Speaker 1: You're listening to Bloomberg Business Week with Karl Messer and
Speaker 1: Tim Stenebek on Bloomberg Radio. This hour really focusing on
Speaker 1: that one year mark since that Russian invasion in war
Speaker 1: with Ukraine, and we did hear from Ukrainian President of
Speaker 1: Vladimir Zelinski saying on this one year mark of the
Speaker 1: Russian invasion that his country will secure victory if allies
Speaker 1: maintain their support, possibly this year. So we continue our
Speaker 1: look back at the year and what may come. Return
Speaker 1: Mannie to a trusted voice that we have leaned on
Speaker 1: a lot over the past twelve months since that invasion.
Speaker 1: Delighted to have back with us. Angela Stent. She is
Speaker 1: Senior Adviser to the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East
Speaker 1: European Studies. Also served as National Intelligence Officer for Russia
Speaker 1: and Eurasia at the National Intelligence Council and before that
Speaker 1: served at the US Department of State. She's also written
Speaker 1: a book Putin's World, Russia Against the West End with
Speaker 1: the Rest. This is why we have leaned on her
Speaker 1: so much. She's with us once again from Washington, DC. Angela,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. I'm sure many people have been
Speaker 1: reaching out to you on this one year mark, and
Speaker 1: so delighted that you could be with us again one
Speaker 1: year in what occupies your mind, your thoughts when it
Speaker 1: comes to this war each day that it continues to
Speaker 1: drag on. Well, thank you for having me back on
Speaker 1: the program. I would say that at the moment, what
Speaker 1: I'm focused on is this new Russian offensive which has
Speaker 1: already begun, the so called Spring Offensive. It's going to
Speaker 1: be a very tough next six months. The Russians are
Speaker 1: still trying to take more territory, the Ukrainians are pushing
Speaker 1: them back. There's been very, very fierce fighting in a
Speaker 1: town called Bahmut, which it's really like hand to hand combat,
Speaker 1: and they've been large numbers of casualties. So I think
Speaker 1: we just have to watch that, and we have to
Speaker 1: see whether the Russians are more successful this time in
Speaker 1: this offensive than they've been in the past, and whether
Speaker 1: the U, the Ukrainian Army, with the equipment also from
Speaker 1: the NATO countries, can successfully push this Russian offensive back. Hey, Angela,
Speaker 1: I wonder if you can talk about the China situation,
Speaker 1: because we're hearing mixed reports this week from them. CNN
Speaker 1: just issued a report that US intelligence shows that the
Speaker 1: Chinese government is considering providing Russia with drones and ammunition.
Speaker 1: What is your take on what Beijing is going to
Speaker 1: do and their role in the war effort for Russia.
Speaker 1: So last weekend I was at the Munich Security Conference.
Speaker 1: There were no Russian officials there, but the Chinese Foreign
Speaker 1: Minister was there, and he made it clear again that
Speaker 1: from the Chinese point of view, the West is partly
Speaker 1: responsible for this war. He said there was going to
Speaker 1: be a Chinese peace plan, which in fact they have
Speaker 1: issued today. But at the same conference, Secretary of State
Speaker 1: Tony B. Lincoln gave an interview saying that the US
Speaker 1: has information that China is considering supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine,
Speaker 1: the US and other native countries. A woman Chinese that
Speaker 1: they shouldn't do this. We've already had some evidence that
Speaker 1: they're electronic components which it can be used in weapons
Speaker 1: have been supplied to Russia. And so it's a little
Speaker 1: incongruous if the Chinese, on the one hand, say here's
Speaker 1: a peace planet, we can act as a mediator, and
Speaker 1: then they're actually supplying weapons to the Russians. But I
Speaker 1: think if our people say that they have the evidence
Speaker 1: of this. We have to take this seriously. I do
Speaker 1: wonder and I'm forgive me, I'm trying to think whether
Speaker 1: it's a Bloomberg column that I read, but this whole
Speaker 1: idea that you know, where the US has maybe failed
Speaker 1: and maybe other countries in that we've spread capitalism, but
Speaker 1: we didn't spread democracy. And I wonder our guests said
Speaker 1: that earlier? This was it a guest? Was it? One
Speaker 1: of our guests was that price brilliant? And so I
Speaker 1: wonder how much you think about that that you know,
Speaker 1: with people saying, well, the uses are fault, is there
Speaker 1: some truth to that in that, you know, whether it's China,
Speaker 1: whether it's other parts of the world spread of capitalism
Speaker 1: but not democracy. Well, it's easier to spread capitalism than
Speaker 1: it is democracy. I mean people, you know, people like capitalism,
Speaker 1: they can make money from it. It's a good system.
