Nicely written and very insightful. Your point that "Putin is not the first autocrat to confuse his personal destiny with that of his country" is an excellent one. I was surprised at the vehemence of the Kremlin response to Biden's 'thug' comment, considering the considerable 'real' damage inflicted by the weapons of the west and the sanctions. Your comment puts that response in a different light. Thanks for your work.
I listened to Lawrence’s book years ago as I explored the Malaysian jungle. A somewhat odd combination but it helped pass the time.
My question for next Thursday is “how hard is strategic change? After a party has seen a strategy fail so badly, how do succeeding strategies fare? What are the things that need to be done to make a change in strategy successful? Is Russia doing them?”
A question for later please: is Putin likely to use chemical weapons against civilians? If in the future we know with certainty that he has done so, do you think western leaders could intervene militarily and is there a precedent for a “limited” hot conflict between 2 nuclear powers?
Why on earth would anyone who calls themselves a realist suggest to Zalensky he makes painful compromises with Russia? Even if he was prepared to consider it (and anyone who’s seen a hint of it is hallucinating) it would be political suicide. Even suggesting it is dud ‘realism’ -request something you’ve no chance getting and needlessly undermining your influence.
I think it’s pretty clear what Putin wants – the expansion of Russian influence/power and the reversal of the lost cold war. He’s virtually said so and his actions over many years suggest he’s sincere. It’s naïve to think he’ll change or not keep trying if he has the capacity to do so. The ‘realist’ response is to cripple his war machine so he can’t. Perhaps a palace coup could result in a leader able to compromise without lost face but realism suggests pulling Putin’s teeth (militarily and economically) is the safest and most morally acceptable choice. That’s a boon we can’t plan for but supporting Ukraine is the best way to encourage it.
In fact unsentimental Western realists would be pleased with how the war’s going, however tragic it is for Ukrainians. Russia’s military is bogged down with every sign it’ll sink ever deeper in the mire. It’s bleeding large numbers of men and equipment each day and there’s months, perhaps years more fighting unless it gives up. Its supporting economy is going down, down, down with no prospect of the slide arresting in the medium,(perhaps long term. Russia’s ‘soft power’ has been annihilated. It was never loved and retains ever less respect as its power wanes. Financing Ukraine’s war effort is sustainable and much cheaper than putting your own forces in harm’s way. A sound investment if it neutralizes a dangerous war-monger.
Russia’s cooking nicely with no sign it can get off the spit in a hurry. That’s how the realists see it.
I find that the realists that are Putin appeasers actually have a poor grasp of reality. They think Russia is a great power on the level of the US or China rather than Iran+Saudi Arabia+a ton of nukes.
The realists who are in touch with reality think like you do.
Excellent article, thank you for your insight. I’m not sure I see any kind of diplomatic agreement to end this war where Putin can be trusted. His use of hybrid warfare will continue while he claims innocence. Hard to see any solution until the sanctions wreck Russia and there is regime change. With a full press, maybe the answer is bankrupt Russia, and while they go back to the early 1990’s, the USA imposes Pax Americana III, strengthening the liberal order by expanding the EU and NATO.
I'd like to think there is a Pax Americana again but more likely is the Ukraine War kicking off Cold War II (with China) just as the Korean War (where we fought China) kicked off Cold War I with the USSR.
I hadn't thought about the Hirohito deal. That's interesting because so many people are immersed in the moral valence of this war and its central characters that my biggest worry is that sentiment will get in the way of the practical question of how to bring about the end of suffering.
Hirohito was politically neutered after WWII, though. I doubt Putin (or any other Russian, for that matter) would be OK with keeping him around as a figurehead. He's not some god-emperor descended from gods as Hirohito was seen.
And I want to minimize suffering not just now but in the future. I think allowing Putin to stay in power makes more suffering in the future more likely.
We should convene a war crimes tribunal immediately, and start indicting defendants. We failed to do this in World War II, and had to wait until the Nuremberg tribunal, despite the fact we knew that the holocaust was happening. With the Former Republic of Yugoslavia will better, and convened the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. One aspect of my life I can be most proud of is having served in Bosnia, supporting UK special forces hunting down Persons Indicted For War Crimes. They were all eventually captured or killed. The same must be done again.
For just one example, the Baltic states have warned of Russia's essentially toxic nature for decades, and we have arrogantly ignored them. Here's what one Estonian described as a "Taste of 500 years of history":
1558-59 Russian forces ransack Estonia.
