OPINION:
Diplomats and experts around the globe are watching Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and searching for a possible way to stop Russian President Vladimir Putin and the carnage taking place without much success. Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett made a recent trip to Moscow to meet with Mr. Putin, and the suggestion by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for a Jerusalem peace conference with Mr. Putin may be the best idea yet.
Since the outset of the conflict, Israel has been in a difficult place, failing to join the U.S. and Europe in whole-hearted condemnation of Russia, while still not siding with Mr. Putin. For his efforts, Mr. Bennett has been criticized by some in the Israeli media, as well as in Ukraine and has gotten lukewarm support from the U.S.
Regarding Israeli mediation between Ukraine and Russia, Mr. Zelenskyy added that “among the founding fathers of Israel, there were Ukrainian Jews who brought with them their history and a fierce desire to build a wonderful country, as it is now. So, it’s not so bad to have such mediation.”
Since Mr. Bennett took it upon himself to mediate between Ukraine and Russia, with his three-hour meeting with Mr. Putin in Moscow, he has held several phone conversations with both Mr. Putin and Mr. Zelenskyy, as well as talks with European leaders. Mr. Zelenskyy himself has supported the idea, stating that “among the founding fathers of Israel, there were Ukrainian Jews who brought with them their history and a fierce desire to build a wonderful country, as it is now, so, it’s not so bad to have such mediation.”
As for a conference in Israel, Mr. Zelenskyy noted that it would not be right at this point to meet in Russia, Ukraine or Belarus, further noting that “these aren’t places in which we could reach any understandings on stopping the war.” Here Mr. Zelenskyy was referring to meetings between the leaders — not technical meetings, and thought that Israel could serve as such a meeting place, especially Jerusalem.
At the same time, Mr. Bennett’s mediation efforts are irritating a number of senior Ukrainian officials who simply don’t like him. One senior Ukrainian official harshly criticized Israel’s mediation is nothing more than a cover that allows Bennett to maintain Israeli neutrality and avoid imposing sanctions on Moscow while continuing to attack Syria.
While Mr. Zelenskyy has a direct and positive relationship with Mr. Bennett, other Ukrainian officials have signaled Israel that the meeting between Mr. Bennett and Mr. Putin in the midst of war was not to their liking. Ukraine’s Defense Minister Oleksii Reznikov also warned Israel’s refusal to take a clear position against Russia will harm the trust between Kyiv and Jerusalem.
Israel did not appreciate the criticism. Mr. Bennett is genuinely willing to help calm the situation and in a unique position to do so. Israel has identified early signs of success for their efforts, such as the willingness of Russia and Ukraine to change the definition of the conflict from being about Ukraine’s existence and the future of Mr. Zelenskyy, to a discussion of borders, NATO membership and the future of the regions Russia has seized following the Hitler game plan for the Sudetenland.
Some in the U.S. have also joined in criticizing Mr. Bennett. U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland has recently said that Mr. Bennett should emerge from his “comfort zone” and provide Ukraine with military aid while joining the sanctions against Mr. Putin. This is the same Victoria Nuland that in a prior post tried to sell Mr. Zelenskyy down the drain and should probably not be in the U.S. government at all. Unfortunately, she seems to be calling some of the shots here, and this is the same message the U.S. has been sending Israel behind closed doors.
Ukraine and the U.S. have now been signaling to Mr. Bennett that he has to move forward — either he has to become a serious mediator and show some progress or stand by Ukraine, providing it with military aid and joining the sanctions imposed on Russia by the Western states.
After some three weeks of fighting in Ukraine, one clear conclusion is that Mr. Putin did not have a Plan B and did not prepare an exit strategy for himself. He is convinced that he knows better than anyone else and is unwilling to hear dissent, already sacking several generals and two top FSB officers, blaming them for the Russian failures in the war thus far. This is not an advisable move in the middle of the war where none of Mr. Putin’s assessments has proved to be correct.
This is in the nature of autocratic and dictatorial regimes where the professionals and experts are afraid to express opinions that do not accord with his viewpoint — a phenomenon called groupthink, which is the exact opposite of brainstorming.
CIA Director William Burns, who has known Mr. Putin very well since his term as U.S. ambassador to Moscow, said in a briefing before the House Intelligence Committee that Mr. Putin is “angry and frustrated right now” and stressed he has failed in four of his assessments:
• Mr. Putin believed that the Russian army had undergone a serious upgrade since the 2008 war in Georgia and has become more modern and professional, but that is not the case.
• Mr. Putin believed that the Russian army would occupy Kyiv within 48 hours and didn’t expect Ukraine to exhibit strong military and civilian resistance.
• Mr. Putin believed that in the wake of the weak sanctions imposed after the fighting in the Donbas region and the occupation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 that Russia had prepared its economy and markets for a rainy day.
• Mr. Putin made light of the ability of U.S. President Biden and European Union leaders to act assertively against Russia, believing that they would once again kowtow to him.
Indications that Mr. Putin finds himself in distress are evident both in his contradictory messages and his activities, such as his effort to recruit Syrian 16,000 volunteers, a sign that the Russian army is tired and in need of reinforcements. Mr. Putin’s hints that he might resort to nuclear weapons are also a reflection of his dire condition.
Mr. Putin is signaling that he is interested in finding a way out. To his list of contradictory signals, it is possible to add his recent statements that there are “positive changes” in the negotiations with the Ukrainians. Clearly, he wants to end the war, on condition that he achieves his objectives, as U.S. National Intelligence Director Avril Haines recently noted, these objectives are not yet clear.
While the time for such a meeting to end the war may not be at hand just yet, Mr. Bennett’s efforts and proposal for a path that gives Mr. Putin his off-ramp appear to be the best idea for ending this horrific conflict.
• Abraham Wagner has served in several national security positions, including the NSC Staff under Presidents Nixon and Ford. He is the author of the recent book “Henry Kissinger: Pragmatic Statesman in Hostile Times.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.