Russia may prepare more provocations in NATO countries, diplomat Bryza

Matthew Bryza is with us, former Advisor to the US Secretary of State, former Director for European and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council.  Welcome, Mr. Bryza, to the studio of Espreso TV channel.

Przewodow. The Russian missile most likely killed two people and we understand that this incident is extremely powerful because it could have extremely large consequences. In any case, we understand that the situation has escalated so much that sooner or later the NATO Article 5 may be activated.

Well, we don't know exactly what happened. I mean President Biden has followed the comments of President Duda of Poland saying that this definitely was not an attack on Poland, at least that's what president Duda said. And President Biden said that the evidence so far suggest that this was not a Russian missile but the one fired in Ukraine, he said in Ukraine.

Having done my research and looked at the various Twitter conversations, people are starting to come to a conclusion that rocket was in Ukraine's inventory but not Russia's, who knows. President Zelenskyi, I listened very carefully to what he said as well, and so far what he has said is he received a report from Ukraine's air defenses and they said that this was not a Ukrainian missile and he's going to take them at their word. And that makes sense, he's the commander-in-chief of Ukraine's military forces but he's also said he looks forward to more information. I think the bottom line is what NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg said. Even if this rocket was a Ukrainian one, Ukraine is not at fault, Russia is at fault. If Ukraine fired an air defense missile and it straightened into Polish territory that's only because Russia is attacking Ukraine. So Ukraine is not at fault, Russia is at fault.

One last point though is that I believe we know this was an S300 and we also know that Russia has been repurposing S300 air defense missiles for ground attacks as Russia has run out of other precision guided surface-to-surface missiles. There’s still in my mind a possibility that it could have been Russia firing an S300, but it would be such an extreme provocation to hit Polish territory. And given how firm the Russian denial was afterward, my instincts tell me that in this case it was an accident but that being said as you suggested this is a provocation nonetheless Russia is firing 100 missiles on Ukrainian territory and the possibility of the conflict spilling over into NATO territory in Poland is always there, as just happened.

 I would not like to be a bad prophet, but in any case we understand that such a provocation may happen again. Under other circumstances, another missile may stray and hit a particular settlement in Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia or the Czech Republic. No one is immune from this, because the war continues and the Russians have been firing almost 100 missiles at our territory in recent days. Accordingly, I would like to understand whether someone will publicly or not publicly tell Putin to STOP?

I think that the United States did just tell Putin to stop. My former boss in fact at the state department, Bill Burns, who now heads the CIA was in Ankara recently, he met with his Russian counterpart Naryzhkin and according to media reports, director Burns said  'you should not even imagine using nuclear weapons'. I don't know what else exactly he said but the overall tone was to stop this. The costs to Russia are going to be incalculable and already are extremely high and are only going to get higher. Yes, this may have been a provocation theoretically by Russia to test our resolve and the next step could conceivably be the attacks on any of the Baltic states or more in Poland or Czech Republic but if there's even a single new attack like the one that happened on Polish territory, I think the reaction will be far different from the United States, from Poland and from the rest of NATO. Let's be honest, nobody in NATO and nobody in Russia I believe who is sane wants Article 5 to be invoked and wants there to be World War III between NATO and Russia.

No matter what the Russian propaganda says,  the insane statement by Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, the insane statement by former president, how despicable former president and prime minister Medvedev that the reports from the West are a provocation to try to pull NATO into the war, that's ridiculous. Credible people in Russia realize Article 5 will be a disaster for Russia and for the world. So I think everybody today is breathing a collective sigh of relief that Russia maybe did not intend to attack NATO territory but if this happens again, it will appear clear that these were not two coincidences. I just think back to my experience working in the White House, on September 11, 2001 and before our initial morning meeting we saw the first aircraft hit the one of the Twin Towers, we all thought it was a horrible accident. We had our meeting and I came out and was watching the news again saw the second aircraft hit the Twin Towers, and immediately we knew it was intentional terrorist attack. The same would be the case if there were another such attack on Polish territory.

