“It’s a bilateral bluff”estimated Saturday, February 12 on franceinfo Florent Parmentier, secretary general of CEVIPOF-Sciences Po. The United States alerted Friday to a possible Russian invasion “imminent” of Ukraine as Moscow began to reduce its diplomatic presence in Ukraine, fearing “Provocation” from the Ukrainian authorities or from “third country”. For Russia expert Joe Biden “step up the pressure” to appear “as a peacemaker against a Russia that fundamentally wanted to do battle with Ukraine”. “On the Russian side, the issue is not primarily to invade Ukraine”continued Florent Parmentier, “the challenge is to obtain a form of security guarantee”. “This is where France got engulfed with the idea of trying to make proposals that could suit both”he added, while wondering: “The question is whether it will also suit Ukrainians?”
franceinfo: How do you explain Joe Biden’s recent remarks on a possible “imminent attack” by Russia in Ukraine?
Florent Parmentier: Joe Biden does not have a public opinion behind him that is pro-war. American public opinion is quite indifferent to the question of Ukraine, so Joe Biden must sell his public opinion and his allies a victory that would come through not having a Russian invasion in Ukraine. To do this, he must increase the pressure, the tension. The higher it is, the more the fact of not having a conflict will be experienced as a victory: Joe Biden as a peacemaker against a Russia which fundamentally wanted to do battle with Ukraine. In addition, Joe Biden must reassure the most worried Europeans. The Poles, the Baltic States. He must show that it is he who is at the head of the leadership between the United States on one side and the Europeans on the other. Nothing would be worse, for these countries, than to see that the Americans are indifferent to the fate of what is happening on their borders. And then, it is a question of guaranteeing the credibility of NATO and the solidarity clause in the event of an attack provided for in article 5.
Is it a bluff?
It’s a two-sided bluff. On the other side one can also think that the fact, for Russia, to put so many men in the troops is not rational if you do not attack immediately. If you wait before attacking, you deprive yourself of 50% of the effectiveness of an attack, of the surprise effect. Which means that on the Russian side, the priority is not to invade Ukraine. Maybe that’s not even the issue at all. The challenge is to obtain a form of security guarantee, a questioning of the security architecture in Europe. That’s probably what Vladimir Putin is looking for and that’s what France got into with the idea of trying to make proposals that could suit both, confirm the American commitment on European soil and meet Russia’s expectations. The question is whether it will also suit Ukrainians.
So Vladimir Putin is not planning an invasion?
Vladimir Putin, at this point, is the master of the clocks. There are no elections, no domestic policy issues to consider. So he can prolong this very uncomfortable position for the Europeans and the United States and this pressure on Ukraine. Attacking would not be rational. On the other hand, the question that everyone must ask is, what happens the day after for Russia if it attacks Ukraine? From this point of view, there is not much to gain for Russia. There is more to gain if Russia manages to make the Ukrainians accept the conclusions of the Minsk agreements of 2014 and 2015 which are today judged in Kiev as being very unfavorable to Ukrainian interests.