The population catastrophe hit Ukraine even before the outbreak of the war, and even after it, more than the negative demographic consequences of the Second World War in Hungary. For the next, at least two generations, the country has become completely hopeless - said security policy expert Attila Demkó, head of the MCC Geopolitics Workshop. Interview by Péter G. Fehér.
– In one of your statements, you said that Ukraine is too independent for the Americans. Are there any tangible signs of this?
- One is the assassination attempt against Alexander Dugin, in which his daughter lost her life. In Washington, they were afraid that the originally planned attack against the ideologue who constantly whips the West would give serious ammunition to the Russian nationalists and could send Russian propaganda against Ukraine to its peak. The violent style of the Ukrainians is also a thorn in the side of the Americans, which Kiev allows itself - even against the United States.
The Ukrainians have crossed a certain line.
You can also see that they spoke out against the Ukrainian leadership from several places, because their communication became more restrained. The United States has given Ukraine very serious help so far, financially it could also maintain this, because the 40 billion dollars a year is not a dent in the American budget, much more was spent on Iraq and Afghanistan.
– So then the American weapons will continue to pour into Ukraine?
- It is not certain that it will be exactly like this, because "dust" got into the American aid machine. They don't have enough of certain types of ammunition either, they weren't prepared for such a challenge. The United States is a global power, and the Ukrainian issue is only a slice of the world's problems.
The Americans must pay attention to China, and if they put all American resources into Ukraine, they will have no reserve for a potential conflict in Taiwan.
- Ukraine, China, Iran and, of course, Russia are also included in the strategic thinking of the United States. What are Washington's priorities?
- China is the first, the second is obviously Russia. Ukraine is now important because the Russians are "caught" with it. Russia has suffered very significant losses in Ukraine in the recent period, as an offensive power it has weakened a lot. From an American point of view, Iran is also important, but the Persian state itself is only third in the order of priorities, behind China and Russia. And Ukraine is not really important for itself, but because of Russia. Ukraine has an important role in the world in its own right, as it is a large food producer, but its importance from the American point of view is essentially Russia.
- The Ukrainians have also suffered very serious losses recently. It is already clear that Ukraine will not win this war without aid. Is it possible that this realization will change the attitude of the United States and Western Europe towards the conflict?
- Ukrainian losses are basically of interest to Ukraine, for example, how many of their people die in the fighting.
For the United States, this is not a consideration.
It is not the scale of the Ukrainian losses that changes the American calculus, but how much opportunity they have for further aid. Incidentally, how long can they finance and support the Ukrainian army in such a way that it does not fail. If the Russians hold out longer than the Ukrainians run out of ammunition, Washington will have to make a decision. In this case, the Americans would probably move in the direction of peace. Ukraine's losses are indeed enormous, but the state is sustainable.
Americans think logically but coldly about the war in Ukraine, much more logically than Europeans.
- Without Russia, however, there is no European security. Is there any Western plan on how to rebuild relations, do we have to rebuild old relations at all, or a new system of relations?
- Russia crossed a certain limit on February 24. Trust will therefore not be rebuilt between the two parties as long as the Putin regime is in power. But cooperation, or at least living side by side, is conceivable. They cannot end the war with a peace treaty, but they can end it with an armistice and push the solution into the future. After that, economic relations can be rebuilt, at least the part that is in the interest of both the West and Russia. But I am sure that certain elements of sanctions will remain alive against Russia for a long time, for example in the technological and cultural fields. As long as it can, the US and Europe will keep up the pressure. Indeed, there is no European security without Russia, the Kremlin has been provoked many times, but what Russia has done cannot be explained by these provocations. This reaction is like someone responding to a thorough neck soup with an attempted murder. The Russians are overshooting the target. Let's look at France, for example, which in 2014, after the Russian occupation of Crimea, could only be dissuaded with difficulty from delivering two aircraft carriers that had been manufactured and already paid for in advance to Russia. But today even the French give weapons to Ukraine. The Europeans feel that the Russians have deceived them because they have constantly communicated that there will be no war. That is why the crisis of confidence is so great.
– So there is no peace treaty on the horizon, but a ceasefire will probably happen sooner or later. According to them, Europe should prepare for a frozen conflict situation, such as Nagorno-Karabakh or Cyprus on a much smaller scale. Then how to proceed?
"I'm afraid that this scenario will come true." This wound will remain, and this wound is much bigger than Cyprus or Nagorno-Karabakh, and then there is also Kosovo and Bosnia. So there is no way to go back to the state of February 24th. There is one possibility, if Russia would completely withdraw from the occupied Ukrainian territories, but there is not much chance of that.
– Since Russia not only wants guarantees, but also territories, it practically set an unacceptable condition for the other party. If Zelensky does accept this, he will be guaranteed to be overthrown by the extremist Ukrainians. What is the scope of maneuver of the Ukrainian president?
"This is an important point." Zelensky moves in an extremely dangerous and narrow forced path. He would probably have been much more permissive, even in the case of Transcarpathian Hungarians, if he did not have extreme Ukrainian nationalism behind him. That is why the president is in an extremely difficult situation, because on one side there is Russia, which does not give conditions that he can accept, especially in a current situation when Ukrainian troops are still advancing. Thus, you cannot give any territorial concessions. If you do not accept a cease-fire, Ukraine will continue to be destroyed every day. It is a vicious circle, because you can choose between two things: either your own position will be shaken, and there is even the possibility of physical danger, or your country will be destroyed, and in some cases even a military defeat may occur. A relative stability should be created on this narrow jersey. But Putin cannot come out of the political bargaining in a way that appears to be a loser either, because Putin can also do "very badly", like Zelensky, in his case there can also be a loss of position, and physical survival is not guaranteed in such a case.
– Speaking of destruction, the Russians bombed thirty percent of the Ukrainian infrastructure. By March, a humanitarian disaster may emerge. Can anything be done here at all?
"There is no good solution here." Primarily because
Ukraine has lost its future, at least for two generations. Mainly because a very significant proportion of the population left the country and probably won't go back. The most talented people left.
The hope of reconstruction is also highly questionable, because who will invest in a country where aid can go, but the conflict can start again at any time. There is no peace treaty, so who will bring money there? So it will be an open, long-term, frozen conflict. Ukraine is truly becoming a borderland, as the name of the country implies. Even before the war, Ukrainian demography was catastrophic, the loss of the population was much greater than the number of births. Then came the war, and by 2050, Ukraine will have a population of 25-30 million, which means that the original population will almost halve. The population in 1991 was 52 million, it was 41-42 million on paper before the war, but estimates put the population of Ukraine at 37 million. The current estimate is 30 million people.
- The news is constantly popping up that Ukraine wants to drag its current allies into the war even by creating a minor nuclear disaster. How realistic is this?
- I don't see any chance of that, because Ukraine has no nuclear warheads. We can talk about a dirty bomb. I don't think that the Ukrainians have secretly acquired nuclear weapons and that they can hide it from the Americans. And if we look at the reaction from Warsaw and Washington regarding the missile that hit Poland, the message was clear: you will not drag us into the war like this. Nobody wants a third world war.
Featured image: Magyar Hírlap / Tamás Purger
