'Political bribe': Putin offered Trump Oleshky evacuation but fell into a trap – analyst

2 November, 11:37 AM

Exclusive

Read NV on Google

Evacuees from the Russian-occupied city of Oleshky feed their cat (Photo: REUTERS/Valentyn Ogirenko)

— Dmytro Lubinets, Ukraine's parliamentary commissioner for human rights, who led the Ukrainian delegation, faced considerable criticism. He was accused of being overly friendly toward Russian negotiators. Ihor, how would you respond? Where is the line between this demonstrative warmth or show of friendliness toward Russian representatives? And is it even worth looking for that line in the Oleshky situation? Some criticize Lubinets for smiling, while others thank him for his courage and willingness to take on such difficult work.

— My [information] bubble, by the way, hasn't been talking much about Lubinets because everything is obvious here: He was doing his job. I understand that some people might dislike certain aspects of how he communicated, but this is one of those cases where the ends justify the means.

And frankly, I don't care how many times he smiled or didn't smile at the so-called Russian ombudswoman. There is a result, and it is a very positive one. It is a result Ukraine has worked toward for a very long time.

So, in that sense, I don't think there are any grounds for criticizing him. He was doing his job. It was clear from the outset that this job would require communicating with representatives of the aggressor country.

By the way, members of our delegation regularly do the same when they travel to meet with the Russian delegation. And judging by some of the videos and photos we've seen from recent meetings, it would be wrong to say that everyone is glaring at one another, so to speak. Sometimes the atmosphere there is quite normal and constructive.

So I don't think this is the main issue. What matters most is the work that was done.

Something else was discussed more extensively in my circles: the overall media coverage of this entire operation, particularly on the Ukrainian side. And I'm not even talking about the fact that almost no Ukrainian television channels were present. As I understand it, there were only two journalists, one from 1+1 and one from ICTV. It is clear that this was a Russian demand and that, unfortunately, Russia determined which media outlets could be present. It was probably difficult for us to achieve any kind of parity because the Russians brought not only all their propaganda outlets but also numerous openly pro-war Z-bloggers, who produced their own reports.

It is clear that Ukraine faced certain restrictions. And I think those restrictions were imposed not only by Russia but also, to some extent, by the United States, which also sent fewer journalists than we would have liked.

At the same time, those journalists were actually a very pleasant surprise. I think Newsmax did a very good job. All its reports were clear, and they made it obvious that these were temporarily occupied territories, that Russia was the aggressor and that we were not seeing the full picture, so to speak.

But the main issue, in my view, was how the entire operation was communicated to the public, both in the days leading up to it, during the operation itself and afterward. Unfortunately, I don't think we saw any centralized coordination of the information campaign surrounding this operation. And the statements were ... It's not that they contradicted one another. No. But they came out late. It seems everything could have been handled much more effectively and promptly.

It is what it is ...

— What exactly do you mean? Lubinets handled virtually all the communication himself. He was very active in explaining almost every step. Personally, I was surprised that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy wasn't doing it. I'm simply used to positive human interest stories being something the president and his communications team always try to capitalize on. But in this case, the president was very cautious in his comments. I wondered whether perhaps Ukraine and Russia had reached some agreement that Zelenskyy would not speak openly about it.

— I don't know whether such agreements, which would impose restrictions on the Ukrainian president, are even possible. You have to admit, that would look rather strange. It would mean that the U.S. first lady [Melania Trump] could do whatever she wanted and comment however she pleased, while the president of the country where Oleshky is located, even though it is temporarily occupied, could not.

Perhaps there was simply a lack of information. It was obvious that all the information would come from Lubinets. But I'm talking about the overall external communication surrounding the entire operation. The preparations, how the media responded ... Initially, we were told not to disclose the presence of our journalists, but, as usual, our Telegram channels affiliated with the Presidential Office on Bankova Street reported it first thing in the morning ...

In short, I think the Russians invested far more resources in presenting this story to the outside world. We should have prepared some major reports. We should have established a media coordination center in Kyiv or somewhere closer to temporarily occupied Oleshky, where Western journalists interested in speaking with people involved in the situation and those who had been evacuated could have done so promptly, rather than once again relying on Russian media outlets for information.

At the same time, although the Russians invested heavily in this effort, they were not particularly successful in promoting their narratives. They failed to achieve what they wanted. But overall, they were better prepared.

It's difficult for me to say why that was the case on our side. Especially since the situation in Oleshky did not immediately attract the attention of Ukrainian authorities. First, civic activists, volunteers and bloggers started talking about it. Then the media picked up the story, followed by Dmytro Lubinets, and later the pope and the American involvement ...

