PACE President Theodoros Rousopoulos: Trump may lead us toward peace in Ukraine

The decisions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) are always widely covered in the Ukrainian media. However, the coverage is mostly in the format of "PACE called for," "PACE condemned," "PACE emphasized," and so on. Indeed, by its nature, this organization cannot force member states to take specific actions or, for example, coordinate the provision of military assistance.

Nevertheless, PACE resolutions, debates, and informal communication with its delegates - parliamentarians from across Europe - provide a good opportunity to gauge the general "temperature" in European politics. This is particularly relevant in today's times when the world, and Europe in particular, has been shaken by Donald Trump's victory in the US presidential elections, and peace negotiations regarding the Russia-Ukraine war have become a much more intense topic of discussion.

Today, PACE will hold debates on Europe's role in ensuring a just peace in Ukraine. RBC-Ukraine dedicated the main part of its conversation with PACE President Theodoros Rousopoulos, whose mandate was extended for another year earlier this week, to this topic.

Rousopoulos, due to his position, remains cautious in his wording. For example, he avoids advising Ukraine publicly on whether it should make concessions to Russia during negotiations. The PACE President has a strong interest in history. In his responses to RBC-Ukraine's questions, he frequently refers to past events, drawing on his rich political experience, including meetings with Vladimir Putin over twenty years ago and the ancient history of his own country, Greece.

Among other things, Rousopoulos reminds us that the Council of Europe was the only institution in the world that managed to expel an aggressor country (Russia - ed.) after the start of the full-scale war.

Theodoros Rousopoulos (Photo: @Council of Europe/Candice Imbert)

- On Thursday, the Assembly will have an urgent debate on the ''European commitment to just and lasting peace in Ukraine''. So how do you see Europe's role in achieving a just peace in Ukraine, in these times and these conditions?

- A very extended answer is needed here, but I'll try to be as brief as I can. Because the question actually indirectly tells us what Europe should do in general in this new world. And I believe that, unfortunately, Europe has lost a lot of its ground, not because of the war of aggression, but in general, in the last years, Europe has lost a lot of its ground that created the Western civilization as we know it. I think that, politically speaking or financially speaking, Europe has not the power that it used to have in the past.

The first disappointment for me as a pro-European, because I'm a pro-European, as I remember myself, was during the economic crisis. Instead of having a mechanism to face the economic crisis, we have asked for the IMF to come and save us. So, it was the first disappointment.

Then, we created some mechanism, and I think that we are much better now if a new economic crisis arrives. On the other hand, what happened with the war of aggression, Russia against Ukraine – the Europeans are united, and this is obvious. There are some exceptions, but I believe that, if not all, the high majority of the people and, of course, the high majority of the governments in Europe are supporting Ukraine.

The second issue is what's happening with the war per se? What is going to happen? Are things going to change now because of Mr. Trump, etc?.. Let me say that this institution, and especially this Assembly, is very proud because we are the first and the only assembly and institution globally that expelled the Russians.

I was there. I have been following all the discussions since scratch and I'm really proud that I was one of those who voted, and it was a unanimous vote at that time. Even if some member states decided to leave the Assembly and not to vote, but even though, those who were there unanimously have decided that.

The second is that I'm coming from a country which is supportive (for Ukraine, - ed.), and I'm proud to say that it is my country that was the first to be accused by the sort of representative of the foreign ministry of Russia that 'beware Greeks because you will be the next.' This was exactly the phrasing. And this shows that this man who is ruling Russia, whom I met many times in the past when I was a minister, is actually a dictator, he has an idea of the world, like ideas that are disgusting and against what this institution stands for.

The third that I want to point out is that from the first days, I have been close to my colleagues from Ukraine. I have texted them. No need to share what I told them. What I have said in public here on any occasion that I had the ability to speak as a parliamentarian is that we have to be aware because a war has a lot of stages. The first stage is the shock that we are all in. The second is the reaction. We want to be reactive and we are aggressive in this reaction, we're doing well because it's a war. But the third stage was the most worrying for me and this is what I've said to most of my colleagues from Ukraine – people believe it is normality. When people think that it is normality, then they will start not to be interested. And we have seen it. The first days, the first weeks, the first months, it was the first news in the bulletins. But then, sometimes, we cannot find what is happening in Ukraine. And the war is going on. Sometimeswe find what is happening in Ukraine because (I am not talking about this institution, I am talking about the ordinary people in Europe) the government decides to give some equipment, and some ammunition to Ukraine.

And then we have some opponents of this decision to be aggressive, saying why do we participate in the war, etc.

And then it is Mr. Trump that came, and things are going again on the top priority of the media because they are wondering what is going to happen after Mr. Trump's election and if he will play a crucial role to end this war, etc. So I don't know if I have answered your question, but I think that this is a global idea of what I believe about Europe, which, even if it is weaker than in the past, can play a role.

