‘Yes, He Would’: Fiona Hill on Putin and Nukes

In our conversation, Hill traced how long arcs and trends of European history are coming together in Ukraine. She said that we are already in the middle of a third World War.

Hill told me that we are treading back through old historical patterns that we said we would never allow to happen again.

Those old historical patterns include Western businesses who fail to see how they help build a tyrant, admirers of an autocrat, and politicians who point fingers.

It's not too late to turn Putin back, and it's a job that ordinary people can do.

Ukraine has become the front line in a struggle for maintaining a rules-based system in which the things that countries want are not taken by force, Hill said.

She warned of a lot of danger ahead. Putin is likely to use all the weapons at his disposal, including nuclear ones. It is important not to have illusions but also not to lose hope. We shouldn't be intimidated and scared. We have to figure out what we are going to do to head them off.

The transcript has been edited for clarity and length.

You have written one of the best biographies of Putin, and you have been a Putin watcher for a long time. What have you observed that other people might be missing?

Putin is more cynical and calculated than he has been in the past. He said things in the past few weeks justifying the war in Ukraine. The pretext is meaningless for anyone who isn't in the echo chamber or the propaganda in Russia. Do you mean to demand that the Ukrainian military lay down their arms and surrender because they are being commanded by a bunch of Nazi fascists? There is no sense to that. It is hard to imagine.

“Every time you think, ’No, he wouldn’t, would he?’ Well, yes, he would. And he wants us to know that, of course.”

Putin doesn't seem to be trying to make a convincing case. The same thing happened in the Russian response to the UN. You guys have been invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't tell me that I can't do the same thing in Ukraine.

There are few checks and balances around Putin. It became very clear that this was his decision when he spotlighted it during the performance of the National Security Council meeting. The heads of his security and intelligence services looked like they had been thrown off guard by how fast things were moving as he took full responsibility for war.

Putin is being driven by emotion, not by a plan.

The plan that he put the world and Europe on notice that Moscow would not accept the further expansion of NATO was a long time in the making. NATO opened a door to Georgia and Ukraine in 2008. It goes back to that point.

The National Intelligence Council was analyzing what Russia would do in response to the NATO Open Door declaration, when I was a national intelligence officer. One of our assessments was that there was a real risk of some kind of Russian military action against Ukraine and Georgia, not just the annexation of Crimea. The invasion of Georgia happened four months after the NATO summit. The Ukrainian government pulled back from seeking NATO membership because of the invasion. We should have addressed how we were going to deal with this potential outcome.

Reynolds: Do you think that Putin's current goal is reconstituting the Soviet Union, the Russian Empire, or something else?

The lands of the Soviet Union didn't cover all of what Russia sees as the Russian Imperium. That should give us pause.

The recent essay he published about Ukraine and Russia states the Ukrainian and Russian people are. The idea of a Russian World means re-gathering all the Russian-speakers in different places that were once part of the Russian tsardom.

I have joked about it, but I also worry about it because Putin has been looking through old maps and treaties in the archives of the Kremlin. He said that Russian and European borders have changed many times. In his speeches, he has gone after the former Russian and Soviet leaders, as well as the communists, because he believes they ruined the Russian empire. The borders of the old Russian imperium are still in play for Moscow because of Putin's view that borders change.

Dominance in that way?

It doesn't mean that he's going to annex all of them and make them part of the Russian Federation. You can establish dominance by marginalizing regional countries, either by making sure that their leaders are completely dependent on Moscow, or by ensuring that they are tethered to Russian economic and political and security networks. This can be seen across the former Soviet space.

Pressure has been put on the country to reorient itself toward Russia, instead of balancing between Russia and China. A couple of days before the invasion of Ukraine, Azerbaijan signed a military agreement with Russia. The leader of Azerbaijan has been resisting this for a long time. Russia has made itself the final arbiter of the relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Georgia was a thorn in the side of Russia for a long time. Moscow has completely taken over the country of Belarus.

