China doesn't want Russia to win, wants war to end - Bryza

The US President made a historic visit at a historic moment - during a full-scale Russian invasion. But the most important thing is not even that he flew to NATO's eastern flank. It's not even that he came to Kyiv, although that also commands enormous respect. But he held extremely important coordination meetings. In particular, it concerns the entire eastern flank of NATO. We understand that there must be certain additional things not included in the official protocols.

In terms of the visit to Kyiv, as president Zelenskyy said it's probably the most significant visit by any U.S. official ever to Ukraine, and I very much agree with that. That's because other European leaders of course had been in Kyiv but President Biden had not, and as the leader of the transatlantic family, if you will, he needed to go there to show that he is courageous and to counter of course the claims by Moscow that Biden is too old, too frail, out of touch and unable to serve as a global leader. But most importantly of course the significance is for Ukraine that the United States president was able for the first time in American history to visit a war zone without any U.S military presence on the ground, and to show that he is willing to take such risks, to demonstrate his strong and strengthening support for Ukraine. So it was a powerfully important political symbol that President Biden went to Kyiv.

When it comes to the meeting of the Bucharest nine, so the nine frontline states of NATO, closest to Ukraine, that I interpreted as of also a powerfully important strategic symbol of the unity of NATO and those countries by and large have been the ones historically that have been most concerned and most knowledgeable about president Putin's aggressive claims on Ukraine and the threat that he poses to NATO territory. They're also countries that have been occupied of course by Russia during the Soviet Union. So they needed to be reassured, those countries, they need to understand that the leader of NATO is taking their concerns fully into account, and even if in some other parts of NATO the support for Ukraine may be looking like it's not going to remain as strong as it has been, it's important to show those countries that as far as Biden is concerned, of course all those NATO states stand together to deter Russia from any aggression against NATO territory.

And one last point why both visits by President Biden were important because the Republican far right, the most extreme part of the Republican party in Washington, has been as we've discussed before suggesting that maybe the U.S should reduce its assistance to Ukraine. And if president Donald Trump was re-elected as president, I very much worry about how much support the U.S would continue under president Trump. But we're a long way from that election, and I would not predict now that president Trump is going to win.

What could the US president bring to Kyiv? This is important, this is historic, and this is a huge risk for President Joseph Biden. But he took this risk! This means we are enjoying a historic moment. We  are talking about some kind of geopolitical bargaining with Russia or China. That is, the US president manifested by coming to Kyiv that the Western world is here.  We understand that this could have been postponed, or he could have come to Zakarpattia or Lviv. But no, he came to Kyiv. And the most interesting point is that the Kremlin did not make a military provocation. Why didn't the Kremlin launch a missile attack on Kyiv, and what could have been the US response to this?

The Biden Administration warned or alerted Russia that president Biden was going to travel to Kyiv. The White House alerted the Kremlin beforehand, and so I think then there was a historical record then clearly that Washington behaved in a responsible way. And if Moscow had in turn conducted air raids or missile strikes on Kyiv at the time that Biden was there, then Moscow would have suffered a tremendous blow in terms of international public opinion and maybe even in Russia as well because they're for better for worse right there is an international political and legalistic understanding that countries do not try to assassinate heads of state. Even though Russia is in grave violation of international law by invading Ukraine,  it's trying to manage the international public relations and frankly is doing a good job in doing so outside of Europe and the United States and Japan and Australia, New Zealand elsewhere in two-thirds of the world there's sympathy for Russia. The Kremlin was worried it would lose such sympathy with regard to its invasion and occupation so far of Ukraine if it were then to do something as reckless as sending missiles after being warned toward President Biden.

But Putin didn't give any clear, tough, understandable answer. Everybody expected Putin to start very tough, at least rhetorically, to try to realize his imperial fantasies or ambitions. And the only important thing he did was to freeze the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty.