Speaker 1: But it's very hard to influence another country's political system,
Speaker 1: and particularly a country like Russia or China. But let's
Speaker 1: take Russia, which has a centuries old tradition of autocratic
Speaker 1: rule and very little traditional other having had democratic rule.
Speaker 1: The US certainly tried, and other democratic countries tried in
Speaker 1: the nineteen nineties when Boris Yelton was president to encourage
Speaker 1: the spread of democracy there. But we have to understand
Speaker 1: the limits of our own influence, particularly in a country
Speaker 1: where the leadership and many of the people are not
Speaker 1: used to living in a democracy, and particularly in Russia,
Speaker 1: where they associate the attempts to spread democracy in the
Speaker 1: nineteen nineties with a very difficult economic situation that they
Speaker 1: lived in, including a crash in nineteen ninety eight where
Speaker 1: most people lost their savings. So I think you can't
Speaker 1: blame the United States for this. It's not within our
Speaker 1: power to impose a form of political governance on another country.
Speaker 1: Having said that, then do the allies, the Western Allies
Speaker 1: have no other choice but to support Ukraine in this Well,
Speaker 1: I mean at the moment, yes, if we don't want
Speaker 1: Russia to take over Ukraine and then threaten other countries
Speaker 1: because Putin's not going to stop there. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: made it clear that Russia wants to call an unquote
Speaker 1: take back traditional lands that belong to Russia. And they've
Speaker 1: even mentioned Poland when they've talked about this. So this
Speaker 1: really is the only choice for the West is to
Speaker 1: support Ukraine, to give it the wherewithal to push back.
Speaker 1: The Ukrainian army has done extremely well, much better than
Speaker 1: anyone thought it wore, including Vladimir Putin in this last year,
Speaker 1: because if we don't support, if we don't supply Ukraine,
Speaker 1: it'll be very hard for them to resist what the
Speaker 1: Russians are doing, and then you will just have a
Speaker 1: more aggressive Russia in Europe, Angela, can you talk a
Speaker 1: bit about Russia's strategy when it comes to those historic
Speaker 1: holding areas that you were talking about, specifically related to
Speaker 1: how they're targeting, you know, museums in Ukraine and cultural
Speaker 1: historic centers, so they're really trying to erase any independent
Speaker 1: Ukrainian history. In twenty twenty one, Putin published a five
Speaker 1: thousand word essay where he claimed that there were no
Speaker 1: such things as Ukrainians, that Ukrainians, you know, don't have
Speaker 1: the right to a separate state, that Ukraine isn't a
Speaker 1: different a separate nationality, that they're brothers and sisters with Russia,
Speaker 1: and so they have been trying to eliminate some of
Speaker 1: you know, Ukraine's culture. It's terrible at what they've done there,
Speaker 1: to the museums, to the libraries, to these vestiges or
Speaker 1: evidence of Ukrainian culture because of his claim that Ukraine
Speaker 1: belongs to Russia and that Ukraine isn't even a country.
Speaker 1: That's what he said to a president George W. Bush
Speaker 1: in two thousand and eight. He said to him, you
Speaker 1: have to understand, George, that Ukraine isn't even a country.
Speaker 1: Part of it used to be in the Austro Hungarian Empire,
Speaker 1: and most of it, he said, was in the Russian Empire.
Speaker 1: So that's what his view is. Hey, Angela, what do
Speaker 1: you make of China's involvement at this point? In talking
Speaker 1: about brokering a piece They officially put out a plan
Speaker 1: or a paper, if you will, in terms of some
Speaker 1: kind of piece accord um. How does that kind of
Speaker 1: complicate the situation. Well, I've read the so called peace plan.
