Talks with Russia are possible only after Russia's army potential has been completely degraded - diplomat Bryza

He said this in an interview with Antin Borkovskyi, host of the Studio West program on Espreso TV.

We receive very important signals - I emphasise signals - from both the media and diplomatic sources. Our soldiers are on the territory of the Russian Federation, and an extremely bloody operation is underway in the Pokrovsk sector. At the same time, there are reports of peace talks, as well as possible agreements or ‘package visions’. And most importantly, the President of Ukraine will present the Ukrainian peace plan to the US leadership, President Joseph Biden in particular, to put pressure on Russia. How do you see this situation?

Well, yeah, we know that President Zelensky is going to present his peace plan to President Biden, and there have been high expectations, at least outside of the White House. When Keir Starmer visited Washington recently, and then when Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Secretary of State Antony Blinken visited President Zelensky, there were expectations of an imminent announcement from the US and the UK. People thought the leaders might permit Ukraine to use ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles deeper into Russian territory. 

However, that agreement hasn't been announced yet. Recently, US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan was asked about this permission and simply said, "I have no announcement to make." This doesn't mean that permission hasn't been given or won't be given; it just means that the United States is not ready to discuss it openly.

For now, the momentum in the Biden Administration and in the Starmer administration in London seems to be moving toward supporting President Zelensky's peace plan by helping Ukraine protect itself against Russia's standoff attacks with glide bombs and ballistic missiles. I think that's positive momentum.

We are not talking about political analytics here, because there are many components of the process that remain confidential, and perhaps have not even been developed. But speaking in general, what could a peace plan look like, given that the aggressor state is against peace talks and wants to gain a foothold on the ground, i.e. control over our territories?

Yes, so I don't have access to President Zelensky's plan. I mean, I'm living here in Turkey. But clearly, a big part of it is that the Russian military forces must withdraw from all Ukrainian territory they have occupied, including Crimea and Donbas. There would certainly need to be recognition of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity by Russia. What I don't know is what Zelensky's peace plan might say about Ukraine's strategic orientation in the future.

There were rumors back in March 2022 about the not-so-secret talks taking place in Istanbul between representatives of Ukraine and Russia. The discussions reportedly included Ukraine declaring its political or geostrategic neutrality, meaning it would not be pressed to join NATO, and a ceasefire where Russia would withdraw all troops that entered Ukraine during its second invasion after February 2022. The question of the legal status of Donbas and Crimea was to be deferred for about 15 years.

Maybe that's part of the plan, but I doubt it. I think the Ukrainian side may have ruled out any possible recognition of Russian gains in Ukrainian territory, even in the future. So I don’t know what the other elements are. But certainly, the core of Zelensky's perspective is a ceasefire and the full withdrawal of Russian forces. What he is willing to offer as an incentive for Russia, I don’t know.

In the Biden administration, in London, perhaps, or in some other Western capitals, they understand that Russia can only be coerced by destroying some of its power - military, logistical, etc. That is, when Russia is weakened, it could negotiate. So far, Russia has been issuing ultimatums demanding that we take 30% of our territories and make us a non-aligned state under its control. On the other hand, the United States understands that if it can undermine the Russian economy and destroy the Russian military machine, it could force Putin to reconsider his demands. Instead, China, Brazil, India, and the countries of the Global South want to achieve results at our expense. The Russians were always talking about the realities on the ground, so perhaps the Kursk operation was launched as a result of which the realities on the ground changed. So, the Sino-Brazilian plan has failed. But how do you overcome the Russian bear when you lack missile systems, aircraft and the appropriate permissions to use weapons to destroy Russian military targets?

First of all, I think the Chinese or Brazilian plans have no relevance whatsoever. What matters is whether the United States, the United Kingdom, and other NATO allies provide Ukraine with the capabilities it needs to degrade Russia's military forces to the point where Russia simply cannot continue.

As I mentioned at the beginning of our interview, I believe it is absolutely essential for Ukraine to be granted permission to use ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles deeper into Russian territory. The recent attack in Western Tver Oblast, which occurred the other days, was an impressive drone strike that caused enormous explosions throughout the town. The destruction of the ballistic missiles, glide bombs, and other ammunition depots clearly impacted Russia's ability to launch attacks with these weapons into Ukraine.

Whether Ukraine can achieve similar success with ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles remains to be seen. It seems logical that if Ukraine could achieve significant results with drones, which are much easier to shoot down, it could do even more with ballistic missiles, ATACMS, Storm Shadow, and cruise missiles, potentially degrading Russia's ability to continue the war. According to British military intelligence, citing the Ukrainian General Staff, Russia is losing over 1,100 soldiers a day, either killed or wounded, and has suffered up to 610,000 casualties so far.
This level of loss is not sustainable. While Putin may continue to throw men into battle, these forces are underqualified and undertrained. In the East, the attack on Pokrovsk is significant, and if Pokrovsk is captured, it would be a serious blow to Ukraine's operations in the region. However, it seems unlikely that Russia will be able to exploit any openings created in the East due to a lack of necessary equipment and personnel. Even though Putin may project confidence, it does not appear that Russia has the capability to end the war decisively on its own terms.

