Trump seen as Putin's 'icebreaker' in global power play

Bondarev is the only Russian diplomat to publicly stand up to the regime. Since 2002, he worked at the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Moscow, and from 2019 he served as an advisor at the Permanent Mission of Russia to the UN. In May 2022, he issued a statement announcing his resignation in protest against Russia's attack on Ukraine.

He stated at the time, "Throughout my 20-year diplomatic career, I have seen various turns in our foreign policy, but I never felt as ashamed of my country as on February 24th of this year."

Currently, Bondarev lives in Switzerland.

Łukasz Dynowski, journalist at o2.pl: Of course, you are not inside Vladimir Putin’s head, but you know well how the Russian authorities operate. How might Putin view Donald Trump?

Borys Bondarev: I think similarly to how the old Bolsheviks viewed Hitler. The word that comes to mind here is "icebreaker," meaning someone who will revolutionize and disrupt the world order. Trump could be useful to Putin as a sower of chaos, which would fracture the already fragile unity of the West on matters of Ukraine, European security, and relations with Russia.

If this happens, many countries may fall right into Russia's hands. Putin could use aggression, and then NATO would no longer be a safe alliance. These countries might start looking for stronger partners who offer greater security, like China, for example. That would be a drastic shift in the global balance.

After Trump's election victory, Putin praised him as "smart" and suggested, without specifying, that Trump would "find a solution." Is this some sort of game from Putin?

Of course. Putin wants to appear as a trustworthy person with justified claims against Ukraine and the entire European security system. He poses as someone with whom you can make deals because he knows that making deals is exactly what Trump loves. So, he plays to his tune.

But he said the same about Biden. Unlike many propagandists, Putin has always been polite in his rhetoric. He sometimes says terrible things about nuclear war, but when it comes to specific Western politicians, he usually stays within limits. He's not like Dmitry Medvedev with his Telegram posts, calling politicians pigs. He is above all that, playing his own game.

Polish President Andrzej Duda said at the end of 2024 in an interview for "Neue Zuercher Zeitung" that "there are only two presidents in the world that Putin truly fears: Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump." Do you agree? Will Trump be a bigger challenge for Putin, a tougher opponent than the outgoing President Joe Biden?

It's always more difficult when someone is as unpredictable as Trump. Biden was predictable, his administration always behaved in the same, readable way for Putin. They said they did not want escalation, they did not want to hand over certain weapons, and then they would still hand them over. But it was always accompanied by hesitation; they did it in such a way as not to accidentally give Ukraine too much. In my opinion, this was not good because, for Putin, it was actually a sign that they are afraid of him. It gave him confidence and freedom of action.

It's not good to be as predictable as Biden. On the other hand, Trump can be unpredictable in a negative sense. He might, for example, focus on rivalry with China or taking over Greenland instead of on Ukraine and Europe.

On the other hand, Trump initially said about Ukraine that he would end the conflict in 24 hours, now he is talking about several months. I take this with caution, but it may be a positive sign, a signal of a more sober approach.

General Keith Kellogg, who will be the special envoy of the USA to Ukraine and Russia, claims that Biden's biggest mistake was not talking to Putin. Trump says he wants to talk. What might he offer to end the war in Ukraine?

If he offers him anything, it will mean victory for Putin. The so-called Kellogg peace plan is really not a plan at all.

Let's recall: this plan includes a ceasefire, freezing the front line, and possibly creating a demilitarized zone monitored by NATO soldiers, along with partially lifting sanctions on Russia and delaying Ukraine's admission to NATO.

It just shows that the USA does not understand that this is not just a war with Ukraine. Ukraine is a tool—a territory to conduct a war against America and NATO from a safe distance for Russia.

Putin has already presented his demands in an ultimatum to NATO from December 2021, stating that NATO troops should pack up and return to the 1997 borders. That is his main strategic goal, and it hasn't changed.

And that's what the USA can offer him if they want to end the war. Additionally, they would need to stop supplying Ukraine with weapons and ammunition. Putin wants to win in Ukraine, but not right now.

Why not?

A long-term war is beneficial for him. It provides a formula to answer all the difficult questions that might arise in Russia. Why is everything so expensive? Why are people getting poorer? Because we have a war! We are surrounded by enemies!

