Sir John Sawers: "A peaceful solution is more likely than a nuclear escalation"

John Sawers, head of British intelligence (MI6) between 2009 and 2014, feared a catastrophic nuclear outcome at the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine but believes that today the danger has been reduced due to the growing balance of forces between the two armies.

Thomas Osborne
Thomas Osborne
01 June 2022 Wednesday 21:37
12 Reads
Sir John Sawers: "A peaceful solution is more likely than a nuclear escalation"

John Sawers, head of British intelligence (MI6) between 2009 and 2014, feared a catastrophic nuclear outcome at the beginning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine but believes that today the danger has been reduced due to the growing balance of forces between the two armies. He warns, however, that nothing is predictable in a war that, the longer it goes on, the more risks it has. But he sees it likely that a negotiated solution will begin to be sought between three and six months from now. Sawers, a former diplomat, was Prime Minister Tony Blair's foreign policy adviser from 1999 to 2001, the time Vladimir Putin became Russian president.

Did you meet Putin during that first stage?

Yes. Blair was the first foreign head of government to visit him after his election victory and met him half a dozen times. Putin presented himself as a reformer, a modernizer, saying that he wanted Russia to be more like Germany, a successful European country.

When did it change?

Between 2003 and 2004. The iron penetrated his soul. The political revolutions in Georgia and the Ukraine, the further rapprochement with the West they proposed, frightened him. He feared contagion in his country and reverted to the default Russian mode of autocracy. He was clearly drawn to power as well, and the possibility of getting rich. He adopted an aggressive-defensive posture towards the world. I thought he was a cautious and calculating man anyway, but the massive mistake he has made in the Ukraine has changed my mind. Today I see it in a completely different way.

There are many who say that NATO provoked Putin and should share the blame for the invasion...

If what they say is that NATO's expansion was a mistake, I fundamentally disagree. If the military status quo of the cold war had been maintained, today the fighting would be spreading to central Europe, from Poland to Bulgaria, not only in Ukraine and Belarus. I think that the answer to those who see NATO as an aggressor is eloquently seen in the first strategic consequence of the Russian invasion, the decision of Sweden and Finland to protect themselves by asking to be admitted to the organization.

But couldn't NATO have treated Putin, and his fears, more sensitively?

Look, did the West manage its relations with Russia impeccably after the cold war? Of course not. But I don't think any fundamental mistakes were made, unlike Putin, whose miscalculations in the invasion he single-handedly ordered have been huge. To begin with, it is obvious that one cannot occupy a country of 40 million with 120,000 soldiers! But he had convinced himself that the Ukraine did not really exist, that it was an invention of the West and that the population would welcome him with open arms. Totally wrong about everything.

Is Putin crazy?

I don't think he's crazy. I think he lives in a bubble. Like any autocrat, he surrounds himself with people who tell him what he wants to hear. The issue now is that he is nearing the end of his time in power and wants to build his legacy. He wants to establish Russia's primacy in what was formerly Soviet space.

I'm not saying crazy like talking to a rabbit and thinking it's your mother. I say this in the sense that he lives in a parallel, surreal universe...

That is what happens when the leader does not have to answer to anyone, when there is no freedom and there is no real distinction between truth and lies. I think Putin has convinced himself that the West is lying to him and he can lie to the West. He considers the West to be profoundly hypocritical, which it has been to some extent. We are not immune to that accusation. But today Putin seems to have lost all perspective on the impact of his actions on the rest of the world.

There is a clash of opinion between those who advocate a negotiation and others, especially in the Baltic countries and others that belonged to the former Soviet bloc, that we must continue fighting until Russia is defeated. How do you see it?

I think a resounding victory for Russia or Ukraine is impossible. The war will continue as long as the two continue to think that they have the possibility of advancing in the military field. If a negotiation were started today, it would not prosper since neither of the two parties sees the need to make concessions. I agree, however, that the time must come when a political settlement is sought. It will be only when both see that the war is stalled, that continuing will only mean more pain for both of them and they share the need to find a peaceful solution. I am sorry to say that it will be a few months yet before this point is reached.

Will Putin find a solution that allows him to save face? Or is it not necessary because he invents his own reality?

There will be some truth to that as long as he keeps an iron grip on power, which is the situation today. But miscalculations in Ukraine will pay for it within the core of Russian state power. You can build a narrative that convinces the public in the media, but there are people in the regime who have paid a really high price in terms of money, power, the humiliations to which Putin has subjected them and, of course, the possibility of going from holidays to the Mediterranean…

The nuclear threat hangs over this war, that's why it consumes the world's attention. How concerned are you?

This is the most dangerous crisis since the cold war. We are talking about a great military power with a huge nuclear arsenal and a war in which NATO is actively supporting its enemy. In the first weeks there were reasons to be really worried about the possibility of a nuclear escalation. I think the danger has lessened now that the possibility we saw before of a Russian military collapse and a cornered Putin has faded. Putin must also understand that using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine would have devastating effects for his country: radioactive contamination would spread to Russian lands.

But the longer the war lasts, the more risk of an unforeseen event, of an accident...

Yes. Three months ago, few thought that Putin was going to invade, and even fewer thought that Ukraine would resist as it has resisted. War is unpredictable, by definition, always.

In the face of so much horror and suffering, do you see any reason for hope?

Well, the Russian humiliation in Ukraine, because that's what it is, may keep others from being tempted to repeat the example of invading a neighboring country. Let's hope that China is drawing the appropriate conclusions regarding Taiwan. I also believe that if a political agreement is reached in the next three to six months, one that creates stability, history will say that, on the one hand, Putin manifestly failed in his strategic objective and, on the other hand, that 2022 was the crucial year in which Ukraine settled as an independent nation.

How does democracy stop?

The strong response from Europe and the United States has shown an admirable unity in defense of democracy and has exposed the failure of the Russian autocracy. But above all it is the Ukrainians who must be applauded. With the courage of their resistance in defense of the democratic values ​​to which they aspire for their country, they have given an inspiring example to Europe and the world.