1700 Peter I attacks Estonia.
1721 Estonia annexed into Russia, 75% of the population killed in the war.
Russia appears to be congenitally toxic. They're a pre-modern society which has never had freedom, democracy, a functioning judiciary or reliable property rights. Instead, for over a century they've failed to evolve from a series of autocratic, tyrannical dictatorships. Russians working for Stalin murdered over 20 million of their own citizens in famines, purges and gulags, let alone their brutal subjugation of their long-suffering neighbours. This is deeper than “just a few bad apples at the top”. Germany had a notable excursion from sanity from 1933 to 1945, but was a normal, western state before and after this period. Russia has consistently been a rogue state for over 100 years. I suspect Russia is the victim of its own history. Every chapter of a Russian history book ends “and then things got worse.” There is is a national sense of insecurity which means the default system of government is totalitarian and that it leaders dare not refrain from totalitarian methods. The majority of the population find it easier to do the leadership's bidding, however evil, than to stand up to them. As one analyst warned, "it is much more convenient for Russians to believe the regime’s lies. Psychologically it is easier to ignore reality and trust propaganda. Until they begin to see the damage this war brings to their own world, their own society, and their sons.” https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/russias-information-war-painful-truths-vs-comfortable-lies
Russia’s main weakness is demographics (see https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1504585616834457619). This is why they have so few infantry escorting their tanks, which makes the latter easier to kill. Long term, the world should seek to exacerbate their military manning problems. The more Russians who can be exterminated in Ukraine the better. Apparently, the Ukrainian military is attempting a combination of attacking Log and HQ/C2 nodes (i.e. a very manoeuvrist approach), with an attrional approach of attempting to impose mass casualties on Russian troops. The more killed, the better. Further, the greater the extent to which Russia itself can be depopulated by encouraging its population to flee, and by starving the rest so they choose not to breed, and those who do die young, the harder it is for Russia to generate infantry. Perhaps the best thing that can happen thanks to Putin's war is that the West leaves blocking sanctions imposed on Russia for decades, and literally starves its ability to function as a state: including its war-fighting ability. In other words, simply removing Putin leaves the country intact; doing to Russia what we did to Iraq in the 1990s would bring the country to its knees, and maybe preferable.
Finally, the reason why Russia is so dangerous is because it is a nuclear armed. Before sanctions are lifted on a post-Putin Russia, it should be required to unilaterally disarm: destroy all of its nuclear weapons, storage facilities, launchers, nuclear trains, military nuclear research facilities, etc.. Russia has been an evil, aggressive presence in international relations since time immemorial. It has no redeeming features. If a future, post-Putin, Russia has no aggressive intentions, it will be willing to unilaterally disarm. If it refuses, we should continue to starve it: their choice to pay for missiles instead of medicine, they should suffer accordingly. every Russian child with staff to death is one fewer potential future Russian soldier we have to bayonet to death. The world should not allow for the possibility of future nuclear blackmail.
There is now a possibility of Ukrainian military victory, if Russia does have to remove forces from exposed positions. Retreat under fire is the most difficult of all military maneuvers to execute, and can easily turn into an uncontrolled rout. Whole formations could surrender, and as of now Russian forces have failed to execute much easier maneuvers.
As always an excellent analysis ! I think Mr. Freedman made the point when he commented that Putin is not the first autocrat to confuse his personal destiny with that of his country. We try to think of Russian strategy in material terms but a lot of what is happening is within Putin´s mind & psichology. What happens if an autocrat´s plan misfires as it happened to tsar Nicholas I or more recently to Hitler ? They might have the wish to bring down the world with them as a sort of punishment and vengance.
Luckily Putin is not one of them and his control of power is not boundless. As war drags on there will be cracks on the system. Population has not much to say but oligarchs,security apparatchiks and military leaders will wonder if they can afford keeping all this frenzy on. We know that not everybody will be happy scaling up the armed deployment.
Excellent article. Perhaps now is the time to engage conversation with the Russian generals and ask them whether their leader is acting in the interests of their nation, their people and their economy. If not, why are they continuing to obey him?
One almost gets the impression that in the back of your mind you believe Zelensky should have surrendered immediately to prevent all the suffering and satisfy Putin’s dreams. No deaths of civilians.No leveling of cities. No millions of refugees. No threat of nukes. No high oil prices. No revitalization of NATO. Business as usual with a satiated Putin.
"If, as Zelensky has stated, any peace deal should be put to a referendum, it is not hard to guess that any debate will be dominated by hawks rather than doves."
If it ever got to such a stage it would be a situation similar to the Armistice of 1918, Ukraine would have to give up territory and military material to Russian custody such as to make resumption of hostilities extremely disadvantageous to Ukraine - hence the carrot to make the referendum succeed would be the return of occupied territories other than the Donbass (and Crimea)
Well if Ukraine is winning the war, then they aren't going to make territorial concessions anyway, so there will be no need for a referendum. I was just pointing out how a referendum-dependent settlement would work, if it got to that point. The Ukraine government would be strongly backing the "yes" vote as their preferred solution.