Notice that, apart from the ombudsman, our authorities were extremely slow and reluctant to comment on these issues. Yet the difficult situation had been known since at least mid-summer. At that time, however, we saw no response from the authorities.

That response came much later, when the issue gained momentum at the grassroots level and began spreading widely. Only then did the authorities decide to take the lead in the process.

— In the fall, Foreign Minister Andrii Sybiha began recording videos calling for Oleshky to be saved. That came a little later, although the last humanitarian aid vehicle actually entered Oleshky, I believe, back in May. By the summer, volunteers and people with relatives there were already talking about severe food shortages in Oleshky.

One more question about Lubinets. I don't know whether these comments are being artificially amplified or whether they're coming from bots, but I'm also seeing criticism of him for supposedly playing political games. Some are suggesting that Lubinets is already setting his sights on the presidency from his current position. Is this simply the subjective opinion of certain individuals, or could there already be coordinated messaging campaigns targeting Lubinets?

— There could indeed be a campaign against Lubinets, by the way. Although I've seen posts from people who, for some reason, have started imagining him as the leader of a "peace" party.

— Yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

— On the one hand, it looks like criticism. On the other, it associates him with something that, in my view, he has absolutely nothing to do with.

And overall, I think this focus on our ombudsman as an individual is misplaced. Why? Because the man is doing his job. Incidentally, from a technical standpoint, he handled everything very well. He did everything correctly. He clearly understood whom he would have to communicate with in the temporarily occupied territory and how. Even his clothing was carefully chosen, with a Ukrainian flag, the national coat of arms on his cap and so on.

And I specifically noticed, by the way, that not all Russian channels blurred those symbols. Interestingly, some tried to do so.

— Some actually blurred them?

— Yes, they did. I think I saw one video where they tried to overlay something to obscure them. But overall, no, most of the footage aired as it was. Because it was filmed live and broadcast quickly, they simply didn't pay attention to it.

That was a very telling and revealing moment.

Where did all these accusations even come from? Apparently, from his tone of communication or certain photographs ... Let's not forget that a photograph is always, in a sense, taken out of context. We understand that, right? Someone can be speaking, and a photograph can capture them in a way that makes it look as though they're smiling or doing something similar. That's the first point.

The second point is that Lubinets described an incident toward the end of the operation. And I don't think he intended to convey what I'm about to say, but this incident probably demonstrates how well prepared our delegation was.

He said they had already left and were driving when they saw people standing by the roadside holding signs that read "Evacuation." He said he asked the Russian ombudswoman to stop. They stopped, got out, approached the people and asked where they wanted to be evacuated. All of them said they wanted to go to Ukraine.

And then he wrote that "after a brief discussion, we managed to persuade them and took everyone with us." Do you understand? That's the key point.

I think his behavior was simply dictated by the need, frankly speaking, not to give the Russians any excuse to find fault with something. Not to give them an opportunity to provoke anyone or do anything else unpleasant.

I'll repeat myself: The ends justify the means. We can see that the objective was achieved and that many people were brought back. So I think he did everything right.

As for the talk about the presidency and political ambitions ... I've been following this man for a long time, probably just as you have. I haven't seen a single statement from him that could, at this point, be interpreted as an expression of political ambition.

Could he decide to pursue political activities in the future? Possibly. But immediately casting him as a potential presidential candidate seems rather simplistic to me and certainly doesn't reflect the situation we're in.

So I'm surprised that these topics are being amplified and seriously discussed, with all sorts of conspiracy theories being put forward.

— This isn't our main topic right now, but I disagree with you here. Lubinets is an experienced product of the Volnovakha political school. He's been in politics for a long time. He served two terms as a member of parliament, and before that, I believe, he was a local council member in Donetsk Oblast. I do see political ambitions in him. It's just that we don't know when elections will take place, and all of this remains highly hypothetical and theoretical.

Looking at the evacuation from Oleshky more broadly, we have no illusions that Russia conducts humanitarian missions or operations for purely humanitarian reasons. There is always either a military or political objective. Why did Russia do all this? Do you have any idea?

— I think, first of all, it was something of a gift to [U.S. President Donald] Trump, let's be frank, a kind of political bribe. Trump will actively use this issue in the final days remaining before the elections.

And Trump decided to approach it from another angle: If people don't have much faith in his abilities as a peacemaker, there's the first lady, so let's try working through her. That's why I think [Russian President Vladimir] Putin gave Trump another gift.

The question is what Trump will now have to give Putin in return for that gift. That's a very important point. Did they have some kind of agreement along the lines of "I give you something here, and you give me something there"? That's the first issue.

Second, I think Putin needed to improve his image somewhat, particularly ahead of possible negotiations, and that's why he agreed to this arrangement.