Yes, on the other hand, Mr. Ambassador, we understand that CIA Director Burns, meeting with the head of the Russian foreign intelligence service Naryzhkin, probably talked not only about the inadmissibility of the use of nuclear weapons. Most likely, they could have been certain diplomatic emissaries who could have exchanged so-called opinions - an exchange of views between representatives of different states. And we understand what they could talk about. They could try to outline the negotiations, because there are more and more signals that Russia is ready for them. The key condition on our part is the withdrawal of Russian intervention troops from our territory and guarantees of our security. But if we talk about the so-called negotiation outline, Mr. Ambassador, how do you see Russia's readiness for real withdrawal of troops and on what conditions?

Well that's the big question and the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, yesterday said that as the winter sets in, the tactical military operations will slow down because it's so cold, and that's the way military operations often work and he was speculating, maybe not purely speculating I don't know, but maybe he had more information, but thinking that perhaps the time was coming for Putin to have to think about negotiating a way to stop the fighting and maintain some semblance of his reputation. So every war ends with a diplomatic negotiation. There is either a ceasefire or a peace treaty or some sort of an agreement or else the war continues indefinitely. In this case I think the Ukrainian military in partnership with its NATO allies has defeated Russia on the battlefield.

Now the forces have, as we all know, withdrawn from Kherson City, they're on the east side of Dnipro, and it's a gigantic humiliation for the Russian military akin to almost their withdrawal from Afghanistan. And they're not going to be winning there, they're not going to be winning in Donbass where Ukraine has also been constantly pushing Russians back. Russia has lost a war period. So the question is how badly does Russia wish to lose. I interpret the Russian defensive formations on the left bank of Dnipro as defensive not just to protect themselves, but to protect Crimea from losing it to a Ukrainian offensive. Militarily the situation is grim for Russia.

All it can do is try to destroy Ukraine and inflict suffering on you, brave Ukrainians, thinking that you're going to bend and break and you're not. Your resolve is growing stronger with every attack, so he can do nothing. He tried to frighten us with the threat of nuclear war and director Burns went to Moscow and told him that it would really be a terrible idea and he stopped making those threats. So he has no more military options. He cannot win this war. He controls the Russian media, so he will be able to define whatever status the Russian military has at the end of this as victorious. And you have to keep in mind the Russian way of thinking. Russians don't think the way we do. They don't think about the costs and benefits and what the overall goal is strategically for Russia in trying to destroy Ukraine.

I think they're operating from a sense that we just need to show the West that we won't be intimidated, that we will fight back, and even if we lose a lot of soldiers, we still made our point. Our point was we will fight if our interests are threatened, and I think Putin can make that point nationally and then begin withdrawing his forces even further but the big question is going to be Crimea.  In Russia it will be a devastating and maybe fatal political blow to Putin  if he were to agree to return Crimea to Ukraine. And  for President Zelenskyi it would be a very painful political blow if after all of this he were simply to say okay, Russia can stay in Crimea. So that part is very unclear.

There is another extremely important point. These are guarantees of Ukrainian security. What formula could be effective, because our Constitution enshrines the invariability of Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic course, that is, we are ready to join NATO, we have even submitted an application. How could such a moment be implemented now?  

I'm sitting in Bucharest, Romania, and I was here in April of 2008 when NATO made the terrible decision thanks largely to the chancellor of Germany at the time, Angela Merkel, not to offer a membership action plan to Ukraine or Georgia. And I thought that was one of the biggest strategic mistakes NATO has ever made. Because if Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic path, if its membership in NATO was shown to be coming closer because of the membership action plan, I don't think Putin would ever have invaded Georgia, he would never have invaded Ukraine in 2014, and we would be talking about something else today. So I understand it's in Ukraine's Constitution that NATO membership is an aspiration.