But how do we make sure that Putin stops demanding peace from us at our expense? Putin regularly shells us, raises the level of aggression to wrest this bloody agreement from us. Which will not happen if the United States, the United Kingdom, and France set clear parameters. Putin, when he met with Joseph Biden a few years ago, offered him to divide the world, and we in Ukraine understand that there is an attempt to reorganize the world, a struggle for geopolitical influence. But the challenge is to ensure that this is not at the expense of Ukraine, our territories and internationally recognised borders. Perhaps Putin is interested in some other territories? How will the leading players play now?

I don't see a grand geopolitical bargain where Western leaders offer President Putin concessions elsewhere in the world. The way Washington operates is to address each problem, such as this war, as a separate issue. The US adopts a problem-solving approach rather than a broad geopolitical strategy like the one the Russians might imagine. It is absolutely urgent for Washington that the war ends on terms acceptable to Ukraine; otherwise, President Putin will continue his aggression. Moldova might be next, followed by Georgia, or possibly both simultaneously. If Putin isn't stopped in these countries, he may threaten NATO's eastern members like Latvia or Estonia. He must be stopped now, period. If he's not stopped militarily, he'll simply postpone his aggression in the regions I mentioned.

Whatever geopolitical ambitions exist in the global South, whether it's President Lula in Brazil or Xi Jinping in China, don't change the focus of the US and its allies. The priority is stopping Putin and Russia in Ukraine and eventually reaching a peace agreement acceptable to Ukrainians. Recent public opinion polls show that while around 50% of Ukrainians might support a ceasefire, over 75% reject any ceasefire that involves giving Ukrainian territory to Russia. Therefore, Western leaders, particularly in the Biden and Harris administration, will likely support the will of the Ukrainian people. President Trump, if re-elected, has indicated he intends to end the war before taking office. However, he may propose a deal requiring Ukraine to surrender land for peace. Ultimately, it's up to Ukraine to decide its course.

This makes it more urgent than ever for the Ukrainian government to be granted permission to use longer-range weapons deeper into Russian territory. This would make it increasingly difficult for Russia to launch attacks on Ukrainian infrastructure and civilians.
Lastly, there has been media speculation about negotiations in August for an agreement between Russia and Ukraine to stop targeting each other’s energy infrastructure, possibly brokered by Qatar. I think those talks are still ongoing. Even though Putin may not want to appear as if he's yielding to Ukrainian pressure following Ukraine's incursion into Kursk, the fact that these discussions seem to continue suggests that Putin is looking for a way to deescalate, given the high cost Russia is paying, even if Putin pretends like he can incur any cost.

But Ukraine also has the ability to escalate the level of escalation - the strike on the warehouses in the Tver region demonstrated that we can use drones to deliver devastating blows to the enemy. The Kremlin was not expecting this, and if the Ukrainian Drone Army is practicing military targets on Russian territory, ordinary Russians will also feel the burden of war.

But Putin is betting on something else - on the destruction of our energy sector during the winter, on enormous suffering, possibly mass deaths and the death of our people, on the exodus of a large part of our citizens from our territory, and then, in the spring, he could offer something.
 

All Western capitals understand this, but the pace of military assistance to us is not satisfactory. The Biden administration understands that Putin wants to destroy our energy system to make the winter tragic, the Kremlin is doing it, Delhi understands it, Berlin, Paris and London understand it as well. But now we can see this Putin plan, so all we have to do is maintain and exceed the level of escalation.

We’ve already touched upon these points, and I firmly agree with the premise of your question. The fear of escalation has indeed prevented the Biden Administration from granting permission for the use of weapons deeper into Russian territory.

The lack of this permission only allows and encourages Putin to continue devastating Ukraine's energy infrastructure. Clearly, London wants to persuade Washington to grant permission for Ukraine to defend itself more effectively. While attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure are ongoing, there seem to be discussions underway that could lead to an agreement where Ukraine and Russia would stop targeting each other’s energy infrastructure. This could be a constructive step toward changing the momentum and direction of the conflict.

Additionally, Ukraine's success in moving into Russian-held territory to protect its northern regions, especially around Sumy, has shifted the conflict's psychology from a perceived stalemate to one where Ukraine is seen as capable and innovative. The recent drone strike in Western Tver Oblast, which targeted Russian munitions stores, missiles, and glide bombs, demonstrates Ukraine’s effectiveness in degrading Russia's ability to target Ukraine with these devastating weapons—even with much less capable drones compared to ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles.

