The RF will back down and ask for negotiations, but there is another danger: an interview with Edward Lucas

The UK is going through difficult times due to the change of the head of government. Boris Johnson, a good friend of Ukraine, left the prime minister's chair, and was succeeded by Liz Truss. The new prime minister faced many challenges, including those caused by Russia's war against Ukraine.

Edward Lucas is a British journalist, politician, expert on contemporary Russia in an interview on 24 channel told about Johnson's premiership and Truss's victory. He also predicted what challenges await Europe in the near future and whether Ukraine will receive Western support to continue the counteroffensive.

Will Ukraine's support change after changing prime minister in Britain

This week we have seen important changes in the composition of the UK government. Boris Johnson stepped down and Liz Truss became the new prime minister. Why do you think most members of the Conservative Party voted for her and not for Rishi Sunak?

I am not a conservative. I'm a candidate for the opposition Liberal Democrats. So I look at this situation from two perspectives. I rather worry about the country, but, on the other hand, it increases my chances of being elected to parliament. I believe that during this long campaign, the division within the Conservative Party became noticeable. And it does not look exciting and enjoyable for voters.

The peculiarity of Liz Truss was her optimistic approach to the economy, she sounded very convincing. What worries me, however, is that optimism itself is not enough. And although Sunak had a more pessimistic approach, he looks more realistic.

But the good news is that Liz Truss is very supportive of Ukraine. And it takes the threat from Russia and China very seriously. It is determined to continue to strongly support Ukraine and the states at the forefront of NATO. And this is a good start.

Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said that Russia does not expect anything good from the Liz Truss government. In your opinion, will this pressure from the new prime minister on Russia continue? And will it be possible to get rid of the influence of Russian money on the UK economy?

You have well noted this problem. It is one thing to support Ukraine's military resistance and reinforce NATO's eastern flank, but it is much more difficult to solve the UK's internal problems. This is what became the problem for the government of Boris Johnson how to establish tight control over dirty money.

And not only Russian, but also from different people from many countries of the world who come with their money to London. Together with the United States and other allies, we must do much to counter this. I hope Liz Truss takes this problem seriously. So far, she does not emphasize this problem too much. However, I will press the issue here in central London, where I am running for Parliament.

And what kind of prime minister would Liz Truss be to the British nation? She stated that she campaigned as a conservative and would govern as a conservative. What do you expect from her work?

Conservatism is a flexible term. Liz Truss often says that she is the heiress of Margaret Thatcher and aspires to be the Thatcher of the 21st century. I have certain reservations. It is true that Mrs Thatcher was very staunchly opposed to the Kremlin. She was also against the policy of borrowing large amounts of money that future generations have to pay for.

And Liz Truss' plan is to cut taxes and increase spending, which will be a big burden on the budget and increase our debt relative to GDP. Britain's national debt is much larger today than it was when Mrs Thatcher came to power. Although she also believed that this debt was too great. I'm worried about how the financial markets will react to this. We may see a sharp collapse due to the debt crisis and other severe economic hardships. So it's still a question of how the so-called “trasonomics” will stand the test of reality.

Why do both of Britain's last leaders compare themselves to the great leaders of the past? Johnson's favorite is Winston Churchill. And Liz Truss emphasizes her connection with the figure of Margaret Thatcher. Why is this so important to them?

I think that something similar exists in all countries. Putin thinks a lot about the legacy of Catherine the Great or Peter the Great. In Ukraine, there is a special attitude towards Petlyura, the outstanding hetmans of the past or the princes of Russia before Russia stole this name from you.

Therefore, such a selective approach to the glorious figures of the past is a characteristic feature of politics. American presidents love to compare themselves to Lincoln, Washington, whatever. The problem is that historical circumstances change. Today we have very different challenges than those faced by Mrs Thatcher. I am one of the politicians who look to the future, not look back to the past. History deserves better treatment, not just being a weapon, including references to historical events or personalities.

What are the problems were with Johnson in Britain, despite the brilliant assistance to Ukraine

Johnson is very popular in Ukraine, but in the UK he does not have such a high level of support. What legacy did Johnson leave after three years as head of government? Can he remain a powerful politician and have a chance to one day return as prime minister to 10 Downing Street?

Johnson convinces his friends that he was fired very unfairly . As if he did a great job and would like to return. I agree that he did some important things. He brought Brexit to an end, whether it was a good idea or not. The political achievement was that we reached an agreement with the European Union when we left it.

He also overcame the challenges of the pandemic well, although today many say that it could have been done differently. And I think that Johnson was brilliant in helping Ukraine, although at the same time he had some benefits, because he looked better in the eyes of voters. There was even a joke about it. Like, when things are bad for Johnson, he calls Zelensky on the phone or takes pictures with him, which distracts people's attention.

Johnson and I have known each other for 25 years, although we have never been close friends. His biggest problem is maintaining confidence in himself. He never took any rules and regulations seriously. This has been the case throughout his entire career. He tried to get out of difficult situations with smart jokes and unusual behavior.

The Prime Minister cannot lie to the House of Representatives, and he did. He unnecessarily defended representatives of the Conservative Party who deserved to be punished. In the end, he faced the consequences of his behavior. I was upset about this, but not at all surprised.

