Sir Richard John Evans (London, 1947) joins EL PERIÓDICO, a newspaper belonging to the same group as this media, telematically from his office in the British capital. The professor is a respected expert on the Third Reich, about which he wrote a trilogy, and his latest work, The Struggle for Power. Europe 1815-1914′ offers an interpretation of the construction of the modern world. He expressed his concerns about the invasion of Ukraine these days.
-Do images of humiliated corpses after the departure of Russian troops from Bucha indicate war crimes?
Yes, of course these are war crimes. If you look at all the international laws of war, the Geneva Convention and the like, they always condemn and declare attacks on civilians as war crimes.
– Do you think that one day Putin will have to answer them in court?
-I hope. However, I think this is highly unlikely unless the situation radically changes. And I think Putin invaded Ukraine under the illusion or false belief that Ukrainians are Russian and would welcome rejoining the Soviet Union. And they were hindered only by the fact that they were run by a small clique of Nazis, which of course is absurd, at least because President Zelensky himself is Jewish. However, unexpectedly, I believe that as Russian troops faced very strong Ukrainian resistance, Putin has now decided that all Ukrainians are Nazis and have killed them. The Russians are committing genocide in many places, especially in the retreats.
–Putin You talk about the ‘enlargement’ of Ukraine, but what do you think are the real reasons for the occupation?
-As I said, I think Ukrainians have the illusion that they are Russians. He said that the dissolution of Russia, both after the First World War and in 1989-90, was a terrible historical disaster. He thinks Ukraine is Russian. In the Middle Ages, Kyiv was the original capital of Russia, and Putin refuses to acknowledge that Ukraine now has a strong national consciousness and Ukrainian national identity.
-As an expert on the Third Reich and WWII, do you see any parallels between the Bucha massacre and the Russian army’s treatment of the cities on the way to Berlin in WWII?
-This April marks the 80th anniversary of the Nazis’ general plan for the East, in which they plan to completely eliminate Ukraine and the Ukrainians. Some would be Germanized and the vast majority would be killed, left to die for decades of neglect, starvation and the like. And all of Eastern Europe, about 45 million people, would die because Hitler thought they were racially inferior and should have given way to German settlers. Fortunately it never happened. The massacres, the genocide of Ukrainians by Russian troops, were not planned. It is largely a product of defeat. Hitler hoped that invading the Soviet Union would be very easy, because he saw the Soviets as subhumans who would offer no resistance. And of course he was wrong. Putin also hoped that the invasion of Ukraine, a replacement for the Zelensky government by a puppet regime, would be easy. And he is wrong too. So these illusions are common to both. The Soviet troops, the Red Army, which conquered Eastern Europe and reached Berlin in 1944-45, certainly committed many atrocities, for example, hundreds of thousands or even millions of German women raped. But this was payback, so to speak, for what the Germans had done in Eastern Europe. The revenge element in the way Putin’s soldiers killed Ukrainians was that they did not expect the Ukrainians to resist.
-Recently, chess master Garry Kasparov said: Invasion of Ukraine could be the start of the third world war. Do you agree with this?
-Yeah, who knows? But I think there are differences. World War II was started by Hitler and Hitler wanted to conquer all of Europe. In fact, he wanted to move on and conquer the world. Putin’s goals are much more limited. He wants to re-establish Russia as much as possible, which he remembers from his early years before 1989. But that Russia included, of course, parts of Europe, Eastern Europe, which is now a NATO member. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, so NATO has been very careful not to engage in open war with the Russians. In particular, a no-fly zone demanded by many would mean German or American NATO planes shooting down Russian planes over Ukraine, and that would be an act of escalation.
-What about Georgia, which is not a member of NATO, for example?
-Well, Russia invaded Georgia a few years ago. Other non-NATO countries such as Moldova are at great risk, but NATO will only be included if a member state is invaded by the Russians. This includes the Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. If Russia invaded them and they were under Russian control until 1989-90, that would be a serious escalation.
– Why do you think Russia is changing its strategy? Is it to be believed that he no longer wanted to conquer Kiev?
-Yes, I think Putin realized that he cannot conquer Kiev. Going back a few weeks, there was a 40-mile column of Russian battleships advancing towards Kiev and it has now disintegrated. Ukrainian attacks failed to encircle Kiev due to low morale and problems with the supply of Russian troops. Now I think Putin abandoned the idea of taking over the whole country and setting up regime change and instead consolidated himself in the eastern provinces.
-Russian allusions to the nuclear arsenal, a threat? is it believable?
-Of course it’s a threat. It was supposed to be a deterrent. There are many ways Putin can escalate the conflict. He could have used chemical weapons, as in Syria. He can poison them by using the biological weapons he has already made against individuals in the UK. It can use tactical nuclear weapons of limited scope and application. It is unclear whether it will escalate the conflict. But this is a credible threat, as Russia has nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
What kind of leader is Putin? Does he look like any historical Soviet leader?
-Well, Putin comes from working for the KGB for a long time, for the Russian intelligence services, and that’s the mentality he has. It started in the Soviet era, but like Stalin, who was a communist, from his early years as the 2nd Communist, so to speak, it transforms into the present as a Russian patriot in close alliance with the Orthodox Church. So it is conservative. He is a kleptocrat. Many of his friends have a regime where they enrich themselves through robbery and extortion. That is why the West is now adopting sanctions against Russia and especially against the so-called oligarchs.
-But Putin seems to be trying to compare himself to great Soviet leaders like Lenin. Is there anything in common?
Well, not in terms of ideology. Putin is a Russian nationalist, not a communist.
Q: Does the West’s sanctions-based diplomatic response work?
The West’s response was unexpectedly strong and unified. There are only a few countries that do not agree with this, especially Hungary. I think the EU should solve the problem of Hungary, which is no longer a democracy and supports Russia. But with this exception, I think the backlash was very strong. As I said before, the West should not risk sending troops or trying to establish a no-fly zone over Ukraine. This would be a serious climb. There are more economic sanctions that the West can impose. Also, the West supplies the Ukrainians with weapons and ammunition, and I think that is intensifying. But that’s all the West can do. I think that these economic sanctions have started to have very serious effects on the Russian economy. And, of course, it is hoped that this will create popular discontent that will lead to Putin’s overthrow. But that’s a long-term bet.