The country that got away was Ukraine. Putin says that Ukraine doesn't belong to Ukrainians. He owns it and the past. He told us that he was going to wipe Ukraine off the map because it didn't belong on his map. Some rump statelets might be left behind by him. The Sanjak of Novi Pazar in the Balkans is one of the strange entities found on old maps of Europe. I used to think that was crazy. These places were created to prevent the formation of larger viable states in the region because of their dependency on a bigger power. If Putin has his way, Ukraine will not be the same as it was 30 years ago.

How far into Ukraine do you think Putin will go?

If he can, he's going to go all the way. He had many different options before this last week. He had the option of going in in full force as he is doing now, but he could also have focused on retaking the rest of the administrative territories of Luhansk. He could have joined up the lands in between and the lands in between and the lands in between and the lands in between and the lands in between and the lands in between and the lands in between and the lands in between and the lands in between and the lands in between and the lands in In fact, Putin tried to create New Russia, but it failed because local support for joining Russia didn't support it.

He is going to take the whole country if he can. We have to face up to this fact. Although we haven't seen the full Russian invasion force deployed yet, he's certainly got the troops to move into the whole country.

He has enough troops to move in, but does he have enough to occupy the whole country?

He may not have enough force to take the country for a long time if there is serious resistance. It is possible that he doesn't want to occupy the whole country, that he wants to break it up, or that he wants to leave some of it as rump statelets. I'm not saying that I know what's going on in his head. He may suggest that some parts of Ukraine are absorbed by other countries.

After the war in Donbas, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov attended the Munich Security Conference. He pointed out that there are many minority groups in Ukraine, such as Poles, Hungarians, and Russians. He almost invites the rest of Europe to split up Ukraine.

Putin wants to divide the country and not occupy it. He looked at places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and other places where there was a division of the country between the officially sanctioned forces and the rebel forces. It's something that Putin could live with, a fractured, shattered Ukraine with different bits being in different statuses.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Putin brought back a lot of countries that were independent. Ukraine has been the only country that has not been conquered by Putin.

Hill: Correct, Ukraine. It's bigger because of its location. That is what Russia wants to ensure, or that Putin wants to make sure that the other countries don't have an alternative to subjugation to Russia.

Reynolds asked how much of what we are seeing is tied to Putin's electoral schedule. He was able to increase his ratings and ensure his reelection because of his seizure of the peninsula. There will be another election in 2024. Is this tied to that?

Hill thinks it is. The Russian Constitution was amended in 2020 to allow Putin to stay on until 2036. He is going to be 84. He has to stand for election in 2024 to re-legitimate himself. They put Navalny in a colony and he was the only real contender. It would be a cakewalk for Putin in 2024, because he has rolled up all the potential opposition and resistance. He has to put on a convincing show that proves that he is popular and that he has the support of all the population.

There is a lot of apathy in the system and many people support Putin because there is no one else. People who don't support him will probably not vote. The last time his brand got old was before the annexation of Crimea. He was back at the top of the charts in terms of his ratings.

The electoral calendar may not be the only one. He will be 70 in October. In the larger scheme of things, 70 is not that old. There are a lot of politicians that are over 70.

It is old for Russians.

Hill said it was old for Russians. Putin has been rather puffy-faced. He has complained about his back issues. It could be that he is taking high doses of steroids, or that there is something else. There seems to be an urgent need for this that may be driven by personal factors.

It is 22 years since the last time a Russian leader left voluntarily or through elections, so he may have a hunch that time is moving on. Alexander Lukashenko thought that he might leave as a result of the protests, or he would die in office.

Stalin is the only other person who has been Russian leader in modern times longer than Putin.

Putin came to power after a series of operations that many have seen as a kind of false flag, bombings of buildings around Russia that killed Russian citizens, and a war in Chechnya. As a wartime president, Putin came to power. It was a difficult time for Putin after the annexation of the peninsula. Less than two years before he needs to stand for election again, we are seeing another big military operation. Is it wrong to see that pattern?

I don't think you are. There is definitely a pattern here. Part of Putin's persona as president is that he is a tough guy who protects Russia. Russia needs him because of that. Why would you need a man who was quiet and peaceful? In peacetime, if you think of other wartime leaders, one of them comes to mind is Winston Churchill.