Ukraine is certainly winning the war on twitter, but governments that are winning wars don't generally sacrifice 10 000 troops to be ground to pieces in a major city when offered the chance to have them lay down their arms and be evacuated to government held territory.
Actually, holding Mariupol and attritting is the way to go regardless of how the war is going. The UA also doesn't have 10K in Mariupol.
But in any case, evacuating is an option only if Russia can be trusted to allow anyone to evacuate safely and their history shows that Russia can't be trusted to do that.
BTW, saying that any peace deal would be subject to a referendum is a smart move: it essentially means that a disarmed Ukraine isn't an option. Russia just has to live with that.
Well stated. If Putin wants to go back the way he came, he will find North Korea waiting for him. But a North Korea that must block the truth from all sides. He cannot win in Ukraine, but he must win. One hopes his delusions about himself extend to his ability to survive. Or his delusions are not blinding that he will finally stop the escalation.
Nicely written and very insightful. Your point that "Putin is not the first autocrat to confuse his personal destiny with that of his country" is an excellent one. I was surprised at the vehemence of the Kremlin response to Biden's 'thug' comment, considering the considerable 'real' damage inflicted by the weapons of the west and the sanctions. Your comment puts that response in a different light. Thanks for your work.
Excellent analysis, as always.
Couple of typos - I think you may be missing a word in "The actions of Russian forces in those towns and cities that [they?] have recently occupied"
And you probably do not need the "the" in "hawks rather than [the] doves"
Many thanks - have fixed those two.
I listened to Lawrence’s book years ago as I explored the Malaysian jungle. A somewhat odd combination but it helped pass the time.
My question for next Thursday is “how hard is strategic change? After a party has seen a strategy fail so badly, how do succeeding strategies fare? What are the things that need to be done to make a change in strategy successful? Is Russia doing them?”
A question for later please: is Putin likely to use chemical weapons against civilians? If in the future we know with certainty that he has done so, do you think western leaders could intervene militarily and is there a precedent for a “limited” hot conflict between 2 nuclear powers?
Sino-Russian border conflict, 1969.
My question exactly
Why on earth would anyone who calls themselves a realist suggest to Zalensky he makes painful compromises with Russia? Even if he was prepared to consider it (and anyone who’s seen a hint of it is hallucinating) it would be political suicide. Even suggesting it is dud ‘realism’ -request something you’ve no chance getting and needlessly undermining your influence.
I think it’s pretty clear what Putin wants – the expansion of Russian influence/power and the reversal of the lost cold war. He’s virtually said so and his actions over many years suggest he’s sincere. It’s naïve to think he’ll change or not keep trying if he has the capacity to do so. The ‘realist’ response is to cripple his war machine so he can’t. Perhaps a palace coup could result in a leader able to compromise without lost face but realism suggests pulling Putin’s teeth (militarily and economically) is the safest and most morally acceptable choice. That’s a boon we can’t plan for but supporting Ukraine is the best way to encourage it.
In fact unsentimental Western realists would be pleased with how the war’s going, however tragic it is for Ukrainians. Russia’s military is bogged down with every sign it’ll sink ever deeper in the mire. It’s bleeding large numbers of men and equipment each day and there’s months, perhaps years more fighting unless it gives up. Its supporting economy is going down, down, down with no prospect of the slide arresting in the medium,(perhaps long term. Russia’s ‘soft power’ has been annihilated. It was never loved and retains ever less respect as its power wanes. Financing Ukraine’s war effort is sustainable and much cheaper than putting your own forces in harm’s way. A sound investment if it neutralizes a dangerous war-monger.
Russia’s cooking nicely with no sign it can get off the spit in a hurry. That’s how the realists see it.
I find that the realists that are Putin appeasers actually have a poor grasp of reality. They think Russia is a great power on the level of the US or China rather than Iran+Saudi Arabia+a ton of nukes.
The realists who are in touch with reality think like you do.
Excellent article, thank you for your insight. I’m not sure I see any kind of diplomatic agreement to end this war where Putin can be trusted. His use of hybrid warfare will continue while he claims innocence. Hard to see any solution until the sanctions wreck Russia and there is regime change. With a full press, maybe the answer is bankrupt Russia, and while they go back to the early 1990’s, the USA imposes Pax Americana III, strengthening the liberal order by expanding the EU and NATO.
I'd like to think there is a Pax Americana again but more likely is the Ukraine War kicking off Cold War II (with China) just as the Korean War (where we fought China) kicked off Cold War I with the USSR.
I hadn't thought about the Hirohito deal. That's interesting because so many people are immersed in the moral valence of this war and its central characters that my biggest worry is that sentiment will get in the way of the practical question of how to bring about the end of suffering.
