Preparing for a Prolonged Conflict with Putin: Richard Haass / President, Council on Foreign Relations

Hello and welcome to DEEPER LOOK from New York.

I'm Del Irani, it's great to have your company.

When Russia first began its invasion of Ukraine in February this year, the military strategy was straightforward - take the whole country.

But after unexpectedly strong Ukrainian resistance...

Russia, instead of backing down, has now shifted its focus to the east of Ukraine, the Donbas region.

The weeks of fighting are turning into months...

Peace talks have been unsuccessful, so far.

Russia is being accused of war crimes, including killing civilians.

So far, there's no end in sight, and as the human and economic cost of this fighting mounts, should we be prepared for a prolonged invasion?

And if that's the case, what role, if any, can the West play in bringing an end to this conflict - sooner rather than later?

Joining me now to talk more about this is Richard Haass.

He's the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, a veteran diplomat, and prominent voice on American foreign policy.

Previously, he served as Director of Policy Planning for the US State Department, and has worked for multiple White House administrations.

Welcome to the program, Ambassador Haass.

Great to have you with us.

Good to be with you. Thank you.

So, are you surprised by how long this conflict has been going on?

Well, somewhat.

I will admit that like many others, I thought that Russia would perhaps dominate the early phases of the conflict.

I think many in the United States thought that.

Clearly Vladimir Putin thought that.

Anything but... after a few days, though, it became clear to me we were going to settle into a much longer conflict, a combination of the weaknesses of the Russian military, the strength and resilience of the Ukrainian military,

the help Ukraine was getting from many countries.

And indeed, now, I think we have to face the possibility of what I might describe as an open-ended conflict.

It's not clear to me that diplomacy anytime soon will be able to bring this to an end.

How long do you think we're looking at here?

The weeks are already turning into months, how much longer do you think this could this could go on for?

Well, at the risk of depressing you and some of your viewers, think about it.

The conflict's been going on for something like eight years already, if you think about the Russian military intervention in 2014, in Crimea, and in the Donbas.

So, I believe that we might have to think about not just months, but even years.

In part, that is because I believe it might be less difficult for Mr. Putin politically and psychologically, to keep a conflict going, rather than to accept a negotiated outcome that he'd have to sign his name to,

that many in Russia and around the world would perceive as evidence of his and Russia's failure.

So, if he's faced with a choice between accepting a formal negotiation that looks to be a failure, and simply keeping a conflict going, to use an American expression, "at a low boil"

- not an intense conflict, but a low-level conflict - I think he would choose to keep it going.

So, I guess, you know, who ultimately benefits from this prolonged conflict?

It sounds like it's Russia.

But is it Russia? Is it Ukraine? Is it the NATO?

Nobody benefits from a long conflict.

I think it makes it - besides the destruction and the threat to life, I believe an open-ended conflict makes it very difficult for Ukraine to reconstitute itself, to rebuild, to become a normal country.

For Russia, it means all the sanctions remain in place, Russian troops continue to lose their lives, Russia becomes more and more of a, of a pariah.

Look, in war, it has been said by others, there's no winners, only losers.

So, I think an open-ended war is to the advantage of nobody.

But again, it may be an unavoidable reality.

If you were sitting, you know, in the White House right now and advising the US government, what would you be telling the US Secretary of State?

I mean, how do they continue to support Ukraine, if this does become a prolonged conflict?

Essentially, we continue doing what we've been doing now, for some time.

We would probably make a few adjustments.

One would be, we would increasingly have to provide Ukraine with US and Western military equipment.

That would mean giving them the hardware, but also the training that would go along with it.

We will continue to have to keep NATO at an advanced level of readiness.

We would have to continue to keep the sanctions in place, and, as quickly as we can, reduce European imports of Russian oil and gas.

So, I think we would do all of those things.

And we would continue to keep open lines of communication to Russia.

Again, I'm skeptical of the possibility of a negotiated outcome, but I don't want to, I don't want to shut off the possibility.

How long is it going to be before we really start seeing these sanctions hurt Russia, and maybe even force Putin to rethink, you know, this battle?

There's very little about the history of sanctions, where in it of themselves, they could, quote, unquote, force Putin to do much of anything.

Particularly right now, there's a major hole in the sanctions.

And this, again, is the Russian export of energy to Western Europe, and to Germany, in particular.

It's going to take months or more likely years, to reduce that significantly, that process needs to start now.

But that would make a real - I think that would have real impact.

It would be hard for Russia to find substitutes for Western Europe, when it came to energy.

And right now, they're getting over what... $500 million a day.

So, this is, this is floating the Russian economy.

Do you think a total ban on importing Russian energy is necessary for the sanctions to really hurt Russia?

The short answer is yes, I do.

Now, that would come at a significant cost for the European economies, the German economy in particular.

It's relatively easy, or maybe that's too sanguine, but it's relatively doable to substitute for Russian coal and Russian oil.

Gas is much more difficult. Gas moves by pipeline...

... and there's no near-term alternative for the Europeans.

That would take probably years to bring about.

But again, if you, if your goal is to maximize the cost to Russia's economy, more than anything else, it would be the shutdown of gas imports.

Russia could probably find other places to export coal and oil to, those are global markets.

Natural gas tends to be local markets.

And that would be a far more difficult item for Russia to find alternative consumers for.

The Austrian Chancellor recently met with President Putin in Moscow.

Now he is the first leader from the EU to meet with President Putin since this conflict began.

What do you think other Western leaders can do to better keep these lines of communication open, and allow for more facilitation or negotiation with Putin?

It's clear that Russia is not willing to negotiate, as yet.

Even Mr. Putin, in a rare moment of honesty, said negotiations have reached a dead end.

