almost 89% of registered voters, actually voted in this election. And if you went around or when I went around to the various polling stations, there were traffic jams, outfront with so many people getting in to vote. It's very high energy levels inside, observers from all political parties carefully checking each ballot box, checking the results, making sure that the totals that they counted and recounted were then conveyed up the chain of custody of the ballots to make sure the results were fair and we're and that the election was free.

So the administration of elections is really good in Turkey. What's not as good is the pre-election situation where of course the incumbent has huge advantages in terms of influence over the media and money for projects like giving all households free natural gas for a month or raising the minimum wage repeatedly that makes the elections not so fair, but they're free, and it's very difficult to steal a Turkish election. So as long as the margin isn't really slim, let's say like 1% were the opposition to win, I think Erdogan would have no choice, but to accept the results.