I think this is the largest ground military operation that Russia has fought since Chechnya. What did we learn about the Russian military?

Hill: It's important that you bring this up because people are saying that Ukraine is the largest military operation in Europe since World War II. Chechnya is part of Russia and so it was the first largest military action in Europe since World War II. Tens of thousands of military and civilian casualties were caused by this conflict, which lasted for years after a brief truce. Grozny's regional capital was leveled. The casualties were mostly ethnic Russians. This became a military debacle on Russia's own soil after the Chechens fought back. After NATO intervention in the Balkans in the 1990s, Moscow worried that NATO might intervene.

In the last two months, what have we learned about NATO?

Initially, not good things. The political and diplomatic forces have rallied in response to NATO's military defense.

We need to think about it in this way. We have had a long-term policy failure in thinking about how to manage NATO's relations with Russia to minimize risk. NATO protects national security for Europe and the United States. After the end of the Cold War, we thought we had the best insurance for the dangers we could face, but for a discounted premium. We did not take enough steps to address and reduce the risks. We can now see that we didn't do our due diligence and fully consider all the possible contingencies, including how we would mitigate Russia's negative response to successive expansions. When the hazard was large, like during Hurricane Katrina or the global financial crisis in 2008, those insurance companies got into major trouble. They and their clients were underwater. NATO members are learning this.

There is the nuclear element. Many people think that a large ground war in Europe or a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia would never happen. How close are we to that?

We're right there. In recent days, President Putin has made it clear that if anyone tries to interfere in Ukraine, they will be met with a response that they have never had before. He is making it clear that nuclear is on the table.

I don't think Trump was aware of what Putin was saying. In one of the last meetings between Putin and Trump, Putin made the point that we have hypersonic missiles. If push came to shove in a hostile environment that the nuclear option would be on the table.

Do you think he will use a nuclear weapon?

The thing about Putin is that he wants to use his instrument. Why have it if you can do it? He has already used a nuclear weapon. Russian operatives poisoned Alexander Litvinenko and turned him into a human dirty bomb and it was spread all around London. He died a terrible death.

Novichok was used by the Russians. They have used it several times, but twice. The nerve agent was used on Sergei Skripal and his daughter, who did not die, but the city of Salisbury was contaminated and anyone who came into contact with it got sick. Dawn Sturgess was killed by Novichok because the assassins stored it in a perfume bottle which was discarded into a charity donation box. There was enough nerve agent in that bottle to kill many people. Alexander Navalny wore his underpants the second time.

If anyone thinks that Putin wouldn't use something that he has, think again. He would, every time you thought about it. He wants us to know that.

We shouldn't be scared or intimidated. That is what he wants us to be. We have to figure out what we are going to do to head them off.

How do we deal with it? Is there enough sanctions?

We can deal with it on our own. This has to be an international response.

Reynolds is larger than NATO.

It has to be bigger than NATO. I'm not saying that means an international military response that's larger than NATO, but the push back has to be international.

We have to think about what Putin has done and what we are facing. People don't want to talk about World War II, but I'm going to talk about it. The Holocaust and the decimation of the Jewish population of Europe are the major elements of World War II.

The seizure of the Sudetenland and the Anschluss by Germany was done on the basis that they were German speakers. The invasion of Poland. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact allowed the Soviet Union to take parts of Poland but also allowed the Germans to invade the Soviet Union. Invasions of France and all of the countries surrounding Germany. Germany engaged in a huge territorial expansion and occupation. The Soviet Union fought back. Vladimir Putin's own family suffered during the siege of Leningrad, and yet here he is doing the same thing.

Similar to Hitler, he uses a sense of massive historical grievance combined with a veneer of protecting Russians and a dismissal of the rights of minorities and other nations to have independent countries in order to fuel territorial ambitions.

Hill: Correct. He is blaming others and getting us to blame ourselves.

Many people around Europe became Nazi German sympathizers before the invasion of Poland in World War II. There was a lot of British politicians who admired Hitler for doing what Great Powers do, before the horrors of the Blitz and the Holocaust finally penetrated.

You can see this now.

