Max Hastings, in London, last Friday, May 19Ione Saizar
Max Hastings (London, 77 years old) has the courage, authority and wisdom to say whatever he wants, even if many do not like it. War correspondent for the BBC, with which he covered the Vietnam conflict, he was director of emblematic newspapers such as The Daily Telegraph – which he knew how to bring to a centrist conservatism – or the Evening Standard, and is the author of more than 30 books of military history as enjoyable as rigorous. The latest, The Cuban Missile Crisis 1962 (Editorial Crítica), an analysis of a moment in history when intelligence prevailed over instinct and humanity was spared a nuclear disaster. Hastings draws parallels and lessons from the current crisis in Ukraine. And he does not cut himself when attacking Brexit or Boris Johnson, whom he had as an employee and for whom he expresses absolute contempt.
More information
Daria Serenko, activist: "Russia is a terrifying country for LGBTI+ people"
QUESTION. You say that, as you get older, you are more convinced of the fallibility of the intelligence services. The missile crisis was a case in point.
ANSWER. The worst thing about that crisis is to see that an event that brought the world to the edge of the precipice was the result of an absolute incomprehension and mutual knowledge. The Americans kept looking for the complex motives that could explain the behavior of the Soviets. There weren't. What the Russians did was as stupid as it seemed. And yet, the White House team argued for days about what the USSR intended. The idea that the Soviets were stupid enough to think they could hide these missiles under the palm trees of Cuba was inconceivable.
Q. The Americans miscalculated... and the Soviets.
A. We now know that the Russians misread America's attitude in every phase. The ultimate reason they decided to remove the missiles was that they were convinced that the White House was about to launch an invasion on Cuba, which was not true. It is quite sobering to note that, even today, big decisions are made with extraordinarily limited knowledge of what is happening.
Q. Are there lessons for a crisis like the one in Ukraine?
A. Russia is different from the USSR. It is more dangerous, the old Soviet Union was handled differently. Khrushchev was the leader, indisputably, but he had to answer to the Politburo. And the Politburo had its own opinions and expressed them. Today there is no longer a Politburo in the Kremlin, and Putin can decide for himself. I sometimes read, in the conservative press in the West, that Putin is issuing an order with his nuclear threats. That may be true, but can we take that risk? After the missile crisis, it became clear that in the nuclear age it is no longer possible to speak of absolute victory and that most conflicts end unsatisfactorily.
Q. He has drawn criticism by expressing reservations about the general consensus on what happened in Ukraine.
A. We would all like to see Putin's defeat, and Russia brought to its knees. Russia's behavior may be horrible to us, but Russia is a reality, with its own opinions. It is clearly not up to them to define what role Ukraine has in the world, but neither can we pretend that Russia does not exist. And at the end of this conflict, when some kind of agreement is reached, I will be very surprised that that agreement includes the possibility of Ukraine being part of NATO.
Q. The UK has probably been the most radical voice in defending Ukraine until the end.
A. Much of that is hollow rhetoric. If the British were to be demanded of a sacrifice for Ukraine beyond the current limits, they would begin to complain. Boris Johnson decided to embrace Zelenskiy because he lacks moral principles. He is probably the most selfish human being I have ever met. I don't think Ukraine matters to him at all. He hugged Zelenskiy when his own career was in question, and when he discovered that he was something popular, he did not let go.
Q. But Rishi Sunak has not reduced the warrior ardor one iota.
A. All our politicians are very bad nowadays when it comes to having to convey to their electorate unpopular or difficult things. Several British leaders have already said that Russians must be expelled from the Donbas region or Crimea. They should measure their words and limit themselves to the formula of "we will fully support Ukraine" without specifying geographical boundaries. This is absolutely irresponsible.
Q. You ask that the voices of countries far from this pro-Ukrainian consensus be heard.
A. We live in a world that is divided into three camps. On the one hand, the G-7; on the other, China, Russia and other autocratic governments; and, finally, what they now call the Global South, even if not exactly the South, which refuses to take sides on one side or the other.
Q. Isn't that the Non-Aligned movement of the last century?
A. Yes, but during the Cold War both the United States and the USSR were very powerful, and those nations very weak. They could force them to position themselves, more or less, whether they wanted to or not. That is no longer the case. Now, the latter can say that they are not in the game, and it is no longer enough to try to convince them that what the West stands for is the morally right thing to do. If you want to understand foreign policy, it is key to be able not only to accept the logic of the other party, but to understand how different it can be. It's a hard lesson, many of our leaders don't get it.
Q. Do you share the idea of decline of the United Kingdom expressed by many, inside and outside the country?
A. I think the root of all our problems lies in the exaggerated sense of importance we attach to ourselves. I love this country, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else. But I have a very clear view: we are a big economy, yes, but we are no longer important. Before Brexit, supporters of leaving the EU believed that the US would welcome us with open arms and a new trade deal. I have lived there. It's not that they don't like us, it's that they don't care about us at all. They like to come to the UK, but for shopping and going to the theatre, little else.
Q. And Brexit as the origin of many evils...
A. I am a conservative of the most progressive wing. The center where I feel comfortable no longer exists in most countries. In my house we take a rather hard line: since 2016, we have not received anyone who had supported Brexit. I am a pro-European and a passionate internationalist. Our destiny is next to that of Europe. No one dares to say today that Brexit was a catastrophe [Hastings does not consider the populist Nigel Farage, who said it two weeks ago, relevant]. No one in the House of Commons has the courage to admit it was madness.
Sign up for the weekly Ideas newsletter here.
75% discount
Subscribe to continue reading
Read without limits
Read more
I'm already a subscriber