We gave the so-called 'lights of civilization' to the rest of the world. And this institution stood up in the most difficult times and expelled those who were the aggressors and who started the war. Peace must prevail, the territories must go back to Ukraine and to its people, and we can go to normal life.

Will it happen? I don't know if you will ask me later, but I'm afraid that the world is still divided in a different way than in the past. Now we have the Chinese who are more involved than they were in the past. In the past, they were always a big part of the world.

- Are you talking about the Cold War times, right?

- Yes. Then it was like, not isolated, but they were on the sidelines. And even with the USSR, they didn't have a good relationship.

- In your answer, you have mentioned several important aspects. First – as everyone may notice, last months and especially last weeks, there are really a lot of talks about some peace negotiations in this or that form. But do you really see some firm, good reasons for all these talks?

- As far as I remember, and correct me if I'm wrong, even in the first days of the war of aggression we had some peace negotiations between the two countries. So who would be against the peace negotiations? The question is what does 'peace' mean?

If peace means that the war is going to take an end, but things will stay as it is now, and territories which are conquered from a country neighboring to Ukraine will be a territory of Russia, then it’s not a peace we would like to support or to listen about. Of course, peace negotiation is something good in general and one will tell: if we don't have negotiations, how shall we know the results of this negotiation? So in principle, yes, but we have to put our limits, the red lines as they say, to what this peace is for.

Theodoros Rousopoulos (photo: @Council of europe/Candice Imbert)

- You also mentioned Donald Trump who may perhaps become a game changer for the whole world, in particular regarding the war in Ukraine, but not only. So actually do you think that his victory is going to seriously influence the future of Ukraine, the future of war, the future of peace? And do you believe that the so-called '100 days plan' that is widely speculated about, can really be agreed by all the sides and start to be implemented and so on?

- It was 2003, I think it was December. Shimon Peres, the late president of the Israeli Republic, visited Greece. He was not president at that time, he has been many times Minister of Foreign Affairs and Prime Minister. And we received him in our party's political group office. We were at the opposition, I was the spokesperson of the opposition, sitting by the president of my party. And Shimon Peres asked the president, what about the polls? And the president said Theodoros will tell you because this was my responsibility – communication.

And I told him that the polls are very good for us, we are going to win and it is for sure that within the next months when we have elections, we might be the winners. And he said: if I may give you some advice, you know, polls are like perfumes: it's very nice to smell them but very dangerous if you swallow them.

And then he said, if I may give you one second advice: when you are ruling the country, when you are elected, you say, I have 100 days to change everything. And then you wake up in the morning and the first year has already passed. And then you wake up in the morning and the second year has passed, and then you wake up in the third morning and say, I only have one year left…

So, I understand the need to do things fast, quickly. And Mr. Trump is, as a businessman, willing to do things very quickly. I can say that it is he who played a role, not only he, but he played a crucial role in the Middle East and the release of some of the hostages. Because it is Biden's administration but Mr. Trump played a crucial role and the Israelis have already said that in public. It's not only my opinion.

So is he going to do something in the first 100 days about Ukraine? I believe that he's going to try. And I have seen that Kremlin and Putin and all the people around Putin have already talked about Mr. Trump in a way of being closer than they were with the previous administration. Is it enough? In real life, in political life, and in international relations, I believe that personal relations play a crucial role. So I believe that he might lead us to a way of finding a solution or at least to a way of finding a common path for a dialogue, the peace process which you mentioned.

I'm not one who can foresee the future, but out of my experience, because we have an experience with Mr. Trump, and we have an experience of international history and such conflicts, those who are looking that they are very powerful, if they do not exercise their power in the first days of their ruling, their power is fading out, you know. It might be an opportunity. Let's hope so.

- As for personal relations, clearly, Mr. Trump is a man who really likes this way of doing things, when everything is based on his personal relationships. But do you see any danger that maybe something may happen behind Ukraine's back, I mean between Moscow and Washington, and even behind Europe's back? I mean, Putin and Trump make that 'deal' that Trump so often talks about. And neither Ukrainians nor the Europeans will like this deal, to put it very mildly.

- If one being involved in politics wants to be on the safe side of history, he has to know history, he or she has to be experienced and have this empathy, trying to understand what is happening. In such cases, the most important element is knowledge. Most of the people involved, especially those who believe that you can solve a problem easily, do not know the problem in depth.

I have a lot of issues that I can mention, some of them concern my country. Why are you and the Turks like enemies? Why are you buying weapons all the time, and you spend a lot of money? Why didn't you accept North Macedonia to be called Macedonia? And why do you believe that Macedonia is only for the Greek territory, etc.? Most of the people like Mr. Trump… no offense, but his job was something totally different. Until now, he has learned of course how to bargain, how to play as a big player in the global sphere in business.

