My Recent Interview on the Ukraine War
The English-language original of my interview with Byoblu, an Italian Magazine
The following interview was done on July 6, 2023. I think it covers some basics reasonably well, albeit very briefly.
Benjamin Abelow Interview, Byoblu Magazine
Benjamin Abelow is author of Come l’Occidente ha provocato la guerra in Ucraina, with a preface by Luciano Canfora, published by Fazi Editore. Abelow previously worked in Washington, DC, where he lobbied Congress, lectured, and wrote about nuclear arms policy. He holds a B.A. in modern European history from the University of Pennsylvania and an M.D. from the Yale School of Medicine, where he also served as Lecturer in Medicine.
[Note: information about the English-language edition of my book is here and here. The essay-formatted edition on Medium is here. Once the interview is published in Italian, I’ll post the link.]
Byoblu: What is your opinion of the Wagner “rebellion”? What was it really?
Abelow: The action by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a leader of the Wagner group, was apparently an attempt to remove from power Russia’s Minister of Defense and Russia’s Chief of the General Staff. Prigozhin may have been trying simply to keep the Wagner group from being disbanded. It is also possible that he had broader aims, perhaps to remove Vladimir Putin from power. We don’t know enough to say.
Byoblu: The mainstream media claims that this episode has weakened Putin, do you agree?
Abelow: Once again, I don’t think we can say with confidence. The rebellion may have raised questions in the minds of some Russians about Putin’s handling of the war. On the other hand, all segments of Russian society, including the elite, have rallied behind Putin, and this might help further consolidate his power.
But let us assume — for the sake of discussion — that this rebellion did weaken Putin. If Putin were removed, who would replace him? Most likely, someone more nationalistic and less rational. Any attempt to destabilize Putin’s regime is a dangerous roll of the dice. Do you really want to risk having a radical nationalist controlling thousands of nuclear weapons?
Byoblu: The United States is considering sending long-range missiles to Ukraine. Will they really do it? How might this change the conflict?
Abelow: Sending longer-range missiles, such as the ATACMS, which have a range of 190 miles, would be one more escalation of the war. The missiles likely would be used to attack Crimea. That would be a mistake for many reasons, including because Crimean citizens overwhelmingly want to be part of Russia. Sending ATACMS also would incentivize Russia to destroy and capture additional Ukrainian territory, so that the launchers would end up outside the missiles’ 190-mile range and wouldn’t be able to hit Crimea. And if NATO and the US succeed in threatening Russian sovereignty in Crimea, Russia might resort to nuclear weapons.
Byoblu: How long will American public opinion accept military aid to Ukraine?
Abelow: I hope not much longer. We often hear things like, “It’s in America’s interest to push Russia from Crimea.” This way of speaking is not correct. These statements refer to the interests of a small group of foreign-policy ideologues in Washington. The statements also refer to the interests of the military-industrial complex, and of members of the U.S. Congress who have been improperly influenced by arms manufacturers. The statements do not refer to the interests of the 340 million U.S. citizens. Their interest is a quick end to this bloody, destructive, and expensive war.
I just mentioned the “military-industrial complex.” This term was not invented by a peacenik or pacifist. It comes from President Eisenhower, a five-star general, World War II hero, and experienced military administrator. He understood war from top to bottom. He knew how the whole system worked. He was concerned enough that he warned the American people about the dangers of the military-industrial complex in his last televised address, in 1961. And things have gotten worse since then. So, the military-industrial complex is very real. It tilts U.S. policies toward military approaches to problems that could better be solved by diplomacy, or sometimes by doing nothing at all.
Ending this war now is also in the interests of the Ukrainian people. Ukraine is being destroyed, step by step, turned into a mass of death, injury, and psychological trauma. Ukraine’s territory is being depopulated. Too many Americans and Europeans think continuing this war is humanitarian. That is a fantasy. The war is anti-humanitarian.
Byoblu: What is the real goal of the United States? A diplomatic solution or the removal of Vladimir Putin?
Abelow: The U.S. strategy has been to weaken Russia. This was obvious from the start and was made explicit just two months into the war, when the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, stated it publicly. However, I see no evidence that Russia has been weakened. Rather, the U.S. and Europe have been weakened — economically, militarily, and geopolitically.
Most people don’t know it, but in March 2022, just weeks after Russia invaded, there were three different sets of peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Those probably could have ended the war early. Russia wanted to get Ukraine to agree not to join NATO. That was unacceptable to the U.S. and Britain. So, in all three cases, the West blocked the negotiations. We know this from multiple sources — including the Ukrainian publication Ukrainska Pravda, Turkish officials, Israeli ex-prime minister Naftali Bennett, and the journal Foreign Affairs. And so, the war continued — and now, well over 100,000 Ukrainians are dead.
The policy that led to this war — expanding NATO to Russia’s border and backing out of nuclear arms control agreements — has been a disaster. University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer recently said that the American foreign policy elite has blood on its hands. I agree. The intentions of this elite may have been good. I believe that most of them honestly think they are doing what is best. But they have shown themselves to be utterly incompetent. Their policies are destroying Ukraine, weakening the West, alienating the Global South, and putting the entire world at risk of nuclear war.
Some in the West say the war should continue, to give Ukraine a stronger negotiating position. However, the best evidence is that continuing the war will put Ukraine in a worse position, not better. Further, if Ukraine loses more territory, what will NATO do? Will it send NATO troops? The U.S. is following a path that could easily lead to disaster — a direct NATO-Russia conflict and a real risk of nuclear war.
The solution is to end the conflict now. Immediately. First, with a mutually agreed-upon ceasefire. Next, by creating a demilitarized zone, to help keep the ceasefire intact, followed by negotiations for a permanent settlement. Zelensky seems unwilling to compromise but he is not his own man. If he tries to compromise for peace, the far right in Ukraine may overthrow his government or kill him. They already threatened to kill Zelensky several times in the past when he advocated a peaceful resolution to the conflict with Russia in the Donbas.
Ukraine’s war effort, and the functioning of Ukraine’s government, depends entirely on American and European money. This gives the West total control over Ukrainian policy. If the U.S. tells Zelensky to negotiate, he will negotiate. And we must be realistic. Ukraine will not be made whole. It will lose territory. If the U.S. had supported the Minsk Agreements before the war, or not undermined peace negotiations right after the invasion, Ukraine probably would have retained all its territory except Crimea. Now it is too late. We must live with that reality. At least the rest of Ukraine won’t be destroyed. Tens or hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives will be saved. The risk of nuclear war will diminish.
Byoblu: Several countries are showing interest in joining BRICS, others are leaving the dollar as a reference currency. Is the American century ending?
Abelow: If one wanted to deliberately end the American century — to drive the U.S. deeper into debt, to eliminate the U.S. dollar as the primary international reserve asset and exchange currency, to weaken the U.S. in geostrategic and soft-power terms — one could not do a more efficient job than what the Washington elite are now doing. But really, the American century has already ended. Or let me say that differently. The American century may continue — but it will also be the century of China, of India, of Brazil, and yes, of Russia. And, just possibly, but only if Europe manages to wake up from its self-destructive dream, it may be a European century as well. We are in the irreversible stages of a multi-polar world. If the U.S., with Europe’s help, continues to resist this change, the West will wreck itself economically and create wars that could go nuclear and destroy the whole world.