Whatever the USA might offer him, it would be a concession to Putin. If sanctions are lifted, it would be tantamount to admitting that sanctions don't work. And that the USA is too weak to enforce its own decisions.

Read also: The world counts the days. A former NATO employee points to the worst-case scenario

I think what Kellogg is saying now is really nothing more than criticism of the Biden administration because that's all they have now. Their strategy at the moment is: Biden had no plan, no strategy. End of strategy. The public wants to hear this and that, so Trump's people give it to them. But in reality, there is no plan. They don't understand what's really going on. From day one, General Kellogg will find that it's not as simple as he thought.

Are you saying that after almost three years of war, the West still doesn't understand Putin and the Russian mentality?

Eastern Europe understands better, although there is no unity there. Poland, Finland, and the Baltic countries behave in a certain way, but Slovakia or Romania in another. When a Russian drone flew into Romania, they said it was an accident, and it was similar with the drone in Latvia. That's not a narrative from a position of strength, but of weakness. When it comes to real confrontation, on the battlefield, not with words, Eastern Europe is not so brave at all.

And the West?

The West still believes that Putin just needs to be, colloquially speaking, "fed" with something. That he doesn't really want to change the world order, that he only needs a few square kilometers of fertile Ukrainian land. That somehow, you can reach an understanding with him.

We have worrying events in Slovakia, Hungary, Austria, France, and now perhaps Elon Musk's support will bring the AfD to power in Germany. So no, I believe that over these three years, Europe as a whole has learned nothing. Some countries are learning, but others not at all, like Germany and Switzerland, which wants to be a mediator and host negotiations. I live here, and I ask the Swiss: what if a war with the so-called Islamic State took place in Europe, then what? Would you still be neutral? Is your neutrality more important than belonging to Europe?

In my opinion, many people in Europe simply do not want to admit that times have changed.

I was asking about Russia, but what can Trump offer Ukraine to agree to peace? Joining NATO?

Firstly, is NATO still a true guarantor of anything? There is a possibility that the USA under Trump might leave NATO. What then? Europe will remain, and we already know that Europe alone cannot defend itself. Poland wants to build the largest army in Europe, but will you have enough ammunition? Will your soldiers have experience? Let's imagine that Russia attacks Poland. Are you sure that at this moment, behind your backs, Germany and France are not conducting negotiations with Russia? Because of people like Trump or Olaf Scholz, you cannot trust anyone today.

And going back to NATO, for a long time, Putin has clearly emphasized that he will never agree to Ukraine joining the Alliance. That's not on the table at all. And I think there's no option for him to agree to foreign NATO peacekeeping troops in the demilitarized zone either. That would mean NATO is already in Ukraine and defending it. Putin is not conducting this war to have Alliance soldiers appear on Ukrainian territory.

Do you see any chance that this war will end at the negotiation table?

All wars end that way, including world wars. But I think that as long as Putin and his regime remain in power, Russia will be a threat and a source of wars. It ensures their survival—not for Russia, but for the regime. I've already mentioned this—it gives them an excuse, for example, why economic development is not occurring in the country.

If anyone in the USA or Europe wants to end this war, negotiations should not be the goal. The goal should be the Russian government. You have to make life very, very difficult for these people. Right now, you Europeans and Americans constantly talk about negotiations. But you need to do something that will make them want negotiations. Currently, Putin never broaches the topic himself. He'll say something if asked. And he usually says there is no problem with negotiations, you just have to give him this, that, and that. And then we will negotiate. But to start this topic himself? That's not happening because he doesn't want it at all. He's waiting for your proposals from a position of strength.

What needs to be done?

Make Ukraine Great Again. First, Ukraine must win on the battlefield. Secondly, a coordinated strategy towards the Kremlin is needed. You must make the Russian elites understand: this war is doomed to fail, you have no chance, this will be your end. So wake up, end this. Thanks to this, you will survive.

But I repeat, it must be a large, multifaceted, coordinated strategy. At the moment, the West has no strategy. And as the ancient Chinese general Sun Tzu wrote in "The Art of War": "Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat."

Interviewed by Łukasz Dynowski