You can see it. Unfortunately, we have politicians and public figures in the United States and around Europe who have embraced the idea that Russia was wronged by NATO and that Putin is a strong, powerful man and has the right to do what he does.

We said that we would never allow it to happen again and now we are treading back through old historical patterns. The rise of Hitler was aided by the German business community. Everyone who has been doing business in Russia has contributed to Putin's war chest. Our investments are more than just boosting business profits. They are the main source of fuel for Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

Just like people didn’t want their money invested in South Africa during apartheid, do you really want to have your money invested in Russia during Russia’s brutal invasion and subjugation and carving up of Ukraine?

Reynolds, do you think that the government's sanctions are enough to address the larger threat?

Hill: Absolutely. Sanctions aren't going to be enough. You need a major international response, where governments decide on their own accord that they can't do business with Russia for a period of time until this is resolved. There needs to be a suspension of business activity with Russia. We wouldn't be having a full-blown diplomatic negotiation for anything other than a ceasefire and withdrawal, so it's the same thing with business. Right now, you're helping the invasion of Ukraine. We need a suspension of business activity with Russia until they stop fighting.

So ordinary companies.

Ordinary companies should make decisions. This is the epitome of good environmental, social and corporate governance, that companies are saying is their priority right now. Do you really want to have your money invested in Russia during Russia's brutal invasion and subjugation of Ukraine, just like people didn't want their money invested in South Africa during apartheid?

Western companies should pull out of Russia if they are investing in mutual funds. People who sit on the boards of Russian companies should resign. Many major Russian companies are tied to the Kremlin, but not every company is. Major German enterprises were used in support of the Second World War. We are seeing the same thing now. Russia wouldn't be able to afford this war if it weren't for the fact that oil and gas prices are increasing. They have enough in the war chest for now. This will not be sustainable over the long term if there is no investment in Russia and all of the Russian commodities that are being purchased on world markets. Saudi Arabia should be increasing oil production right now as a temporary offset. They are indirectly funding the war in Ukraine by keeping oil prices high.

This needs to be an international response to get Russia to stop military action. India abstained from the United Nations and other countries are hoping that will change. This is not going to go away, and it could be next, because Putin is setting a precedent for countries to return to the type of behavior that sparked the two great wars. Throughout history borders have changed. Who cares?

Reynolds: Do you think he will stop at Ukraine?

Hill said that he won. In a struggle for maintaining a rules-based system in which the things that countries want are not taken by force, Ukraine has become the front line. Every country in the world should be paying attention to this. Most countries have benefited from the current international system in terms of trade and economic growth, even if some countries like China and others think that this is permissible. This is the end of the story. Russia has done that.

Reynolds said that he blew up the international order.

Hill: Exactly. The Chinese will step in if I pull out of Russia, that's what every investor always tells me.

The more we talk, the more we use World War II analogies. There are people who think we are on the verge of a war.

Hill is already in it. We have been here for a while. World War II was a consequence of World War I and we had an interwar period between them. We had that again after the Cold War. The Russian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire were carved up at the end of World War I. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire has led to war in Syria, as well as in Iraq and Kuwait.

All of the conflicts that we are seeing have roots in earlier conflicts. We are in a war over Ukraine. People shouldn't think that we're on the verge of something. We have been in it for a long time.

This is a full-spectrum information war, and what happens in a Russian war, you make the enemy softer. Tucker Carlsons and Donald Trump are doing their job for you. The fact that Putin persuaded Trump to give up Ukraine without a fight is a major victory for him. I mean he has a lot of Republicans, some on the left, and a lot on the right in the U.S. public. This is what the Russian information war and psychological operation is all about. He has been seeding this terrain as well. We have been at war for a long time. I have been saying this for a long time.

The world didn't see Hitler coming, but we didn't see Putin coming.

We shouldn't have. He has been around for 22 years and has been here since 2008. I don't think he initially set off to do all of this, but the attitudes towards Ukraine and the feelings of loss, they have all been there and building up.

Russia is asserting that it might make right. No one has the right to destroy another country, even if they want to, because Putin opened up a door for Europe after World War II.