But you have to understand that – all of us have to understand – the historical moment counts, not only because you decide to make the change, but because you have all the sensitivity to realize the sensitivities of the other. What does Crimea mean for Mr. Trump, for example? It's a small territory... Or Greenland? What does it mean? If it is only a territorial issue, and the power of those who have the power should prevail to those who do not have the power. Please take a look at the speech that I gave on Monday, my inaugural speech, and especially the last phrases of my speech, about the Athenians and the Milesians (about negotiations between ancient Athens and the island of Milos during the Peloponnesian war, when Athenians argued that power determines law, – ed.). If we approach this issue like the Athenians, of course, we will have a solution.

But this solution would not be a solution which would be adorable to the Ukrainians. It's not a solution which would be adorable to those who serve the truth or the just.

- One of the possible parameters of such a solution that is widely talked about, is the ban for Ukraine joining NATO. And the second one is the freezing of the conflict more or less along the current lines, whatever they are on that particular moment. Many people say that eventually we're going to come to this 'half-solution' or something like this, what do you think of it?

- I'm not going to talk about NATO. NATO countries decide. And it is not the business of this organization (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, - ed.).

Freezing might be a solution.

Theodoros Rousopoulos (photo: @Council of europe/Candice Imbert)

We have 50 years now, after the Turkish invasion in northern Cyprus, freezing procedures. They try to refresh them, they try to do something. Both Greek Cypriots or Turkish Cypriots, Greece and Turkey, it's 50 years now.

Is this a solution? Instead of having a continuous war, it might be a mid-term solution. But the expectancy of our life, of every human being, is like 70, 80, 90, 100 years. Talking about history, I just mentioned the story which comes back from 2,500 years ago between Athenians and Milesians, so in terms of history, maybe 30 or 40 or 50 years is nothing, but in terms of the life of the people, it's very important. Because now, for example, in Cyprus, you have the Greek Cypriots who do not speak Turkish, and you have the Turkish Cypriots who do not speak Greek. 50 years ago, on both sides of the island, when it was not divided, there were two communities, and everybody could communicate.

And I believe that this is very important when you are from different cultures, different nations, to speak the language of the other nation, of the other culture. So, according to history, freezing might not cost lives, of course, but it might cost in different areas of the history of Ukraine or Russia, or Europe.

- In your opinion, should Ukraine eventually agree to certain concessions to Russia, or should it instead stand on its initial goal, which is victory without any compromises? What's the way to go?

- This is not my job to say to the Ukrainian government what to do.

- Sure, but still, your opinion matters.

- I’ll tell you, when I was a journalist, I had a lot of experience, I had ideas about everything. When I entered politics, I was stupid enough to know only one side of the hill. Now I can see the other side of the hill. And when you are more and more experienced, then you understand that the less you talk, the better it is.

But now, since you are asking me, I will tell you why am I using this example. If you are involved in an issue, you know much better details than anybody knows. If I am in a quarrel with a neighbor of mine in Athens, and I know that he is crazy, and I know that he is demanding, and I know that he has a lot of money to take me to the court and not let me live my life cool, and I know that my children are in danger all because of his craziness, it is totally different what I will decide to do than if I know that I have a neighbor whom I can have some deals with.

So, I will not be the one, especially having this position in my capacity as President of the Assembly, to dictate to the Ukrainian government what they should do. They know much better than me. What we do is knowing, not in generalities, but in depth, a lot of issues, and of course, knowing that the principles must not be violated. We stand by them because we believe that they are on the right side of history, and I've said it many times in many cases.

- But lifting or keeping sanctions is definitely something that the international community is in charge of. So in your opinion, could lifting some of the sanctions against Russia be an option during the possible negotiations? And for example, regarding PACE, after the war ends in this or that way, may Russia return to the Council of Europe?

- It is too early, too premature to discuss this, because you know: Russia returned once, and after its return, started a war of aggression.

So no, I don't think that this is the issue now.

- Can you imagine a distant future, where a Russian delegation is sitting in the Hemicycle of PACE (main meeting hall, - ed.), and voting, and everything is going as normal? Is it possible?

- Okay, let me use one more story from my experience. It was the early 90s. I was in the headquarters of NATO in Brussels as a journalist, and to my surprise, I saw a lot of generals from the Russian army entering NATO. I'm 61 now.

I wouldn't ever imagine that the Cold War, the world divided in two sides, would lead to a day that Russian generals would enter the headquarters of their enemy. If you ask me for imagination, when I left politics, I think that I can write a novel, not about politics. I have a rich imagination, but let me not use it now. I can use it by finding solutions in the area that I have responsibilities in.

As far as your first part of your question is concerned... If restrictions or other decisions against Russia would help if we erase some of them, the Russians must show that they mean that they need to stop this war, they mean that they will go back, etc.

