NOT MANY non-Russians know Russia as well as Oleksandr Lytvynenko. Ukraine’s new national security chief spent five formative years in Moscow as a cryptology cadet at the elite KGB Academy. More recently, as head of Ukraine’s foreign-intelligence service during two years of war, he busied himself undermining and extracting information from his one-time peers. At the end of March, he took over one of the country’s most critical jobs.
So Mr Lytvynenko deserves to be listened to. And he has a warning for those Western politicians (Donald Trump being the most notorious example) thinking about pushing a premature peace deal on Ukraine which would require it to give up territory. “Putin has lied, is lying, and will continue to lie.” Ceding territory to Russia in return for peace would be a “cruel betrayal” of the Ukrainians left under violent occupation, he says. Many more innocent people would be killed, more would be thrown into cellars.
But there is a more pragmatic reason to reject it, too. An agreement made with a compulsive liar probably means only one thing: him regrouping, rearming and trying for more in two or three years. Russia’s leader is “addicted” to the idea of conquering Ukraine, Mr Lytvynenko says. “The next time he won’t make mistakes, but will prepare his operation much more carefully, according to all the laws of military art.”
Things were not supposed to have turned out like this for Russia, of course. Ukraine was not expected to put up a fight. Russian soldiers were supposed to be parading in Kyiv within days of the invasion. With his “blitzkrieg”, Mr Putin’s aim was to present the West with a fait accompli, Mr Lytvynenko argues. “He wanted to say: Ukraine’s over, guys, now let’s talk on my terms.” Ukraine’s heroism foiled that plan. It also fundamentally changed the negotiation. “Now a victory over the West can only come if Putin first has victory in Ukraine. In Russians’ minds, victory in Ukraine means victory over the United States.”
Has the message got through to those who need to hear it? Mr Lytvynenko heaves a sigh, and delivers a politician’s line, stressing Ukraine’s “critical partnership with the American state…regardless of who is in power.” This week, Congress might finally begin the task of signing off on much-needed military assistance. But even if it does, the emphasis is on giving Ukraine just enough to stay in the game, rather than the tools to secure a victory. And all this is before a possible Trump presidency, which could make things much more precarious.
Mr Lytvynenko is a close observer of American politics, and says he understands the extent to which the administration is worried about escalation and the global implications of war in Ukraine. But he says a Ukrainian victory would reduce, not increase, the risk of confrontation. “Leaders would become risk-averse.” A Ukrainian defeat, on the other hand, would be interpreted as proof that invasions work, with domino-like consequences in China, Taiwan, and beyond. “If aggression works once, everyone will think about having a go. Too many people are watching this war too intently.”
The security chief says Mr Putin has not yet stepped back from his maximalist aims, namely “to destroy the Ukrainian state and turn it into a buffer zone”. The Russian Orthodox church’s recent declaration of “sacred war” against Ukraine only underlines that determination. That announcement, undoubtedly made with the Kremlin’s blessing, was an “attempt to untie Putin’s hands”, and sanction harsh new campaigns against civilian infrastructure in Kharkiv, Odessa, Zaporizhia and beyond. The newly fanatical rhetoric is “something best compared to Islamic State”, the official continues: “It’s crucial to understand that Putinism has not yet completed its evolution. It could get even worse. If the West does not stop this, it will end up paying more later, and with its own lives. Assisting Ukraine isn’t about charity.”
After hopes for a breakthrough faded in 2023, momentum on the battlefield has shifted decisively against Ukraine. Vladimir Putin and his militarised economy have now geared up for a long war, and the West is so far unwilling to unequivocally challenge him. Front-line positions are under constant threat, with Russian guns firing at six times the rate of the Ukrainians’, and planes taking advantage of patchy air defences to launch more and more guided aerial bombs. The situation has become “very tough”, Mr Lytvynenko says. “Russians don’t care about their losses and it makes the situation even more difficult.” When asked how Ukraine might begin to get to a winning position again, the official is non-committal. It is not clear if Mr Putin could ever stop attacking Ukraine, he says, but Ukraine has to adopt a military strategy that tries to force him to.
Drone strikes deep inside Russia are a key part of that strategy. The Biden White House publicly opposes these operations, arguing they are counterproductive and escalatory, but in Mr Lytvynenko’s view, they are necessary to keep pressure on Mr Putin. “One, it restricts his room for manoeuvre and two, it helps persuade Russian society and elites that continuing war is costlier than ending it.” Unlike Russia, Ukraine does not target civilians, the official says: only warships, warplanes and oil infrastructure. And it has been doing so asymmetrically, at a cost of peanuts. “One strike on an aerodrome may damage seven, ten, 15 planes. Each of them costs upwards of $30m each. We can do the operation for less than $2m. It’s fantastically cost-effective.”
Mr Lytvynenko insists he is not being unrealistic in imagining Russian elites might one day turn on their leader. “There are still quite a few rational people in the leadership. They will think and act when they realise the cost of staying with Putin is greater than moving away from him.” But Ukraine’s first priority is obtaining real security guarantees. Ideally, that means NATO membership or a comprehensive security arrangement with America of the sort it has with the Philippines, Japan or South Korea. Getting there during wartime won’t be straightforward, he admits, but bilateral agreements with Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark and Canada could be seen as “stepping stones” to that goal. “For the last 300 years, Russia has been the constant security challenge to this part of the world. It would be fantastic if we were able to remove that threat for at least a couple of generations.” ■
To stay on top of the biggest European stories, sign up toCafé Europa, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.