And there is also a purely practical aspect. The situation in Oleshky had gone far beyond what might be considered a typical situation. I say "typical" with regret because we've seen similar situations in many cities along the front line or under temporary Russian occupation. But this situation was beginning to slip out of Russia's control, and it had become a matter of public attention.

The problem is that, on the maps of both the Russian and Ukrainian general staffs, the city is located in temporarily occupied territory. In other words, it is under Russian control. And even under the U.N. Charter, a country occupying territory bears full responsibility for everything that happens there.

I think the Russians became concerned that the issue would escalate further and that Russia would face constant accusations of humanitarian crimes, which are entirely justified. They needed to find a quick way out of the situation while also gaining some public relations benefits.

So Putin decided to play that game. But there's one thing. I think he has somewhat trapped himself with this situation, which works to our advantage. The only thing we don't know yet is how Trump will use it.

What's the trap? It's what the first lady of the United States wrote.

She wrote that "we carried out a very successful, brilliant operation. It was a model operation, and now we hope this approach can be applied to situations in other cities or even to ending the Russia-Ukraine war altogether."

That raises one simple question. If you can do this across a fairly large area ... And it really was a large area because the ceasefire also extended to Kherson for three days. In fact, four days of complete silence. Our military didn't even record any Russian troop movements or attempts to consolidate positions or anything like that.

So if you Russians can maintain this for such an extended period across one large area, what's stopping you from expanding it to the entire front line? And, with mediation by another country, in this case the United States, at least reaching a full, comprehensive ceasefire along the entire front line?

That's a question Putin will still have to answer. He was already providing his own answers during this ceasefire by carrying out terrorist strikes on Dnipro, Kyiv and other cities.

But I think he will be asked that question again. And they will have to think very carefully about how to respond because there is no answer.

Because, in reality, it's very simple. If it worked here, what's stopping them from extending it across the entire front line?

— So you believe Ukraine should now seek international support, perhaps again from Melania Trump or other mediators, and try to arrange similar local ceasefires in other areas?

— We've already started doing that. Yesterday, Sybiha wrote a post asking what's stopping us from doing this on a broader scale. It was a very good post, by the way. It was addressed to his counterparts and the entire international community. We simply need to push this issue as hard as possible now.

We started by discussing media coverage. This issue has considerable potential from a communications standpoint. We need to keep raising it.

If we succeeded here, let's keep moving forward. Let's take a larger section of the front line this time, rather than just a particular city facing such a situation.

Let's try to establish a [ceasefire] there. And then keep expanding it.

Russia would simply find itself trapped. The Russians have certain political considerations related to the war itself. But from a purely humanitarian and technical standpoint, what arguments could they possibly make against such a ceasefire? Especially when there's already a successful example that they themselves helped implement and that could be replicated elsewhere.

I think we'll definitely keep pushing this issue. We'll see how promising it turns out to be. A lot will depend, by the way, on how much attention Trump continues to pay to it in the context of future negotiations.

There is a problem, though. I'm afraid that by tomorrow he may have forgotten all about it. He'll focus on the "damn Democrats who want to take away his power" and spend the next few weeks dealing with those issues.

— So this would be another humanitarian mission? The international community would need to be convinced that there's a city or town where people also want to leave, where they're trapped and where food and medicine aren't getting through. It seems to me that this is the only way to push through another operation like this. Are there any other options that could force Russia to cooperate?

— Humanitarian demining, for example. There are countless villages along the entire front line that are in the gray zone, where people are living in the middle of a battlefield. The scale may not be as large as in Oleshky, but it all depends on how we present the issue. We really need to talk about it.

I think the humanitarian aspect is generally very underestimated, unfortunately. It's a paradoxical situation. But we need to draw more attention to it and connect it, among other things, to strikes on civilian infrastructure in Ukraine's rear areas, away from the front line, and to civilian deaths. Russia has killed more civilians in recent months than in previous years of the full-scale war.

All these issues should remain a constant focus of attention for major international media outlets, leading countries and so on.

Many people have been saying, particularly in connection with the Oleshky case, that we're losing the information war and that we're not doing enough to communicate certain issues. And I have to partly agree.

Because look at who's primarily communicating with international audiences on our behalf right now. It's essentially just one person. No matter how many interviews Volodymyr Zelenskyy gives — I think he gave about 12 in the past few days before speaking with journalists from 1+1.

It's mainly the president. But why only the president? We have plenty of other people who could be doing this, starting with our ambassadors, who should be holding news conferences after every terrorist attack and issuing statements, and extending to other officials working on these issues.

Of course, this is where we get onto shaky ground. The problem is that we simply don't have ambassadors in many key countries who could do this work. But that's a question for the Presidential Office: Why haven't they appointed them yet?

Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Google News