Speaker 1: It's rather general, i would say, and it really repeats
Speaker 1: talking points that they've they've had before. I don't know
Speaker 1: how much of an impact this will have because none
Speaker 1: of you know, the NATO countries have already said that
Speaker 1: they don't this isn't a serious peace plan. The US
Speaker 1: has said that, other allies European Union is said back.
Speaker 1: I'm sure that some of the countries in the global
Speaker 1: South who haven't condemned Russian and han't sanctioned it, they
Speaker 1: will say, oh, look at the Chinese. You know, they're
Speaker 1: trying to put forward a peace plan and we shouldn't
Speaker 1: negotiate seriously. But it's very hard to have a credible
Speaker 1: peace plan if China is really supporting Russia, it's supporting
Speaker 1: all the Russian narrative about the war. As I said that,
Speaker 1: it's supporting to some extent Russia with components for weapons.
Speaker 1: It's supplying technology to Russia which Russia can't get now
Speaker 1: from the West because of the Western sanctions. So it's
Speaker 1: not a neutral party in this war. What do you
Speaker 1: think is the biggest misconception that we might have in
Speaker 1: the US about what motivates Putin most well, I think
Speaker 1: we have often thought about Putin either as a mass
Speaker 1: to strategist or as an excellent tactician, and I think
Speaker 1: this war has shown that probably neither of those are
Speaker 1: true anymore. Certainly not the strategist, but even the tactician.
Speaker 1: And he started this war obviously misinformed about what was
Speaker 1: going on in Ukraine, and with lots of misconceptions about
Speaker 1: the strength of the Russian army and the weakness of
Speaker 1: the Ukrainian army and the weakness of the West. He
Speaker 1: thought that because of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, how that
Speaker 1: it played out, that the Biden administration was weak and
Speaker 1: it wouldn't respond. So I think we have to reassess,
Speaker 1: you know, how savvy he is in understanding really the
Speaker 1: outside world. And I think a lot of people believe
Speaker 1: that the two years of Covid isolation, where he really
Speaker 1: didn't see any foreign leaders and was just surrounded by
Speaker 1: a small group of people who share his views and reinforce,
Speaker 1: if you like, his paranoia about the West really affected
Speaker 1: him in the run up to this war. A celebrity
Speaker 1: right there, just surrounds himself with people who just say yes, yes, yes,
Speaker 1: or something to some extent. Yeah, he is. And certainly
Speaker 1: even his intelligence officials who were on the ground in
Speaker 1: Ukraine gave him force information about how the Ukrainians would respond.
Speaker 1: That's so, that's so fascinating. When do you think about
Speaker 1: his perspective on the US, would you say that Afghanistan
Speaker 1: piece was the critical, maybe turning point for him. I
Speaker 1: think it was very important for him because I think
Speaker 1: he looked he saw what happened and the disarray there,
Speaker 1: and then of course he also realized that in the
Speaker 1: previous administration, US European relations had really sunk to a
Speaker 1: new low. So I think he probably thought that the
Speaker 1: Biden administration wouldn't have to resolve and certainly he didn't
Speaker 1: think that the Europeans would go along with the US
Speaker 1: in presenting a united front in this war. It is
Speaker 1: pretty remarkable Angelo, when we think about the global stage
Speaker 1: and the big players that are out there, then you
Speaker 1: know the countries that are out there, that how much
Speaker 1: Vladimir Putin and Russia in particular has really dominated the
Speaker 1: conversation for a long time. Having said that, how do
Speaker 1: you strategize about kind of what's next here when it
Speaker 1: involves Russia and Putin? So I think from you know,
Speaker 1: if I listened carefully to the speech he gave on
Speaker 1: Tuesday to his Federal Assembly, his State of the Union speech,
Speaker 1: and the message to the Russian people was, you know,
Speaker 1: the West is out to get us. This war is
Speaker 1: going to go on for as long as it takes.
Speaker 1: We will not be defeated on the battlefield. And basically,
Speaker 1: if you don't like it, it's too bad, because that's
Speaker 1: what's happening. So I think, as far as we can see,
Speaker 1: this war can go on for a long time. He
Speaker 1: is determined to prevail. We don't quite know what he
Speaker 1: didn't tell us in this speech is actually what Russia's
Speaker 1: war aims are. How would they define victory? We don't
Speaker 1: know that, and he hasn't been explicit about it. It's
Speaker 1: possible that victory for him would be just quote unquote
Speaker 1: the control of the four territories, and he now claims
Speaker 1: Russia's annexed even though it doesn't fully control them, or
Speaker 1: still his sights might be on taking all of Ukraine
Speaker 1: and not deterred by the failure to do so until now.
