“Putin’s World” Author Angela Stent on the War in Ukraine

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: And on the eastern front, it is getting more and more difficult, harder and harder as Ukrainian and Russian forces slug it out. But this morning, Ukraine launched its biggest counterattack since Russia’s first invasion of 2014 on the eastern occupied region of Donetsk, according to the Russian installed official there. So, where do Russia and Vladimir Putin stand 10 months into their invasion? Angela Stent is senior adviser to the center for Eurasian, Russian and East European studies. Previously, she served as a U.S. national intelligence officer on Russia. And she speaks to Walter Isaacson about what to expect from Putin’s so-called special military operation ahead.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

WALTER ISAACSON, HOST: Thank you, Christiane. And Angela Stent, welcome back to the show.

ANGELA STENT, SENIOR FELLOW, BROOKINGS INSTITUTION AND AUTHOR, “PUTIN’S WORLD: RUSSIA AGAINST THE WEST AND WITH THE REST”: I’m glad to be back on your show.

ISAACSON: You are on the show with us about 10 months ago, when Ukraine war broke out. Did you ever think it was going to last this long?

STENT: No, I think nobody thought it would last this long. I think people overestimated the Russian military’s competence and prowess. They underestimated the Ukrainians will and ability to fight back. And I think nobody would have thought that this would have gone on so long. And that the Ukrainians would have fought back so effectively. Of course, with a lot of help from the United States and other NATO allies.

ISAACSON: We just did a prisoner swap and got the great basketball player Brittney Griner out for an arms merchant. Do you think that the negotiations over that swap have any resonance or have any effect on what is happening with Ukraine?

STENT: I don’t. I think this is something completely separate. The Russians wanted Viktor Bout back for a long time. Obviously, the Biden administration really wanted to get Brittney Griner and, of course, Paul Whelan back as well and I think this is something that is completely separate. I think hostage negotiations or prisoner swaps are still going on, as we understand. But that’s not going to have an impact on the war, really, or the U.N. — the broader U.S.-Russian relationship.

ISAACSON: You mentioned that we want to get Marine Paul Whelan back as well. Tell me about that and what discussions could be had.

STENT: The problem is what is it that the Russians would be willing to accept for Paul Whelan. We know that what they wanted was for the Germans to trade a convicted assassin, Russian assassin, who killed a Chechnyan descendant in broad daylight in Berlin. But the German government wasn’t having any of it. And of course, we can’t negotiate for Germany. So, I think the challenge with Paul Whelan is to find something, a person, that the Russians would want enough that they would be willing to swap him.

ISAACSON: Let me read something that Putin recently said, in which he kind of admitted or, you know, was talking about targeting civilian infrastructure in Ukraine. He said, there’s a lot of noise right now about our strikes against the energy infrastructure of the neighboring country. Yes, we are doing this. But who started it? It’s clear from our perspective who started it. It’s clear from the Ukrainians. What was he talking about and what does he mean with that comment?

STENT: Well, I mean, who knows. He says a lot of contradictory things. First of all, if you watch Russian media, they’re blaming the war on Ukraine and the United States and NATO. I think what he may have been referring to is when the worst of these strikes and, you know, hitting all the energy infrastructure took place after the Ukrainians took back much of Kherson, and also after they attacked the land bridge that –Crimea to Russia. And that may have been one of the catalysts for this indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, one can only guess. By the way, they have just announced that for the first time in more than a decade, Putin has canceled his annual marathon press conference which usually goes for three or four hours. It’s always around Christmas. And he has, you know, hundreds of Russian and foreign journalists. I find that very interesting, because he clearly does not want to be asked any awkward questions about this war.

ISAACSON: So, he has canceled his press conference that he does every year. He doesn’t want the awkward questions. Might there be other reasons? Is there any truth to the rumors about his health, for example?

STENT: It’s very hard to tell because, you know, he’s been appearing more and more in public recently. For a long time, you know, we don’t know where he was. He didn’t appear in public. But in the last few weeks, he has. Now, in the past week, there was one appearance where he was holding a glass of champagne and made some of these remarks. And some people speculated, you know, was he unsteady on his feet? Had he had too much to drink? There’s a lot of speculation about his health but there’s very little concrete evidence. But if you look at his face, it does seem that he probably does have some ailments. I think nobody is quite sure just what they are.

ISAACSON: What do you think could happen to him in Russia? Do you — who would topple him or is that out of the question?

STENT: Toppling him is very difficult. He is surrounded by his own praetorian guard, the national guard, and these are people who are loyal to him, but they do carry guns. It’s — you know, in history, you can think of other countries where someone’s — when — where people’s bodyguards have turned on leaders. So, the — but it’s very unlikely. He is then surrounded by a small group of his colleagues who shared his views and it doesn’t seem very likely that they would — could get together in this kind of situation, in the system, and thought against him. Although that has happened previously in both Russian and Soviet history. And a popular revolution is also very unlikely because many of the people who oppose this war have fled, others are in jail, and there is a large amount of apathy. Now, having said all that, of course you can have some event happened that none of us can foresee. But he has created this system where he seems to be pretty well fortified.

ISAACSON: There have been more than 100,000 Russians who have either been killed or injured in this. Is that putting any pressure, do you have any sense of public opinion in Russia?

