The key takeaway from President Putin’s conversation with Rossiya Segodnya head Dmitry Kiselev is that those “looking for a contrite Russia, a weak Russia, a compliant Russia” won’t find it in “the Russia that Vladimir Putin was presenting to the world in his interview,” says former US Marine Corps intelligence officer and independent military and international affairs observer Scott Ritter.
“Instead, what he's saying is that Russia's not looking for a fight, but if somebody wants to bring the fight to Russia, they'll get more than what they asked for. And if the world is looking for peace with Russia, it'll be done on terms that are acceptable to Russia,” Ritter told Sputnik.
“Russia hasn’t shut the door on peace, but the terminology used by the Russian president when discussing the potential of a peace negotiation with Ukraine didn't bode well,” the observer suggested, pointing to the derision Putin cast in Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's direction when discussing Kiev's maximalist 'peace plan'.
"This shows that Russia doesn't have respect for the Ukrainian leadership and indeed doesn't view the ‘Ukrainian peace plan’ - Volodymyr Zelensky's 10-point peace plan - as a serious effort for peace. This also points to the fact that Russia will probably continue the scope and scale of its military operations without let up until it accomplishes the missions that it has assigned itself, primarily demilitarization and denazification,” Ritter said.
Furthermore, Ritter said, Putin has made clear that Russia expects US experts to “provide sage advice” to leaders in Washington to prevent the Russia-NATO crisis from breaking out into a full-blown nuclear war, while also making it obvious that he “doesn’t trust the United States,” making “that straight-up clear in this interview.” Accordingly, any future relationship between Moscow and Washington will have to be “negotiated carefully,” and any guarantees and assurances set down “in writing.”
Regarding the recent series of not-so-subtle hints by NATO officials that they would not “rule out” a direct, boots on the ground intervention in Ukraine, Putin confirmed that “any effort to intervene meaningfully, meaning large forces, etc., would be seen as a direct intervention that could lead to a direct conflict between Russia and NATO,” heightening the risks of a nuclear conflagration, Ritter said.
Finally, regarding Putin’s comments about nuclear weapons, Ritter stressed that they must be taken at face value, since Russia’s nuclear doctrine provides for the use of such arms in the event of a nuclear attack, but also conventional aggression so severe that it “threatens the existential survival of Russia.”
“Right now, the United States and NATO are supporting Ukraine's stated objective of restoring Ukraine to the 1991 borders with Russia. But this would require Ukraine to gain control over Crimea, the Donbass, and the territories of Malorossia - Kherson, Zaporozhye that Russia has incorporated into the Russian Federation. Any effort to do so would, by definition, pose an existential threat to Russia's survival and generate a Russian nuclear response,” Ritter warned.