But your diplomats and political leaders can be creative, and there's a way to come up with a solution using constructive ambiguity that could say okay Ukraine for the time being is going to remain neutral but we still have this aspiration in the future. I mean the agreement right that was on the table, I think preliminarily accepted by Ukraine in March this year, was that Ukraine would declare its neutrality, who knows for how long, and the status of Crimea and Donbass would be determined or discussed in 15 years and Russia would withdraw all the troops that came after February 24. I know that President Zelenskyi and the Ukrainian people don't want to have that deal on the table anymore, so that still needs to be negotiated. But in terms of security guarantees, other than short-term NATO membership, we could also be creative on that. And we have special enhanced partnerships with Finland and Sweden, for example, who are now finally going to join NATO for years.

We had very special security partnerships with them. And Sweden even made a declaration a few years ago, even though there was no desire to join NATO at the time but essentially they made their own equivalent of a solidarity with Article 5 saying an attack on any NATO members would be considered an attack on Sweden. So Ukraine can do things like that, make such a declaration and even if NATO has not said you're a member, start behaving like a NATO member.

Dear Mr. Ambassador, the meeting on the island of Bali. It was there that President Joseph Biden had an undoubtedly historic meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. And we are most interested in how this can affect Russian aggression? Will Xi Jinping now be ready to play more with the United States, because when they talk about a bipolar world, it does not include the third player - the Russian Federation, and perhaps now Xi Jinping after talking with President Biden will be ready to work more actively in this situation.

First of all I think it definitely should be the G19. There's no way Russia deserves to be a member of that group just like it was banished from the G8. Based on my understanding of what Xi Jinping and President Biden discussed, of course their mutual opposition to Russia's war in Ukraine was a key item. Not only Xi Jinping but Narendra Modi, the leader of India, have made clear in recent months that they  find it unacceptable that Russia makes those nuclear threats. And in the communique of the G20, it was really interesting for me that all parties including Russia agreed to condemn the war in Ukraine. Now of course Russia is trying to spin that as condemnation of Ukraine as well, but I think what Xi Jinping and Joseph Biden meant by that communique is to condemn Russia for its recklessness, its war crimes in this illegal invasion of Ukraine. The mood between Xi Jinping and Biden again based on the statements of both sides after the meeting seemed to be not negative, they seemed committed to want to or create a new foundation for pragmatic relationship despite the huge difference over Taiwan, which is not going to go away; despite big differences on trade with essentially the Trump administration's trade penalties on China still enforce now against China in the Biden Administration. But opposition to Russia's war in Ukraine is something that is bringing the US and China together as is the need to fight pandemics globally and recover our economies despite the trade differences.

And finally, fighting climate change is something also that is bringing the US and China together and creating a very different atmosphere in relations of the United States with China versus Russia with China. It's  China. It's definitely not a friendship but now it's possible to look for ways to cooperate and one of those is deterring Russia from further war crimes against Ukraine. 

It is clear that in the current situation there can be no peace until Putin withdraws his troops, and yet there are more and more attempts to talk about the possibility of peace talks, etc. You outlined the situation very correctly, but I would like to clarify whether it is somehow connected with the fact that Putin is running out of resources - economic and military? In particular, Patrushev's visit to Iran showed that the Russian missile program cannot be implemented without Iran. So, in your opinion, how many resources does Russia have now to continue the active phase of the war? We understand that there are human resources, but it is a question of technical and economic resources. 

That depends on how much suffering Putin wants to inflict on the Ukrainian people. We know Russia as you said has run out of precision guided munitions and has turned to Iranian not very precise drones. But now these larger missiles. So Russia does not have any more or sufficient volumes of those sorts of weapons and has no way to rebuild them because of all the technology and trade restrictions and sanctions imposed against Russia. But it still has a lot of money - Russia is still earning huge sums from oil and natural gas exports though less and less. Russia can procure from Iran, from North Korea and unfortunately keep the suffering going for a while. So that means the International Community needs to react against Iran. The last few times we spoke about US Iranian relations or at least when we mentioned it.