It's important to focus precisely on your words. He chose to freeze the Strategic arms reduction treaty or freeze its implementation but not to leave it or not to abrogate that treaty. I think what Putin is doing is sending a signal to the United States that the entire framework of arms control that's been in place since the 1970s with the Anti-ballistic missile treaty in 1972, which the US by the way left of course in 2002. But this entire framework is gone and he wants to generate a fear especially in Europe that the United States is behaving in a dangerous way that could lead to some sort of a nuclear confrontation not only between the U.S and Russia but between Europe and Russia. So Putin is using that threat trying to undermine the unity of the transatlantic community in supporting Ukraine. However, as I said he did not say Russia left the agreement in which case he would be working against this goal of trying to put a wedge between Europe and the United States. In reality however the practical impact of this move is small because since the Covid pandemic began there hasn't really been any inspections allowed by Russia as are supposed to be able to happen. So several times a year each side Russia and the United States under the treaty are allowed to provide a notice that in a short amount of time it will conduct a trip and a visit to observe whether or not the other side is adhering to the treaty. Russia hasn't allowed that since the Covid pandemic began and then after the pandemic wound down, when Russia invaded Ukraine, then it was really not practical for that sort of political cooperation to continue. This is another symbolic gesture aiming to sow fear and there's no reason why the Strategic stability is going to be undermined in any way by Russia freezing its implementation of the treaty.

At any rate, I don't see you looking scared. I don't see the United States being too frightened by this extremely dangerous and undiplomatic Russian move. That is, the United States is not surprised and would be ready to give an adequate response if something happened.

Under the treaty each side is able to maintain 1550 nuclear warheads. Russia has maintained that full number but at the limit, and the United States has 1 420 nuclear warheads, so that's plenty of comments to deter any sort of Russian attack on the United States using nuclear weapons. The question of whether Russia would use a tactical or battlefield nuclear weapon in Ukraine is a totally different question and it depends entirely upon president Putin reaching a determination that frankly he himself faces an existential threat as Ukraine defeats the Russian military on the battlefield.

What was the purpose of Wang Yi, the head of Chinese diplomacy, the head of the so-called foreign department of the Chinese Central Committee, who has now made his big European trip? What could Wang Yi be bringing back? And what could the Chinese peace plan that everyone is talking about so much be?

I don't think the Chinese peace plan is really going to go anywhere. Number one, I don't think that Xi Jinping of China is really interested in playing a mediating role like Turkey has tried to do. They've shown no interest in getting actively involved. Instead, China is trying to play a balancing role in terms of its own strategic interests. There was the Chinese foreign minister meeting with president Putin and foreign minister Lavrov yesterday. Yes the foreign minister of China did say that the Chinese Russian partnership, he used the term that

translates into rock solid. But he did not repeat the phrase that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin used when they met just before Russia invaded Ukraine, which is that China and Russia enjoy a partnership with no limits. The foreign minister didn't say that this time. Clearly Xi Jinping is trying to put limits on Russia and that's where I see the balance in China's approach towards the war.

When it comes to the use of nuclear weapons, it's an open secret that Xi Jinping strongly counseled president Putin against doing so when they met last time, as did Narendra Modi of course. And China would like to see the war end. In terms of balance, it wants to maintain its principle of support for the territorial integrity of states, which obviously means Taiwan from Beijing's perspective. That's where the balancing comes in. China is not in favor of Russia occupying and dividing up Ukraine. There's one more very subtle part of Chinese thinking that not a lot of analysts are paying attention that from China's perspective it's possible to view Russia's, from our perspective illegal invasion of Ukraine, as an attempt to restore Russia's territorial integrity from the perspective of Putin, who as we know violated international law by invading Ukraine and wrongly claims Ukraine doesn't have a right to exist, which is going to wind up, getting  him charged with genocide by the International Community. But in the Chinese strategic mind, the conflict is unclear which way to interpret territorial integrity and so China would simply like the war to end but does not want to alienate Ukraine. China trades a lot with Ukraine and yes China would like there to be peace, but it's not yet shown that it's ready to mediate actively and everybody knows that there's no chance that Ukraine is simply going to say okay, let's stop the war now, without conducting the spring offensive that aims to restart uh Ukraine's territorial Integrity. Sorry that's a very long way of saying I don't think the Chinese peace plan is going to go anywhere.

A strange but characteristic point: the Chinese would like to sell themselves as "great peacemakers". In this case, it is extremely strange that Wang Yi flew to Moscow instead of flying to Kyiv. If China was serious about intervening or trying to quell Russian aggression, Wang Yi would have had to talk to Ukraine's top political leadership first.