I don't think that changes until he believes negotiations offer a better path for him.

So, the best thing Westerners can do, I'd say are two things.

One is to continue to give Ukraine the means to defend itself, so Russia cannot win on the, on the battlefield.

And secondly, I would be a little bit more disciplined than American and European leaders have been about such things as accusing the Russians of genocide, or war crimes, or calling for regime change.

I mean, don't get me wrong, what the Russians are doing clearly constitute war crimes.

We can argue, it's a legal issue, whether it's technically a genocide.

Would we prefer regime change? Of course.

But putting all this out there, it seems to me, eliminates whatever limited incentive Mr. Putin might have to negotiate.

Sure, I would show greater discipline in what it is we say.

Keep the focus on helping Ukraine, keep the focus on trying to bring the war to an end, about discouraging or deterring Mr. Putin from escalating.

If and when the war ends, then we can focus on some of these other issues, legal accountability, economic accountability, reparations, what have you.

But for now, that can't be our priority.

There have been allegations of Russia having committed war crimes.

And we have recently seen US President Joe Biden step up that type of rhetoric.

He in fact, has said that, you know, if Russia has evidence that it's used chemical weapons in an attack, the US will respond.

How do you see this conflict going?

I mean, is it just a matter of time, before, in Joe Biden's words, the US is going to be forced to respond?

Well, again, if you mean, respond - get involved directly militarily - no, I don't believe that's inevitable.

There always remains an option.

And if Mr. Putin were to use chemical or nuclear weapons, those options would be on the table.

But again, so far, at least the so-called indirect response of helping Ukraine, strengthening NATO has proved to be sufficient.

And my only point now is that the President and people around him, the Secretary of State and others, I believe, would be wiser to mute their rhetoric a little bit.

Again, our goal is to get Mr. Putin to stop this war.

Rather than to think he, no matter what happens, he's going to be targeted, and that, therefore, he might as well, for example, think about attacking a NATO country, or using chemical or nuclear weapons.

I don't want him to believe he has no escape route.

Now, you've previously written and commented about this post-American world, where the US is sort of no longer leading, you know, no longer the leader of the free world.

Has this crisis strengthened or weakened the US' global leadership position?

It's a good question.

It's a little bit soon to answer your question.

We have to see how this plays out and how this ends.

On one hand, I think it's a reminder that the United States still can play a leading role.

The way it has helped to galvanize the Western or NATO response.

It also, though, shows some of the carefulness, the certain limits on what the United States is prepared to do.

It also shows how others have all sorts of options.

In this case, Russia, what they're doing.

And China, what it is doing.

And meanwhile, North Korea is building up its nuclear missile forces.

And meanwhile, Iran is continuing to strengthen some of its capabilities to destabilize the Middle East.

So, to me, we live in a post-American world.

If you're saying that, are we living in a world that the United States can control?

Answer: No.

There are many other actors that have tremendous power in their hands.

And there's also a lot of issues.

We haven't talked about it.

Things like climate change, or pandemics, where the United States alone cannot produce answers.

We need the cooperation, we need the collaboration of others.

So, this is what a post-American world is like.

We have these global challenges that we need collective action.

And we have increasingly major powers, and medium sized powers, and even terrorist groups, smaller, smaller entities that are able to threaten the interests of the United States.

So, we're well into a world that the United States cannot impose its will on.

Once this conflict is over, whenever that may be...

Ambassador Haass, how do you see things moving forward?

I mean, how should the West deal with Russia and President Putin when this all ends?

Look, it's a really good question, 'cause we are implicit in it, and I think it's right.

If the... for the foreseeable future, we have to assume that Mr. Putin remains in power.

I know a lot of people wish otherwise, would hope that the people of Russia would overthrow him.

Or one of the intelligence or military heads would, one way or another, remove him.

That may happen.

I can't sit here and tell you it wouldn't happen.

Although even if it were to happen, we're not sure what would succeed him.

But you can't base your policy on that.

You can never base your foreign policy on things you cannot do yourself, on things you cannot control.

So, I would say the most realistic path, as your question implied, is to assume Mr. Putin stays in power for the foreseeable future.

I would think this war continues.

And then we have to think about how do we continue to confront him in Ukraine.

At the same time, we may need to work with him on some other issues.

We may need to work with him on some nuclear arms control issue, possibly something with North Korea, or Iran.

And that's, where this is going to get very difficult.

How do you...

how do you work with someone who you have correctly described as a war criminal?

How do you work with someone who you've accused of committing genocide, and so forth?

How do you compartmentalize that?

And some would say, you shouldn't.

Let's be honest, there will be those who would hear our conversation and say, "You're wrong."

"Mr. Putin is a war criminal. We should have nothing to do with him."

Well, I don't think we have that luxury.

I think in this world, we often have to deal with leaders and countries we don't approve of.

We may need Russia's help on something with climate change, or some future disease, or again, as I said, some regional power like in Iran or North Korea.

So that's one of the things we're going to have to develop is a coordinated policy, about how we continue to deal with the threat he poses to Ukraine and Europe, a traditional security threat.

At the same time, we have to deal with him on a host of other issues.

It's going to be extraordinarily complicated.

Oh, certainly sounds that way.

Ambassador Richard Haass, we so appreciate your time.

Thank you so much for joining us on this program.

Thank you so much for having me.

When President Putin attacked Ukraine, he made the first move in a dangerous game, the outcome of which, could affect the entire world order.

Putin's end goal has pitted Moscow firmly against the West.

And he appears to be in it for the long game.

So the winner of this conflict will be the one who can outmaneuver their opponent, not by one, but by staying three moves ahead.

I'm Del Irani. Thanks for your company.

I'll see you next time.