Otherwise, a professor of economics in my position would say: you see that Russia is now producing six times more weapons than they did before the war. Their unemployment went down to 2%, inflation went down to less than 2%. This is fake or this is true? Let's say that this is true. But what is this? Why is this happening? It is because of the war. You are creating an industry around the war and then you are pushing your economy like this. What did they gain in these years? I think that the one thing that they have gained in the international financial landscape is that they are now selling their gas or oil in their own currency, in some markets, because until then, it was only the dollar that counted.

Is it good for their economy? Will it make them feel more safe or more secure? Is Mr. Putin counting on this?

Theodoros Rousopoulos (photo: @Council of europe/Candice Imbert)

I remember once in the Kremlin, I asked him to give the guarantees that they had promised to the Greek government, the previous one, not the government where I was a minister, about some weapons that the previous government had bought. He replied, no, we would not do that. At first, it was an advisor, he said, we cannot do it according to our constitution. I said: but your constitution gives you the authority to do it. Mr. Putin interfered and said: listen, minister, we cannot do this. If we do this, we have to spare $350 billion. And I have $350 billion, but I mean to use them to strengthen my country and not even for social security system, as my advisor was telling me. So, you have a man on the other side of the table who decides to do what Mr. Trump says - make America great again - to do this for his country.

He was devoted. The dialogue that I mentioned was in December 2004. So, if he was so devoted 20 years ago, what do you think he is now, after believing that he is ruling a big part of the planet, not only his country, he is ruling his country easily, but a big part of the planet, or a big part of the planet which is not being ruled by Mr. Putin, is following him or is with him.

As of now, do you see any signals that lasting peace may be achieved in Ukraine?

- I have to be optimistic, that's why I'm in politics.

- The Council of Europe has always paid a lot of attention to democracy and fair elections. And for Ukraine, it's also an issue, as our elections had to be postponed for obvious reasons, martial law, and full-scale war, but this topic is still very hotly debated in Ukraine. So, in your opinion, when Ukraine should hold the elections, should we wait until their peace or ceasefire or whatever happens, or if there will be no peace this year and no end in sight of the hostilities, should we still try to somehow manage to hold the presidential elections, the parliamentary ones? What is the right way to go?

- I have two answers, but I'm sure that none of the two will satisfy you.

The first is that my position and my capacity is not to interfere in this internal politics because in Ukraine, political life goes on, the parliament goes on in its work, and the sessions are going very smooth, and of course, parliamentarians from all parties are participating in our Assembly. The second answer is from history. I don't remember if Winston Churchill led Great Britain at that time, during the war, in elections, do you remember?

- No.

- Be sure he didn't.

- And after the war, he lost the elections.

- Yes, he lost the elections in 1945, after the war. And not only this, I said that I know that everything is going on, the parliament is functioning, parliamentarians from all parties come here. I don't remember any kind of parliamentarian from the opposition to raise the issue in this hemicycle. I would not be the one to comment on that.

- But is it generally possible to solve the multiple issues regarding elections in Ukraine, like destroyed infrastructure, millions and millions of refugees all across Europe and beyond Europe, and so on? Is there a way to solve this technically? And may some form of voting via the Internet be a solution for Ukraine, technically?

- To tear down is easy to rebuild is difficult. But we try simultaneously with the peace process that will be preferred by the Ukrainian people, to find some solution. Some months ago we were in Germany, there was a very important international meeting about reconstructing Ukraine. So I'm optimistic that things will happen very fast when the war takes an end.

- The radical left and radical right parties are obviously on the rise all across Europe. Do you consider it to be a dangerous tendency, and what, in your opinion, can be done or should be done with this?

- Even if one can find something good in radicalism, I believe that it coincides with populism.

- Yes, very interconnected things.

- Which is very dangerous. So I don't separate if it comes from the one side or the other side, or from the center, because we have populists in all parties, in all political groups.

What does radical mean? Are you making a revolution? Are you revolutionary? A man or a woman that is going to create a new movement, a political one.

Theodoros Rousopoulos (photo: @Council of europe/Candice Imbert)

We have enough history to understand what we must do. This is thousands of years that people are exercising politics, and now all this knowledge is accumulated. And we have to take advantage of this knowledge. Radical populism is needed for those who have never read a book, who know nothing about culture, who know nothing about differences, do not respect the differences, do not respect the national identity, do not respect the personal identity or my choice in my life.

Or this so-called radicalism comes from people who… Let us philosophize for a while. They are very happy. They are very happy because they believe that they know the truth.

- They have simple solutions.

- They have simple solutions. I like simplicity in life. I like simplicity in my vacations. But, simplicity in a world where a lot of dilemmas are rising every day is not the solution. Those who are always promoting these populistic, easy solutions know nothing about life, know nothing about history, know nothing about real problems. I always say, real leaders are leading the people. The populists are following the masses. You have to decide where you are in politics.