That's the point I was trying to make in my previous answer that China is not serious about being a mediator or a peacemaker. China's fundamental underlying strategic interest at this point is to help oppose the dominance of the United States on the world stage that means supporting Russia with president Putin being the global figure most committed to undermining that international system of rules, of multilateralism that came out of World War II and all the efforts that were led by the United States at that time. Beijing is always going to tilt toward Moscow in this conflict and will never be a peacemaker. But again as I said before, Beijing is conflicted as well because it so strongly supports the principle of territorial integrity including in Ukraine, but of course first and foremost for itself with regard to Taiwan. I agree that Beijing, if it wanted to play the role of a peacemaker, the foreign minister would come to Kyiv but that's not what Beijing wants to do. Beijing simply wants to avoid being against Russia, but not be too much in favor of Russia in this conflict.

When do you think this moment will come? What will be its most characteristic signs that would indicate that Russia will be ready or Russia will be forced to enter into negotiations? Because we understand that in general, we have two bloody scenarios: major battles or the Russians' attempts to freeze and reduce the intensity to a certain extent without stopping the fighting.

That will be determined by the success of Ukraine's military operations in this upcoming spring offensive. Putin is absolutely committed to destroying Ukraine and he'll do so unless he is stopped. He will never come to the negotiating table in good faith unless he is simply defeated. We see from the whole Minsk process, the disaster that that is. He simply used the time between 2014 and 2022 to strengthen Russia's military presence, increase its capabilities and prepare for an invasion of Ukraine. That's exactly what he would do now if there was a ceasefire that would come out of some negotiation. The only option is to defeat him on the battlefield, and as we know Russia is facing grave challenges and difficulties I mean not only has he run out of regular army troops more or less and is low on ammunition and he can't reproduce that ammunition because of the sanctions. But Prigozhyn has said  they're not going to be able to recruit even any more conscripts from prisons and then you've got intense fighting politically between Prigozhyn on one side and then the military of Russia especially Minister Shoigu and chief of staff and head of the Ukraine military operation Gerasimov. I think Putin knows that in a totalitarian state or an authoritarian state like his these rival power centers have to be divided. People who control military force have to be divided or they could turn against him. What I'm trying to say is that Russia is in a perilous state militarily. It has many more people that Putin is willing to sacrifice as cannon fodder as they charge Ukrainian lines and wear them down. Putin is just hoping that Ukraine will get exhausted on the battlefield and that Ukraine's friends will stop providing such decisive military aid to Ukraine at some point. But I think Ukraine is poised for a decisive victory this spring. Then a tough question is going to be - does Ukraine continue to push on and liberate Crimea, as my dear friend whom I respect so deeply General Ben Hodges has been advocating or does the collected group of friends of Ukraine put pressure on Ukraine to stop the fighting at that point? That'll be a tough political decision and at that point Putin might come to the negotiating table. He might because he knows if he and when he loses Crimea that is an existential loss for him politically which means a physical existential threat for him as well. We'll see him come to the negotiating table when Ukraine has decisively defeated Russia on the battlefield outside of Crimea. Then there'll be a very intense bit of decision making about whether to continue to liberate Crimea.

When President Joseph Biden arrived in Kyiv and Warsaw, he demonstrated something. But it's not just a matter of demonstration, it's also a matter of readiness to use concrete forces, including ground troops.

Of course it's necessary. It is because of the amazing performance of the society of Ukraine both on the battlefield and its unity in supporting the military effort. I mean the people who aren't fighting on the front lines as well supporting those who are on the front lines. It's that success is a society that led the United States and its allies to say okay it's worth the risk of Putin escalating the conflict to involve us to provide Ukraine the weapons it needs to defeat Russia on the battlefield because now we see Ukraine can do it. Ukraine can defeat Russia on the battlefield. Therefore, okay it's that that's a risk worth taking because we must see Ukraine win on the battlefield and Ukraine can win. So there needs to be more weapons delivered to Ukraine higher capability and we've seen the United States and its European allies pass each of their red lines step by step. First there were not going to be any longer range rockets or missiles and the U.S provided HIMARS. Then there were anti-ship missiles provided by Denmark and the UK. And you remember a few years ago under the Obama Administration, he wouldn't even provide Javelin anti-tank missiles and president Trump to his credit decided to do so. Then there were statements that there would be no NATO tanks provided. Last time you and I spoke just on the eve of the meeting in Ramstein when we agreed that Germany was going to end up having to provide Leopard 2 tanks, that was after the United States went beyond its initial red line and did agree to provide M1 Abrams. And then the U.S provided Patriot missiles. Now the talk is about enhanced Ukrainian air defense systems F-16s. I think we're going to see the U.S agreeing to have F-16s transferred to Ukraine. So as Ukraine succeeds on the battlefield, its friends in the West and Future NATO allies by the way are increasingly ready to risk higher escalation of the war by president Putin in order to make sure Ukraine can win.