We talked about how Biden

Administration was hoping to improve its relations with Iran and maybe resurrect the joint comprehensive plan of action, the so-called Iran Nuclear Agreement, that's no longer the case. And now in Washington the focus is again on how to pressure Iran. First, because of its brutal crackdown on women and girls protesting across the country following the death of the Kurdish Iranian woman in the custody of the religious police.

Secondly, of course because of the current Iran's support to Russia against Ukraine. So it's time for the International Community now to squeeze Iran to cut off that flow of weapons to Russia but I think there's enough of such weapons in Iran's arsenal to allow Russia to keep going for a while and then the real bottom line is what you in Ukraine have been asking for all along, that we should help you close your sky, providing you with more capable air defense systems and that is happening.

I think we might get to the point where you'll see fighter jets coming from NATO to Ukraine, maybe that requires some more political bickering in the West, but certainly we are already seeing more advanced air defense missile systems and we need many many more of those for Ukraine so that Ukraine can defend itself.

 And how will the situation in the US change now after the election? Donald Trump, fortunately, was defeated, but the key question for us is the formula of three words: Abrams, F-16 and of course ATACMS missiles.

The victory of the Republicans was so small in the House of Representatives that I don't believe it will be possible for there to be radical changes in the policy of supporting Ukraine. The speaker of the House, Kevin McCarthy, is going to have a very difficult job in trying to manage all the differences within the Republican Party in the House of Representatives. Military support for Ukraine is very popular across the United States, the general public I mean. It will continue. I think McCarthy again the Republican, now leader of the lower house of parliament, the House of Representatives, he tried to politicize US military assistance to Ukraine in the same way that Donald Trump did when he pressured president Zelenskyi in the infamous telephone call that led to president Trump's impeachment. That tactic by McCarthy failed. Trump was repudiated throughout the electorate.

We had not one of the Trump supported major candidates for the senate or governor win in any US election this last round so the Trump direction has been rejected. Now whether he wins in 2024 is a whole different case because that has to do with the fact that he has a support base of approximately 40% of the Republican voters, and so if there are many Republicans running against him, his 40% will be the largest number and he will win the Republican primary and be the Republican candidate in 2024, even though he's wildly unpopular, and 60% of Americans don't like him.  As far as the Abrams tanks, F-16s and the ATACMS go, personally I sense that the priority is the ATACMS and I think rightfully so, as that's where the debate is really raging in Washington because they're longer range, more capable, they're what Ukraine needs immediately and they're purely a defensive weapon. 

When it comes to F-16s, there's still I sense a concern in Washington that those would be seen as a US is playing right into Russia's narrative that Ukraine is not really the one fighting the war, it's NATO and the United States fighting an offensive war against Russia, which is a lie and false propaganda, but politically the possibility of such a narrative creates hesitation in Washington on providing F-16s. That's it. Someone else may do it,  Poland may decide to provide F-16s. Then, maybe given all this happened since the last time this issue was discussed between Warsaw and Washington, maybe this time Washington will say okay, go ahead, provide those F-16s to Ukraine and we'll provide new F-16s for you when we can or even F-35s. That debate still goes on. As far as M1 Abrams go, those will be seen as even more provocative by those in Washington that worry about provoking Moscow.

Personally I think Ukraine has fought with such skill, with such brilliance and courage that we really have to provide your brave soldiers with greater armor capabilities whether it be M1s or some other systems. But of course Ukraine needs those systems because it's in our collective interest that Ukraine wins this war and ends the military phase as quickly as possible. You are all dying, you're protecting yourselves and you're protecting us, and we need to give you all the support we can. And at some point like director Burns did when he went to Moscow. We have to call Putin's bluff and say we know you're not planning to use nuclear weapons. You know and we know NATO is not attacking you but we are going to ensure that you will not win on the battlefield and if that requires M1, F-16s or ATACMS, we're going to give those to Ukraine. But the debate in Washington has not yet reached that point.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ambassador, for this very substantial and qualitative analysis.