Speaker 1: So I think, I think we're in for a long war.
Speaker 1: And we talked a little bit about how Putin was
Speaker 1: able to re emerge after the previous economic crash in Russia.
Speaker 1: We've got news today on more sanctions. We're always getting
Speaker 1: news about more sanctions. Is there a point that Russia's
Speaker 1: economy gets to that Putin has trouble recovering from so
Speaker 1: so far the sanctions really haven't had the kind of
Speaker 1: impact on Russia that the US and its allies thought
Speaker 1: they would. I mean Russia's economies actually forecast to grow
Speaker 1: this year, not by very much, but by some They've
Speaker 1: obviously been able. They're still reaping in the revenues from
Speaker 1: oil and gas sales, even if there's a price cap
Speaker 1: that they're still getting money from that, which is also
Speaker 1: helping to fuel their war machine. And the average Russian
Speaker 1: has not felt the pinch yet. So the sanctions may
Speaker 1: bite more in twenty twenty three, particularly the export controls,
Speaker 1: the lack of semiconductors of spare parts, that may have
Speaker 1: more of an impact on on the economy, but it doesn't.
Speaker 1: You know, the Russia has a tradition of the being
Speaker 1: able to withstand these sanctions, and so far it's done. So, hey, Angela,
Speaker 1: I do wonder about you know, Putin, the individual who
Speaker 1: invaded Ukraine one year ago. Is he the same individual
Speaker 1: leader who back in twenty fourteen invaded and subsequently annexed
Speaker 1: the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine? Is he the same guy?
Speaker 1: Is he different? Emboldened? I don't know, how do you
Speaker 1: see it? Yeah? So, I think before this war began,
Speaker 1: most people thought of Putin as someone who wasn't a
Speaker 1: huge risk taker. If you go back to two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, when Russia invaded Georgia, instead of going all
Speaker 1: the way to the capital Tbilisi and removing the president
Speaker 1: Saash really whom Putin hated, that they stopped. There were
Speaker 1: two territories that they then declared were independent, and so
Speaker 1: Georgia was partly occupied by Russian troops, but they stopped there.
Speaker 1: And in twenty fourteen, yesterday Anna's Crimea. They didn't have
Speaker 1: that much resistance then, and they did start the war
Speaker 1: in the don Bus, but then they stopped and that
Speaker 1: you know, there was a ceasefire and there was a
Speaker 1: peace agreement that was never fully implemented. I think the
Speaker 1: difference now is this was a huge risk, a full
Speaker 1: scale invasion of Ukraine with really not enough troops to
Speaker 1: do it. So he appears to be more of a
Speaker 1: risk taken out right. You know, maybe it's because he's
Speaker 1: thinking about what his legacy is. Well, you wrote your
Speaker 1: book Russia against the West and with the Rest back
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen, just thirty seconds you called it Putin's World.
Speaker 1: If you were writing a new book today, what would
Speaker 1: be the title, perhaps, well, it would be Putin's World
Speaker 1: to shrunk because his you know, the relationship with the
Speaker 1: West is so bad, but the relationship with the Global
Speaker 1: South and China, those relations remain pretty good. So Russia
Speaker 1: is not isolated, all right? Is that a title? That's
Speaker 1: a long title, shrunk. I like that, Angela, thank you
Speaker 1: so much. I mean it sincerely. You have really given
Speaker 1: us a lot of time over the past year to
Speaker 1: myself and some of our Bloomberg colleagues with some really
Speaker 1: great insight, and it's been really so important to our audience.
Speaker 1: So thank you so much. Stay safe, be well, and
Speaker 1: I hope you have a good weekend. Angela Stent, Senior
Speaker 1: fellow at Brookings. As we said, her book Putin's World
Speaker 1: rush against the West and with the rest joining us
Speaker 1: via zoom from Washington, DC, So very thoughtful conversation. On
Speaker 1: this Friday, you're listening and watching Bloomberg.