The terrible earthquake in Turkey has weakened certain positions of President Erdogan. How can the position of President Erdogan and Turkey as a key Black Sea negotiator change or weaken now?

There is no capacity now at the highest level of the Turkish govermental system to think about anything outside of Turkey.

This is an unprecedented natural disaster in the Turkish Republic's history and some experts are saying it could be the biggest human natural disaster ever. There have been a lot of big natural disasters but the area that's bigger than the entire country of Bulgaria in which almost all buildings have been either destroyed or severely damaged. Just in the city of Antakya, for example, the local mayor has announced that 80% of the buildings are either destroyed or need to be destroyed and rebuilt. 80% in a region of over a million people. The previous international disputes that Turkey was involved with Greece, Cyprus and Armenia, Israel those look trivial right now and in fact those countries as I mentioned had difficult relations with Turkey. They are among the first to offer assistance, both rescue teams and another humanitarian assistants to Turkey. Erdogan's going to be preoccupied with his upcoming election which is for him politically existential. He's never lost an election before. Things weren't looking good for him politically but then with the earthquake, if the response is as decisive now after the initial complaints that you know not enough assistance came to all this huge region that was hit with the earthquake. But now with Erdogan is able to begin as he promises within a month to start reconstructing 200 000 destroyed houses. He's going to become very strong in the upcoming election, so all eyes at the top of Turkish politics are on reconstruction now and then the upcoming election. Having said that foreign policy does continue, Minister will continue active Turkish diplomacy but I don't think Turkey is going to be ready at the level of president Erdogan to get back involved in that sort of mediation that he was playing between Kyiv and Moscow until the rescue mission or the relief mission is further underway and that'll be a couple of months I think as we look to an election that originally was scheduled for June 18th. It has to be held by June 18th, Erdogan had pushed it up to May 14th, now I think it is going to be delayed and the big question is what will the election be delayed, even after June 18, which is not possible under the Turkish Constitution because you can only delay and elect past the stated date in case of war in Turkey. But the people who wrote the Constitution didn't foresee a space like this,  so if we see the Turkish election delayed even further past June, then I think we'll see Erdogan less likely to be able to perform a mediating role until that election occurs.

President Joseph Biden reminds me in some ways of a better version of President Woodrow Wilson, who brought America back into the big, global politics, who was not afraid. But unlike President Woodrow Wilson, President Joseph Biden is supported in the United States. More than 100 years ago, Woodrow Wilson began to normalize the world at the same time that he was having a bad relationship with his family, politicians, and congressmen. Accordingly, the domestic political situation in the United States will not be able to negatively affect President Biden's idea of returning the United States to a truly big, global politics.

I think the U.S being activist in foreign policy is the natural state of affairs since World War I for the United States and much more after World War II. That's obviously when the U.S emerged as a global leader. There always has been however a tendency toward isolationism in U.S foreign policy, in a desire to use this as used to be said in the 19th century and 18th century the splendid isolation of America's geography meaning the oceans that insulates the United States from conflicts elsewhere. Thinking back to the farewell speech of the first U.S president George Washington, one of the key things that he said in that speech was that the United States should avoid as he called them foreign entanglements, in other words, focus is primarily on the situation inside the United States. That trend was brought back by Donald Trump. He reinstated this policy of isolationism out of ignorance, out of a lack of not only understanding of how the world works, but a complete lack of interest. So Biden brought us back to the natural post-world War II state of U.S foreign policy which is to be the leader of a transatlantic community that's based upon NATO but also on the U.S treaty to protect treaties, to protect Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand. The United States is committed militarily to protect all those countries. Inside the United States however the general population does not pay much attention to the rest of the world unfortunately. Disturbing level members of the US Congress don't even have passports to travel internationally. Its foreign policy has been sort of the domain of the intellectual elite in the United States and president Trump's whole political approach was to criticize the elites even though he is an economic elite. He built a lot of his political support base among people who feel looked down upon by America's intellectual elite and it's those intellectual elites who care most about foreign policies. So it's a constant tendency and tension inside U.S politics between isolationism and internationalism but as I said to wrap it up, internationalism is going to be for a long time, as long as Donald Trump is not president,  the default position for U.S foreign policy.