Fiona Hill (Bishop Auckland, the United Kingdom, 59 years old) is one of the most outstanding Western experts about Russia and postsoviet space. She has worked as an analyst and security advisor for three administrations of the United States: that of Bush son, that of Obama, and Trump’s first, in this case with the deputy counselor of the president and principal director of European and Russian Affairs in the US National Security Council of 2017 to 2019. Daughter of an English mining and nurse Obrera, access Harvard and from there forge a star career and acquire US nationality. His statement in 2019 in the US Congress investigation for the procedure of Impeachment Trump is considered by many as an emblem of his brave independence of judgment.
He granted this interview on Monday in Madrid, where he attended the invitation of the Ramón Areces Foundation to pronounce a conference at its headquarters. Hill, who is currently a rector of the University of Durham, a member of the Harvard University Supervisors Board, Brookings Institution and Advisor researcher for the strategic review of the British Ministry of Defense, considers that Trump looks like an emperor, and exhorts Europeans to strengthen their union and defenses before a hostile international panorama.
Ask. You have been able to observe with your own eyes the interactions between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in the past. How would you describe the relationship between the two?
Answer. For Putin, the relationship is one in which he tries to take advantage of Trump’s weaknesses to be able to manipulate him. And Trump has not been able to do the same with Putin, because he is too dazzled with Putin as a symbol and as an example of what he wants to be. Trump wants to be an autocrat. He sees himself as a king, like an emperor. It looks like a colossus who walks on the world stage. And see Putin as that type of titan he wants to be. And unfortunately, he does not see him for what he really is, also someone with many weaknesses. He does not see that Russia is not the superpower that was the Soviet Union. And, frankly, at this time, all the influence on that relationship is Putin.
P. Putin has made it clear that he seeks to restore some type of sphere of influence of Russia; It is evident that he tries to divide the West and that he is very interested in seeing a weakened, less effective in the world stage. Are you winning?
R. Well, on the surface, yes, Trump seems to be giving Putin everything he wants. He is also talking about the world in terms of spheres of influence, something that previous presidents of the United States have not done. Trump is basically talking about the US to take almost literal control of the entire Western hemisphere. That is a victory for Putin, because it is the way he speaks about recovering territory that was once part of the Russian Empire, part of the Soviet Union. Putin would like to restore the status of Russia in Europe, which means dominance over Eastern Europe, without a doubt, but in reality much more than that. However, if observed in a more practical sense, with respect to war in Ukraine, Putin is not winning, of course. Putin saw the invasion of 2022 in the same line as the Soviet interventions in Eastern Europe in Hungary in 1956, in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The idea was that there would be a quick and forceful attack and that everyone would align again. He thought Zelenski would flee. But the Ukrainians decided to resist and, instead of being a special military operation that would end in a matter of days or weeks, it has become the largest military campaign in Russia in Europe since World War II.
The casualties for Russia are huge. More than 800,000 between dead and injured. If we consider the dead in combat, that the British and others estimate in about 200,000, they are shocking figures of dead Russian soldiers. In the Afghanistan war, during the Soviet era, they were only between 10,000 and 15,000. So there is not much victory there. As for the Russian economy, it is not stagnant, but it is overheated because it has become a war economy. 40% of the economy is dedicated to war, and increasing. And is it winning in terms of Europe? If the European powers reconstruct a European NATO pillar to be more independent in the United States, and if they remain firm in rejection of economic imbrication with Russia, then that is not a victory for Putin. He bets that the United States not only deliver Ukraine to Russia, but also push Europe to reopen a path to the reunion with Russia. And so far, he has not won in that.
P. He has just talked about Europe. What should be, in your opinion, the priorities of Europe to adapt to an era in which the US is moving away from decades of transatlantic alliances and at the same time faces the threat of Russian imperialism?
R. There are several things that should be done. First, Europe must recognize precisely what you have said: that you are trapped between a very aggressive Russia and some US that are no longer the reliable ally that were before and that certainly will not be the guarantor of European security. The greatest risk for Europeans right now is that there is great vulnerability in their critical national infrastructure. That should be addressed immediately. All our critical national infrastructure needs to be protected both from accidents, natural disasters, and hybrid attacks from other countries. That should concentrate European minds; You have to work more closely together, regardless of whether a country is in the EU or NATO. Europeans must collectively protect national infrastructure, build joint forces. Leave aside disputes on other issues and focus on national and collective defense, also on the exchange of intelligence.
P. You mention the risk of sabotage. How do we defend our democracies, which are under attack, both for manipulation, sabotage from Russia, and by internal misinformation and manipulation campaigns …?
R. That also requires collective action by Europe. It’s about using courts, monitoring and regulating. Of course, there will be pressure from the United States against this, with arguments that denounce the regulation of freedom of expression, but it is clear that in that field there is a subversion opportunity. Europe is very exposed to manipulation from Russia and also from the Hackivism American against his political system. I think it is already well known that in the case of the Catalan independence movement, Russia was highly manipulative. The same could happen from the US or from other groups within Europe. We have to take all these risks with extreme seriousness. So that means that we have to work together through all our different intelligence systems, both internal and external. We also have to undertake a campaign to ensure that our citizens are better informed about the risks.
P. We see authoritarian instincts by Trump and we also see hyperlibertary instincts by the oligarchs in the US. Is it optimistic that American democracy, admired by Tocqueville, is able to resist this combination of pressures?
R. I hope it is capable, but waiting is different from being optimistic. At this time I have become quite pessimistic because there has not been a reaction of Congress. Congress is crossed at this time. Trump has fully captured the Republican Party. The destruction of the American bureaucracy has eliminated the ability of the public sector to face. Too much emphasis is now falling to the courts. And as for civil society, it is under attack. The press is under attack. And universities, too. And we really have to see if these efforts to organize and counterattack from unions and other groups of workers, as well as universities, law firms and other civil society actors, will work. I hope they work, because it would be a great tragedy to see the end of the US Republic and its democracy on the eve of the 250th anniversary of the United States Revolution and Independence, which we were attending the return to tyranny, on the return of a king.
For more updates, visit our homepage: NewsTimesWire