STENT: It is putting some pressure. So, the latest opinion polls, to the extent that we can trust them from the independent Levada Center. Even though about 50 percent of the population still say that they strongly support the war, the same number, roughly, says that they think Russia should enter into negotiations with Ukraine. And you have seen more local protests by, you know, the soldiers’ mothers and things like that. People questioning, you know, what are their sons and husbands and brothers signing for? Why are they coming back in body bags? So, there is more questioning of this. And that’s why Putin has repeatedly said they’re not going to try to do another mobilization. But many Russians don’t believe that anymore and they fear for that. So, I think opposition to the war is slowly growing, but it — not to the extent yet that it would, I think, cause the Kremlin to change its policies.

ISAACSON: The United States has spent billions supporting Ukraine. More than we’ve spent, I think, on any other country we’ve supported since Vietnam. You got speaker — the potential speaker, Kevin McCarthy, and other Republicans coming in saying hey, maybe no more blank check. How do you see that playing out?

STENT: So, I see that — there will be more scrutiny next year with the House in Republican hands. Now, a number of the kind of pro-Trump, anti- supporting Ukraine candidates who are not elected this time. You have some of them like J.D. Vance in the Senate and some in the House. But I think there will be greater scrutiny over how much money is going to Ukraine. There will be greater oversight, I know the Republicans have been calling for that. And I think you will have a much tougher debate next year about how much we should still be supporting Ukraine. And there’s another aspect to that which is that the U.S. is literally running out of ammunition. I mean, we have supply to Ukraine with so much military hardware, HIMARS, we don’t have too many of those left that we can give to them because we need, you know, to make sure that we have our own arsenal to protect us. And so, some of that, kind of, there’s supply problems and the shortage of supply will also come into it beginning next year.

ISAACSON: It’s into in the U.S.’s interest to say, all right, let’s start talking about a ceasefire. Let’s make sure this just doesn’t go on for another three years.

STENT: It is, only if, again, there can be reasonable or good certainty that it’s not going to go on for another three years. That the Russians won’t just down right now and say, let’s have a ceasefire, then regroup, and then in the spring begin another offensive. And so, the problem is, how do you get to a situation? Some people say, well, maybe this will end up like Korea. We’ll have a settlement like that. But how do you then make sure that this kind of a ceasefire holds? And —

ISAACSON: Wait, wait, wait. Let me turn that back to you. I mean, you would know the answer. There are ways to guarantee a ceasefire, to have international forces guarantee it. How would you have a ceasefire hold?

STENT: Well, so I think what — I mean, what the Ukrainians want to say are security guarantees from the United States and other NATO members. The question is, are those countries willing to give Ukraine the security guarantees, which more or less look like Article 5 of the NATO Treaty. In other words, coming to Ukraine’s military assistance if it’s invaded again? And that, of course, the problem there is, the U.S. doesn’t want to get into a direct conflict with Russia. Which is why we have limited the kind of assistance we have given them. So, I think the trick is to come up with security guarantees and — or an enough robust military assistance to the Ukrainians that they can defend themselves, should they be invaded again.

ISAACSON: A few months ago, there was a lot of nuclear saber-rattling from Putin and a lot of worries that this could lead to a nuclear confrontation. Especially if Russian territory that they considered theirs, such as their fleet in Sebastopol and Crimea were attacked. Now, we don’t hear quite so much about the nuclear threat. Tell me, what is your assessment?

STENT: So, I think, in response to this kind of loose talk and veiled threats by Putin and other people, first of all, the U.S., and we know again coming back to what we are talking about these channels of communication. I think both the Jake Sullivan channels and then also the Bill Burns channels and other channels have made it repeatedly clear to the Russians that if they were to say detonate a tactical nuclear weapon, that would be very, very serious consequences. But then we have also talked to the Chinese and other countries about this. And as far as we understand, China has also discussed this with the Russians. The Chinese don’t want the Russians to use a nuclear weapon. And so, I think the Chinese have also made that clear to them. And we know that, for instance, Prime Minister Modi in India has been, you know, pretty neutral in this. Modi publicly said that there should be no one. He’s cancelled his normal annual meeting in-person with Putin because of this. So, I think enough pressure was put on the Kremlin by different countries, not only the west, to warn them that, if they did something like that, there would be very serious consequences. So, I think that’s probably one of the main reasons that we don’t hear that anymore. But on the other hand, if you look at what Russia is doing to the civilian population and the bombing at the destruction there, all right, it’s not a nuclear weapon, but it’s still pretty destructive for Ukraine.

ISAACSON: Wait, wait, wait. Let me push back on that. Isn’t there just an incredible red line between conventional weapons like happening now and going nuclear?

STENT: There is. But I’m just saying that if Russia — you know, Russia has done still — you know, it’s –the way that it’s bombing Ukraine has wreaked terrible damage on the country. Yes, of course, that’s a red line and everybody understands that. And if Russia were to use a nuclear weapon it would be breaking a taboo, a 77-year-old taboo.

ISAACSON: Do you think there is any exit strategy for Putin?

STENT: You know, Putin can tell his country whatever he wants. He could decide that he hasn’t achieved many of his aims. And he could say, well, we’ve taken a little bit more territory, which they have. This is again presuming that the Ukrainians would sit down with them. And you know, we’ve — I mean, the problem comes with the annexation. Because they’re insisting that the Ukrainians accept the annexation of these four territories and Ukrainians unions don’t want to do that. But he could say, you know, we gained some territory and we’ve, you know, we’ve denazified Ukraine. I mean, he can tell the Russian population that and he could withdraw. But it’s difficult for him to do it just since the Russians have raised the stakes so much.

ISAACSON: Angela Stent, thank you so much for being with us again.

STENT: Thank you.