Why the US does not recognize Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism

Volodymyr Zelensky insists that the West recognize Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. Joseph Biden takes a different view. He stated that the US would not do this. Why do you think the United States holds this position?

I think it is about the relationship between the United States and Russia. The Biden administration may want to maintain political contacts when it comes to space issues, climate change, nuclear weapons control. Therefore, they are not going to recognize Russia as a sponsor of terrorism.

In my opinion, what Russia is doing in Ukraine is terrorism. They bomb populated areas, kill random civilians – and these are classic signs of terrorism. However, the debate surrounding the recognition of this status is similar to whether certain acts should be called genocide. This may sound very strong, indicating that you really condemn such actions.

However, I am afraid that this will not change the behavior of Russia. Will Putin really say: “We have been recognized as terrorists. Should we change our behavior?” No. As a terrorist, he will say: “The West constantly lies and hypocrites. Why don't they call the Saudis terrorists?”.

Why Putin failed to achieve his goal in Ukraine and what awaits us in winter

I am not a military expert, so I cannot comment on the situation on the battlefield. Putin had two goals when he started this war. He wanted to turn Ukraine into a failed state. To cause you a long political, psychological, economic, social tension. So that Ukraine cannot compete with his “Russian world” project.

And secondly, he wanted to break the will of the West to support Ukraine. And I believe that he failed to achieve both goals. Ukraine demonstrates outstanding resilience. Your army starts to counterattack, and the Russian one is in a very difficult position. In particular, and because of problems with logistics. All this can lead to circumstances where the Russians will start to retreat in a disorganized manner and ask for negotiations.

However, I think that the danger may appear from the other side. We have a very hard winter ahead of us. And the pace of the economic crisis may prevent the West from supporting the Ukrainian economy and defense capability. This is a war of attrition, where a large country has a certain advantage over a smaller one. I remain a cautious optimist because I see that there are circumstances in which the situation could get worse.

I think that sometimes people overestimate the importance of public opinion in Europe. Yet there is a minority in Germany, the Czech Republic or other countries that says: “We are tired of the war. It's time to end. We need cheap gas.” But these are people from the political margins, they do not determine the direction of movement.

Can Europe support Ukraine more? Of course yes. Will Europe leave Ukraine? I do not think so. But we are in for a tangible economic stress due to inflation and a change in sources of gas supplies. Ahead of the decline in GDP, the curtailment of production will need to support small businesses and households. So we will be poorer and more in debt. However, Europe is a very rich place on the world map, so we will withstand this blow.

The Russian blockade of Ukrainian ports lasted five months and ended only in August. Does this mean that we have avoided the deadly risk of famine in Africa and the Middle East?

We haven't gotten away from it yet. It's great that the ships continue to leave ports, but we are faced with the disastrous consequences of the war in East Africa. Pakistan is experiencing terrible floods due to climate change. Therefore, even without the consequences of the war in Ukraine, we see the terrible conditions in which tens of millions of people survive. Even if the war ends tomorrow, there will still be many serious problems in the world.

Will Russia lead to a catastrophe at the Zaporizhzhya NPP

Do you believe that Russia can lead to a real disaster at the Zaporozhye NPP? It seems that the IAEA is not ready to guarantee control and safety at the plant.

I don't want to be too dramatic. Of course, fighting around a nuclear power plant is a very bad idea. The situation in Chernobyl showed all the stupidity and incompetence of the Russian invaders. It is alarming because of what they can do at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant. However, the wind blows in different directions, so the Russians are unlikely to dare to make a “dirty bomb” to devastate Ukraine and intimidate Europe.

If the wind suddenly changes to the north, then Russia will be in trouble. It is more likely that the disaster could happen by accident rather than by design. The cooling of nuclear fuel remains an important issue, so I am glad that the attention of the whole world is riveted to the situation at the station. A powerful oversight mission should be constantly working there.

Can Russia fall apart or change radically

Some analysts believe that we are now witnessing the beginning of the end of Russia. How can Western countries prepare for a possible collapse of Russia?

We do not have a long-term strategy towards Russia. For many years we assumed that certain approaches would work. In general, this is democracy, a market economy and attempts to make friends through trade, investment and political contacts. All this did not work, and now we need a different strategy. I would like this strategy to include the possibility that Russia could change radically.

I was discussing back in the 1990s that Russia is an unstable country. Its basis is a political clan in Moscow, plundering resource-rich regions, collecting bureaucratic rents and in no way reducing the friction between the center and the periphery. As long as the economy grows, people are happy. However, due to economic difficulties, another reaction will begin.

Therefore, there is a danger of political chaos in Russia as well as a chance for political change. Will it be a peaceful transformation in the format of a confederation with greater rights for regions and ethnic groups, or will the disintegration follow the scenario of the former Yugoslavia? Unknown. However, I would be glad if our political leaders prepared for such a development. And we decided how to act in this case.

To a large extent, the way out of this situation also depends on the Russian opposition? In your opinion, do the Russian opposition, Navalny's group or others have the potential to change something in Russia? mode. Dissidents play a role when they work alongside those in the regime who are unhappy with the situation. During the collapse of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin played a key role, and the most famous dissident was Andrei Sakharov, who, unfortunately, did not live to see the collapse of the Union.