In an interview for German newspaper Bild, Andreas Umland reflects on how Vladimir Putin has led Europe and the US by the nose over the course of more than a decade of negotiations.
What exactly is Putin’s tactic?
Since the Orange Revolution of 2004, Russia’s goal has been to isolate Ukraine from the West. Within this framework, Moscow has been staging a negotiation theatre since the war began 11 and a half years ago, with yearly diplomatic performances that have been particularly successful in Germany and other European countries until 2021.
Putin is willing to talk – but only about how exactly to destroy Ukrainian statehood. Ukraine can become part of Russia, a Russian satellite state, or, as a transitional measure, a failed semi-sovereign rump state. This is negotiable and gives some people the impression that a diplomatic solution to the conflict is possible.
Currently, the aim is also to give Washington the impression that Ukraine is not interested in peace.
If Ukraine falls, we will return to the “normal” world disorder of constant military invasions, arms races, and border shifts.
Is he currently succeeding with this strategy? If so, why?
He is succeeding in Washington, but also among many Europeans and non-Europeans who are relativists concerning international law and human rights. Many cannot or do not want to recognize that the fate of Ukraine as a co-founder and full member of the UN and an official non-nuclear state under the Non-Proliferation Treaty is linked to the future of the rules-based world order.
Until 1945, imperial colonialism and wars of expansion were “normal” conduct of international relations. If Ukraine falls, we will return to this “normal” world disorder of constant military invasions, arms races, and border shifts. For many observers, however, “which must not, cannot be.” From a short-sighted interpretation of the significance of the Russian war, the dismemberment, conquest, or destruction of Ukraine would be regrettable, but an ultimately secondary issue.
Has the West fallen for it?
A remarkable reversal has taken place: while until 2021 Putin successfully led European countries by the nose and the United States had a relatively more realistic view of the Donbas War and the annexation of Crimea, since 2025 the opposite has been true. Many Europeans have now awakened from their security policy slumber, while the White House seems to be nowadays partly remote-controlled from Moscow.
What strategy is Europe pursuing now?
Europeans are trying to keep the US on board with regard to Western support for Ukraine. The quantitative, technical, knowledge, and action potential of the United States exceeds that of Europe in military matters, which also remains plagued by internal coordination problems.
Europe’s most important ally today are the American people and civil society, which –unlike their government – remain largely pro-Ukrainian and critical of Russia. Against this backdrop, European efforts to maintain the Euro-Atlantic alliance continue to make sense, despite the many recent caprices in Washington.
Statements by Ukrainian nationalists about Russia’s political ambitions… which once seemed extreme, have now turned out to be more or less accurate predictions of Russia’s current behavior.
Paurbiy and Farion: two assassinated nationalists
[German daily newspaper Der Tagesspiegel also interviewed Umland on the murder of Andriy Parubiy and Iryna Farion, who were both prominent Ukrainian nationalists assassinated in Lviv.]
President Zelensky spoke of Andriy Parubiy’s murder; in Lviv, many people are convinced that Russia is behind it in some way. How likely do you think that is?
Parubiy began his political career in the 1990s as a radical Ukrainian nationalist. He later became a moderate national activist, left the far-right Svoboda party in 2004, and played an important role in both the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Revolution of Dignity in 2013-2014. He had held a number of political offices over the past 30 years, making him a logical target for a Russian political assassination. However, it remains to be seen what the investigation will reveal.
It was just a year ago that Iryna Farion, another politician who was very critical of Russia, was also shot dead in Lviv. What message do such crimes send to anti-Russian politicians and activists in Ukraine?
Farion’s murder last year was apparently not orchestrated by Russia, but the work of a lone nationalist killer. Although Farion was also a prominent figure, she was less politically significant than Parubiy.
On the one hand, such political murders come as a shock to Ukrainians. However, against the backdrop of weekly reports of more or less prominent soldiers killed on the front line, they do not seem so unusual. Perhaps the most surprising thing is that these murders are taking place in the Ukrainian hinterland.
How do you perceive the reactions from Russia to the murder?
In Russia, the death of any nationally oriented Ukrainian, even those with less radical views, is greeted with satisfaction, if not enthusiasm. As Ukrainian nationalists, Farion and Parubiy were particularly radical opponents of Russian imperialism and thus – like almost the entire Ukrainian political and intellectual elite – unquestionably “fascists” and “Nazis” from a Russian nationalist perspective.
Today, however, Russia’s genocidal behavior in Ukraine has retrospectively rehabilitated the loud criticism of Russia voiced in the 1990s by politicians such as Farion and Parubiy. Some statements by Ukrainian nationalists about Russia’s political ambitions in general and its intentions in Ukraine in particular, which once seemed extreme, have now turned out to be more or less accurate predictions of Russia’s current behavior.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.