“Ukraine can’t beat Russia”

Mr Varwick, recently US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, said Ukraine may need to start negotiations over its borders. Is your point of view slowly being accepted?
Johannes Varwick: I don’t want to come across as pedantic, but I actually expected such a development. The only question for me was how much blood must be shed before more people come to this realization. Now the corresponding voices are increasing, strangely often with an undertone, as if this were a new insight

So is the frozen conflict delaying the decision on the Russian-occupied territories the best we can hope for?
The idea that there could be a solution that brings lasting stability is being lost more and more every day. That might have been possible in the first months of the war, but the brutalization increased with the day of the war, so that the chance of a solution became smaller. Therefore, there is no argument to delay negotiations any longer.

Proponents of further arms transfers say that Ukraine must first get a better starting position. Is that unrealistic or would the price be too high in your opinion?
Nothing is impossible in war, but testing whether heavier weapons can now give Ukraine a better negotiating position seems to me a cynical Western strategy. I would also like Ukraine to be able to negotiate from the strongest possible position, but I do not believe that a situation can be created militarily in which Russia will yield. Russia has the escalation dominance

Some even fear nuclear war. Is this realistic? If Russia uses nuclear weapons, it risks its own destruction.
Nuclear war is unlikely, but not impossible. In its nuclear doctrine, Russia clearly states under what conditions it would use nuclear weapons. One of the conditions is that there is an existential threat to Russia, and defeat in Ukraine is defined by Moscow as such a threat.

Those who fear nuclear war are falling into Putin’s trap.
No, I look at the reality of international politics. The logic of deterrence probably works, but it may not work. Taking this into account is part of responsible policy.

They reject the delivery of main battle tanks, but are not against all arms deliveries. What should the West deliver, or in other words: what goals should Ukraine enable?
The issue of goals is crucial. All military logic needs a political purpose. At the moment, however, there does not seem to be an achievable goal associated with arms deliveries. I am in favor of Ukraine being able to defend itself. I have no objection to the provision of anti-aircraft missiles, Gepard tanks or self-propelled howitzers. But I think supplying main battle tanks and planes is a dangerous slide. The idea that Ukraine can beat Russia is unrealistic.

So the goal should be for Ukraine to maintain its current position?
Many pundits pretend to know what Russia wants. But we don’t know. If Russia’s goal is to conquer all of Ukraine, we cannot allow it. But when it comes to the four oblasts that Moscow has perfidiously declared its territory, we have to negotiate. Not in the sense of giving the territories to Russia, but perhaps in the sense of freezing them. That’s bitter. Pushing boundaries is a taboo that must come with a price

What would the price be?
The sanctions are already causing enormous damage to the Russian economy. Freezing the conflict does not mean that Russia has won, and we must emphasize that in the international discussion. But we should also try to distinguish legitimate Russian security interests from interests that are not. A legitimate interest of Russia is that no hostile alliance reaches its borders. Ukraine has always been a special case in the reading of Russia. The offer to Kiev to join NATO was a mistake.

If Ukraine had been a member of NATO, war would probably never have broken out.
Opinions differ on this: there may have been war before the planned NATO membership. It is probably true that Russia is not attacking any NATO country. But the will to go to war for Ukraine before accession never existed in the West. This created a geopolitical gray area, and that is never good.

Doesn’t your position mean that Russia and the West decide over the heads of the Ukrainians?
I am in favor of more honesty: we have different interests than Ukraine and must protect them. There is never a case where we say: a state X must defend its interests 100 percent and we support everything that this state does. Why should it be any different in the case of Ukraine? It is right to help Ukraine, but we are already reducing our support, for example by refusing to send our own soldiers.​

Even a neutral Ukraine, as you envision, needs Western security guarantees, otherwise the Ukrainians would never enter into negotiations.
Naturally. A neutral Ukraine would not be defenseless or demilitarized, but one that is not clearly integrated into Western alliances. But such a solution is becoming increasingly difficult as Ukrainians understandably feel that the many casualties they have already suffered should not have been in vain. So external pressure is needed. Ukraine depends on Western support. If the West wants this, it will have to push its way into positions it may not like. But the idea that Ukraine can decide for itself is out of this world

Is it still possible to negotiate with Putin after all that has happened?
Of course, Putin has discredited himself as a reliable partner, but I think the indictment at the International Criminal Court is a mistake, because it is difficult to negotiate with an accused war criminal. It would be nice to have a more respectable negotiating partner, but we are dealing with Russia present.​

When I look at the German debate about the war, I see an enormous inexorability. Some accuse you of being in cahoots with Putin.
It amazes me how unwilling people are to deal with other views and how quickly they are misled. That worries me, because democracy thrives on open debate. Instead, critical voices are maligned as Putin propagandists

But you are not excluded from the debate. You are always on TV.
Yes, but I have the role of the quota deviation there, which everyone lashes out at. I don’t mind, but it doesn’t speak for our debate culture. I’ve never seen a two-on-two talk show; it was always three or four against one.​

Otherwise, you may be assigned allies that you would rather not have.
Applause from the wrong side is also a problem for me, but I’ve gotten into the habit of analyzing things independently and not looking at who I like or alienate. That is the job of a scientist. I can’t choose who agrees with me. By the way, when I address the audience at panel discussions, the point of view is very different from the talk shows.

You initially signed the manifesto of Alice Schwarzer and Sahra Wagenknecht, but then withdrew your signature. Was it not foreseeable that you would not want to be mentioned in the same breath as some of the signatories?
In retrospect, a mistake I also made out of inner turmoil. But when it comes to issues of war and peace, one must be able to afford inner turmoil. I misjudged what kind of soup Mrs Wagenknecht in particular cooks with this initiative. I have corrected this error. That’s all there is to say about it.​

Do colleagues turn away from you?
Many of my established networks in parties, foundations or think tanks have come to a standstill. Sometimes I don’t get invited anymore. I’m not whining about it, I’m just noticing it. I can afford to have a dissenting opinion because I am tenured. But when colleagues earlier in their careers are snubbed, it keeps them quiet. Many tell me that it is good that I speak up, that they would rather not do it themselves.

Is it easier to deal with different opinions in other countries?
In Germany, this intolerance is certainly more pronounced; in the United States, debates are harsh on the issue, but the tone has been cultivated, even if this has not led to a change in US policy.​

Why are your compatriots so adamant?
Germany finally has the feeling that it is on the right side, and that is not entirely wrong. But the Germans find it difficult to maintain moderation. Many used to be the best pacifists, now the same are the greatest combatants. (aargauerzeitung.ch)