We spoke to Pilar BONET, a well-known Spanish journalist, the Moscow correspondent of Spain’s largest-circulation newspaper El Pais, at Den’s editorial office. Pilar is in Ukraine to gather materials for her publication on the Donbas situation and Ukrainian political problems in general. To know more about the developments in this country, she visited her Ukrainian colleagues. And we in turn could not help asking Pilar about sentiments in Russia itself.
Pilar, how do ordinary Russians react to deteriorating living conditions?
“Undoubtedly, social discontent about the economic situation in the country is on the rise. But I do not think this will result in political unrest. The Russians are ready to show patience, and this is going to last long. From this angle, the safety margin is large enough.”
What can explain the paradox when people are living worse but giving stronger support to the policies of Russia’s current leadership?
“This was caused by a patriotic upsurge because Putin let the Russians feel that they are a great and mighty power again. But this patriotism is, of course, based on imperial feelings. A high percentage of the populace has taken a Crimea-is-ours attitude. At the same time, some people keep coming from Crimea to complain to Putin about the socioeconomic situation and local officials, hoping that he will punish them. They are sure that the Russian president is unaware of what is going on in Crimea. But the president of Russia knows only too well about the current situation in Crimea.”
What is the current attitude to Ukraine, with due account of propaganda?
“Russia views Ukraine as a hostile state. Propaganda has done its job well. There is no more friendship between the two countries due to Russian aggression. It is difficult to come across the word ‘annexation’ or ‘occupation’ in today’s Russia because words like this are banned. The government has even tabooed the word ‘Ukraine’ in the last while. Just look at President Putin’s latest message to the Federal Assembly – it never mentions Ukraine. As for the Donbas, it is clear that the situation has reached a deadlock. Mingling with various people, I have concluded that fewer people are being killed in the Donbas as well as there are fewer hopes for an early settlement of this problem.
“Let me cite the following information. According to an analytical report of the Russian Center for Political Conjuncture, an optimistic scenario of the Donbas’s successful reintegration into Ukraine as part of the Minsk Agreements before the end of 2016 is fewer than five percent probable. Tellingly, a pessimistic scenario, i.e., the freezing of this situation for many years, if not forever, is the most probable – up to 50 percent. A realistic scenario – the slowdown and medium-term settlement (3 to 5 years) of this process – is presented as up to 30 percent probable. And it is up to 15 percent probable that there will be a catastrophic scenario, when hostilities will be resumed or the never-ending clashes will block the negotiating process for an indefinite period.
“This information allows assessing the sentiments and plans of the current Russian leadership. The aim is for a long-term conflict.
“Also telling is the Syria situation. Why did the Kremlin intervene in this conflict? The Russians explain it as follows: we are fighting there, firstly, in order not to fight Islamist radicals here at home; secondly, in order to divert attention from Ukraine; thirdly, to make our presence felt in the Mediterranean Sea, and, fourthly, because Bashar al-Assad is our ally.”
In what condition is the Russian opposition now?
“I cannot see a well-structured opposition in Russia – it is fragmentized and weak. And, of course, the leadership is doing its best to ward off a strong opposition. The leadership is banning, under all kinds of pretexts, the NGOs that may a priori represent any danger to it.”
What kind of influence is Russia exerting on the formation of public opinion in Europe today?
“I think their informational policy and propaganda are successful in Europe. They are making strenuous efforts and investing huge funds in this. This is what they are doing. But I would draw your attention to what Ukraine is doing. Instead of seeing a clear and easy-to-grasp policy on the part of Ukrainian authorities, we observe never-ending political and corruption-related scandals. This makes Europeans ask a question: how can we help them and suffer losses because of sanctions, if they do not want to help themselves? The mess in Ukraine has already provoked a bitter disappointment in Europe. Of course, the Russians find it easier to work in Europe under these conditions and shape the public opinion they need. Ukraine must feel as a subject at last.
“Here is a telling example. I know that many Western journalists go to the Donbas and Crimea, bypassing Ukraine. The point is that the Ukrainian authorities complicate access to these areas. For some reason, those who follow all the rules face more problems. This may be justifiable in the case of the Donbas, where hostilities are in fact going on, but why are there so many obstacles to entering Crimea? If the Ukrainian leadership wants the world to know what is really going on in these areas, it must render assistance to journalists.”
What do you think of the meeting between the Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of the Russian Orthodox Church?
“The logic of the meeting between Patriarch Kirill and the Pope is the same as that of Putin with respect to Syria and Ukraine. Putin is trying to solve the Ukraine problem, standing on the Syrian platform. The Russian Orthodox Church primate is trying to solve the ‘Ukrainian question’ likewise, meeting the Pope outside Europe. From my viewpoint, if the Pope were a European, he would have avoided the Russian patriarch, as all the previous European Popes did. Francis has a somewhat different outlook. We saw more politics than religion in this meeting. It is good to meet, but the question is in the result and in what they agreed upon. What we saw does not obviously serve Ukrainian interests.”
