In mid-March, less than a month after Russia invaded Ukraine, political scientist Francis Fukuyama made a stunning prediction: Ukraine would win.

Six months later, Ukraine is on the offensive and recapturing key territory amid signs that the Russians’ will to fight is waning. The media show that the weapons and intelligence provided by the US and other allies are giving a powerful impetus to the Ukrainian counteroffensive.

NATO remains firm and united for Ukraine, despite Russia’s attempts to undermine its unity by limiting gas supplies to Europe.

Although it is impossible to say whether Ukraine will win, it is now a real possibility. Fukuyama, the author of the “end of history” thesis who now has a new book on the problems of liberalism, believes that the defeat of Russia — and Vladimir Putin — could reinvigorate liberal democracy and deal a blow to growing authoritarianism more generally. globe.

The Washington Post spoke with Fukuyama about the latest developments and what a Russian defeat could mean. What follows is an edited and condensed version of our discussion.

Greg Sargent: When we last spoke, you predicted a Ukrainian victory. Now Ukraine is on the offensive. What is the forecast?

Francis Fukuyama: Ukrainians will continue to let Russians escape. It’s hard to know exactly how long it will last. But I think it will happen sooner rather than later.

Now we can think about the final liberation of Crimea, given the pace at which the Ukrainians are advancing. Which creates a completely different geopolitical perspective for everyone.

If such successes are maintained, then it will be possible to think about the end of the war.

Sargent: What would a favorable result in Ukraine mean?

Fukuyama: The minimum condition is the expulsion of the Russians from the territories they conquered after February 24.

sergeant: You have identified one big uncertainty: will the Western democracies continue to support Ukraine as winter approaches and energy prices rise?

It seems that if Ukraine can continue to advance, it will be easier for Western leaders to convince their peoples to resist.

Fukuyama: I don’t think there will be a problem with keeping the unity of the western alliance this winter. Ukraine needed to demonstrate that there is light at the end of the tunnel from a military point of view. And made it pointed and full.

It will be relatively easy for European leaders to tell their peoples, “Yes, this is bad. We have inflation. Pay more for gas. But the Ukrainians are leaving. One winter will be enough to overcome this and make it possible to achieve a great victory for Ukrainian democracy.”

sergeant: Solidarity with Ukraine seems to be based on the willingness of citizens of Western liberal democracies to choose a side in the conflict between liberal democracy and illiberal autocracy.

Do you think people in Western liberal democracies understand this as a historical conflict between ideological alternatives?

Fukuyama: I think Putin represents something very sinister in the minds of many people in the West.

Many people in Western democracies see their country as having a right-wing nationalist politician who either supports Putin or behaves like him. Matteo Salvini in Italy; Eric Zemmour, Marine Le Pen in France; Viktor Orban in Hungary. And Donald Trump.

Therefore, I think that people with a more liberal mindset are aware that this alternative exists in their country as well.

sergeant: It’s like the International of right-wing authoritarianism. What do you think of the global right?

Fukuyama: I think it goes a lot deeper than people realize. Russia has given absolute support to all these right-wing politicians.

I don’t know of any democracy that hasn’t suffered from the Russian disinformation attack, which is designed to undermine people’s self-confidence and their trust in their own institutions and leaders.

sergeant: The idea that liberal democracies are an exhausted force, that they are decadent and can no longer make important decisions, seems to be the central axis of the propaganda of this authoritarian International.

What should be the result in Ukraine in order for the future of this right-wing International to suffer?

Fukuyama: There are two aspects here. One is to demonstrate that authoritarian decision-making can be extremely bad. Putin has already done it.

China is also doing a lot to undermine confidence in its own system with its insane “zero COVID” strategy.

However, I would say that the accusations against Western democracies are attractive because there is some truth to them. Many democracies have indeed failed to meet the challenges they face.

sergeant: We are here at a moment that looks like a TV screen split in two: liberal democracies are proving more determined and capable than many thought to unite in support of Ukraine.

On the other hand, our system still has enormous difficulties in solving major problems such as inequality and climate change. We are handcuffed by filibuster tactics [în SUA – n.trad.]. Political violence is on the rise. A strong authoritarian movement took root in the country. True elite accountability, as in the case of Trump, seems a distant prospect.

Shouldn’t we demonstrate that we can solve the problems for liberal democracy to thrive?

Fukuyama: First, the elections should be won by more liberal forces and parties in the West. In the short term, you cannot reform institutions if you have enough political power to do so.

I believe that the Democratic Party has recently failed to attract the centrist votes needed to win the Electoral College. This is one of the reasons for the success of Trumpism.

You must first solve the short-term problem of winning elections and gain enough political consensus to move on to deeper institutional repair.

Sargent: How do you see the institutional reforms in the USA?

Fukuyama: I would impose restrictions on Supreme Court judges. I would switch to preferential voting [vot pe listă, dar șansele candidaților sunt determinate de alegători, nu de partid – n.trad.]. Certainly the filibuster could be eliminated, or the number of votes needed to pass a regular bill through the Senate could be reduced to 60.

Such things can be done very well in a democratic framework. We made great strides in the 1930s when we were in a similar crisis. I think we can do it today.

sergeant: There seems to be a disturbing tension here. On the one hand, if Ukraine somehow wins, it will revive faith in liberal democracy. But on the other hand, we are dangerously close to the edge on all the issues that risk derailing our progress, regardless of what happens in Ukraine.

Add to that all the institutional obstacles that stand in the way of our democracy, and a very important opportunity could be lost.

Fukuyama: It can happen. But I really believe that if Ukraine can defeat Russia, the demonstrative effect of this fact will be really colossal. This will have domestic political consequences in every democracy threatened by a populist party.

There is a whole list of pro-Trump Republicans who have expressed sympathy for Russia and hostility to Ukraine on the grounds that authoritarian rule is mandatory. If Putin falls through a fiasco of his own making, this solution to America’s problems will be undermined.

I really think we could do with recapturing a bit of the 1989 spirit. Ukraine can cause something similar in the USA and Europe.

sergeant: Let me emphasize this optimistic scenario a little more. The obvious lesson of the last two decades seems to be that the alternative – white nationalism, Christianity, patriarchy, anti-democracy, authoritarianism – seems compelling to many people around the world.

How could success in Ukraine remedy this situation?

Fukuyama: First, there is no modern democracy in which this type of voter prevails. The problem is that the opponents of these populist nationalists have not organized sufficiently broad coalitions. They could not formulate a sufficiently attractive alternative.

But the potential is there because they have the majority of votes. I truly believe that a catalyst for democratic success can inspire the world.

Greg Sargent Interview – The Washington Post (Rador Acquisition)