Andrey Sushentsov, dean of the Faculty of International Relations at MGIMO and a member of the Scientific-Expert Council under the Security Council of the Russian Federation, said the Ukraine conflict is in the final phase of its resolution. In an interview first published in Russian by TASS and translated and edited by RT, he said it may end in the coming months or perhaps the coming years, and that he was not describing a decade-long war.
He said the initial US approach treated Ukraine as a continental sword against Russia: a large neighbouring state with substantial armed forces, backed in order to weaken a continental rival. He argued that Washington later judged that many of its interests had been achieved, prepared to withdraw, turned its priorities toward East Asia, handed responsibility for supporting Ukraine to NATO allies and cast itself as a moderator rather than the instigator. He said US strategic documents state an interest in ending the crisis, and he accused the United States of saddling Ukraine and its European allies with the burden without warning.
Sushentsov said Western Europeans lack military resources, technological capabilities and strategic thinking comparable to those of the Americans. He said the main instrument left to them is finance, used while the domestic debt of most major European states is approaching or exceeding 100 percent of GDP, with no external compensation for military spending and no hope of a Ukrainian victory or of recovering losses through new deals on Russian resources. He said that, as President Vladimir Putin put it, European policy so far looks like a series of mistakes.
He added that Western European states do not have the strategic autonomy of Russia or the United States, that almost every major decision needs consensus among nearly 30 countries, and that there is no unified army. He said they are terrified of being drawn directly into a military crisis with Russia, and that talk of sending troops into Ukraine always ends with the condition that this would happen only after a lasting peace and a ceasefire. He described debt financing at Ukraine’s expense of nearly 500 billion dollars as a sum that had not delivered the strategically necessary results.
On EU unity, he said Western Europeans are using the Ukraine crisis as an anti-Russian platform for solidarity because they lack strategic autonomy and remain internally fragmented. He said the relevance of that platform varies: for Southern Europe it is less obvious, and for Spain, despite its anti-Russian government, Palestine and the Middle East are more important. He contrasted that with an alarmist and militaristic outlook in the Baltic states and Northern Europe, while saying that no European government wants to involve its armed forces in the Ukraine crisis in the way North Korea has done on Russia’s side.
Sushentsov said Brussels has added him to its sanctions list even as some European leaders call for dialogue. He described financial aid to Ukraine, the taking of Russia’s gold and foreign-exchange reserves, and the withholding and disposal of revenues as tactics for building European agency, including an attempt to share blame for what he called a crime. He said Russia would invite these Europeans to negotiations only if they sought a stable peace alongside Russia rather than against Russia, which he called a strategic dead end.
He said Russia is trying to wear down opponents, deplete their resources and show that their objectives are unattainable. He pointed to criticism of Friedrich Merz’s visit to Kiev, where he said the German chancellor again promised money and resources while Germany’s national debt is rising. Sushentsov said opposition in Western countries is already calling the strategy a dead end, that the pyramid of trust around Kiev is crumbling, and that those involved are adopting a more detached stance after primary and secondary hopes failed. He asked who should answer for the hundreds of billions of euros spent on what he called a strategically futile venture.