I expect that permission will eventually be granted by Washington and London. Once Ukraine starts using these more effective weapons, I believe we’ll see a shift in the momentum of the war in Ukraine’s favor. This could make Putin more willing to negotiate in good faith.

Biden does not have much time left in office. Fortunately, he is not personally experiencing the election campaign right now - he is not travelling to Pennsylvania and claiming to have a peace plan. Biden's task is to go down in history like Winston Churchill did when he said: no, we will destroy Hitler. I am not idealizing Churchill. But Biden now has a few months to make decisions at the level of a prominent, great political and military figure in the world: he can grant Ukraine certain permits, increase the range of long-range weapons and aircraft. Will Joseph Biden play to the end? Or will he be a hostage to the Democratic election campaign?

President Biden deeply believes that Ukraine must not lose this war. I wish he would more clearly state that Ukraine must win this war and define what that means. If pressured, I think he would say that Ukraine winning the war means ending the fighting on terms defined by Ukraine.

Biden retains full power until a new president is inaugurated on January 20, 2025. Not only does he have the authority to make decisions he believes are right, but there are also no restrictions on him due to his political career ending soon. His main consideration, then, is how any actions he takes to help Ukraine might influence domestic US politics and the outcome of the 2024 election.

While Biden is certainly thinking about how his decisions could affect President Harris's chances against President Trump, Americans are generally more focused on other issues when it comes to electing their president. Therefore, Biden has a relatively free hand to do what he believes is right.

He is understandably concerned about the possibility of Russia escalating to the use of nuclear weapons. However, last year, when it appeared that President Putin might be planning to use nuclear weapons on the battlefield, Biden sent CIA Director Bill Burns to Moscow to warn that the US would intervene militarily and destroy Russian forces inside Ukraine. This threat seemed to deter Putin.

I believe President Biden remains as committed as ever to helping Ukraine. His hands are largely free now compared to when he was still running for president. While Russia's invasion of Ukraine may not be the deciding factor in the US election, it could have an impact on the margins, and this election is expected to be very close.

We understand that negotiations, whether they are behind the scenes, semi-public or even public, result in some kind of informal agreements. But there can be no more informal agreements with Putin, because he has violated all the international treaties to which Russia is a party: Russia either does not comply with them or simply withdraws from them, as happened with the Budapest Memorandum. And if in a few months we see a certain freezing of the situation, a decrease in the intensity of fighting on the front line, we will understand that something like this is happening. But someone has to be the guarantor of those agreements that may not be signed on paper. And even if they are signed on paper, what should it look like, how should such documents be worded?

It's much too early to talk about a guarantor because Putin has not yet decided to stop fighting. He is simply throwing as many people as possible into the front lines to absorb Ukraine’s bullets and bombs. However, there will come a time, if the United States, the United Kingdom, and their allies grant Ukraine permission to use these missiles deeper into Russian territory, when this issue will need to be addressed.

As you suggested, Mr. Borkovskyi, whatever is written on paper, such as the Budapest Memorandum, is meaningless to Putin. He understands only one thing: superior force. Therefore, his military forces need to be degraded to the point where he is no longer capable of continuing this war against Ukraine. We know from the 1930s and the secret agreements between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that leaders in Moscow violated agreements before when it suited their advantage. For instance, Stalin’s plans to invade Poland led to World War II despite earlier agreements.

The same applies to Putin—he doesn't care what's on paper. Thus, Russia’s military capabilities must first be degraded. Only after that should we think about verification methods for any agreement. Verification could involve a set of guarantor powers or other formal mechanisms. We successfully developed verification methods for nuclear arsenals during the Cold War, so a similar approach could be devised. But the primary focus must be on degrading Russia’s military capabilities before considering a peace agreement and how to guarantee it.

Is Trump telling the truth or is he in a state of election chaos? He is giving a lot of different signals about how he sees the conversation with Putin.

I don’t think his default position is ever to tell the truth. He’s always manipulating and saying whatever comes into his head that he thinks will help him at that moment. He believes he’s a great deal-maker and thinks he can somehow persuade or compel Ukraine and Russia to end the war. However, I don’t think he has any clear idea of how to achieve this.

During the recent debate with Kamala Harris, he was asked if he had an economic plan for the country. He replied that he had a concept for a plan. Despite attacking Kamala Harris for having no economic policies of her own, he essentially admitted that he doesn’t have a concrete plan, only concepts.

The same applies to his approach to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He has a concept of a plan, believing that he’s a skilled negotiator who will figure out a way to end the war, but he doesn’t seem to know what he actually wants to do. Chaos seems to be the right word here.