Hirohito was politically neutered after WWII, though. I doubt Putin (or any other Russian, for that matter) would be OK with keeping him around as a figurehead. He's not some god-emperor descended from gods as Hirohito was seen.
And I want to minimize suffering not just now but in the future. I think allowing Putin to stay in power makes more suffering in the future more likely.
We should convene a war crimes tribunal immediately, and start indicting defendants. We failed to do this in World War II, and had to wait until the Nuremberg tribunal, despite the fact we knew that the holocaust was happening. With the Former Republic of Yugoslavia will better, and convened the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Republic of Yugoslavia. One aspect of my life I can be most proud of is having served in Bosnia, supporting UK special forces hunting down Persons Indicted For War Crimes. They were all eventually captured or killed. The same must be done again.
Russia is a real problem though, not just Putin. There’s a good article here, dating back to their last invasion in 2014: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/two-abysses-soul. Shorter version updated recently here: https://unherd.com/2022/03/the-dark-heart-of-russia.
For just one example, the Baltic states have warned of Russia's essentially toxic nature for decades, and we have arrogantly ignored them. Here's what one Estonian described as a "Taste of 500 years of history":
1558-59 Russian forces ransack Estonia.
1700 Peter I attacks Estonia.
1721 Estonia annexed into Russia, 75% of the population killed in the war.
1918-1920 Estonian War of Independence.
1940 Estonia annexed into the USSR.
He concluded, "Tell me again how Estonia joining NATO provoked Russia." (https://twitter.com/KaroliinaAinge/status/1503676027314311169)
Russia appears to be congenitally toxic. They're a pre-modern society which has never had freedom, democracy, a functioning judiciary or reliable property rights. Instead, for over a century they've failed to evolve from a series of autocratic, tyrannical dictatorships. Russians working for Stalin murdered over 20 million of their own citizens in famines, purges and gulags, let alone their brutal subjugation of their long-suffering neighbours. This is deeper than “just a few bad apples at the top”. Germany had a notable excursion from sanity from 1933 to 1945, but was a normal, western state before and after this period. Russia has consistently been a rogue state for over 100 years. I suspect Russia is the victim of its own history. Every chapter of a Russian history book ends “and then things got worse.” There is is a national sense of insecurity which means the default system of government is totalitarian and that it leaders dare not refrain from totalitarian methods. The majority of the population find it easier to do the leadership's bidding, however evil, than to stand up to them. As one analyst warned, "it is much more convenient for Russians to believe the regime’s lies. Psychologically it is easier to ignore reality and trust propaganda. Until they begin to see the damage this war brings to their own world, their own society, and their sons.” https://thebulletin.org/2022/03/russias-information-war-painful-truths-vs-comfortable-lies
Russia’s main weakness is demographics (see https://twitter.com/kamilkazani/status/1504585616834457619). This is why they have so few infantry escorting their tanks, which makes the latter easier to kill. Long term, the world should seek to exacerbate their military manning problems. The more Russians who can be exterminated in Ukraine the better. Apparently, the Ukrainian military is attempting a combination of attacking Log and HQ/C2 nodes (i.e. a very manoeuvrist approach), with an attrional approach of attempting to impose mass casualties on Russian troops. The more killed, the better. Further, the greater the extent to which Russia itself can be depopulated by encouraging its population to flee, and by starving the rest so they choose not to breed, and those who do die young, the harder it is for Russia to generate infantry. Perhaps the best thing that can happen thanks to Putin's war is that the West leaves blocking sanctions imposed on Russia for decades, and literally starves its ability to function as a state: including its war-fighting ability. In other words, simply removing Putin leaves the country intact; doing to Russia what we did to Iraq in the 1990s would bring the country to its knees, and maybe preferable.
Finally, the reason why Russia is so dangerous is because it is a nuclear armed. Before sanctions are lifted on a post-Putin Russia, it should be required to unilaterally disarm: destroy all of its nuclear weapons, storage facilities, launchers, nuclear trains, military nuclear research facilities, etc.. Russia has been an evil, aggressive presence in international relations since time immemorial. It has no redeeming features. If a future, post-Putin, Russia has no aggressive intentions, it will be willing to unilaterally disarm. If it refuses, we should continue to starve it: their choice to pay for missiles instead of medicine, they should suffer accordingly. every Russian child with staff to death is one fewer potential future Russian soldier we have to bayonet to death. The world should not allow for the possibility of future nuclear blackmail.
Apologies for several typos: the perils of iPhone dictation!
There is now a possibility of Ukrainian military victory, if Russia does have to remove forces from exposed positions. Retreat under fire is the most difficult of all military maneuvers to execute, and can easily turn into an uncontrolled rout. Whole formations could surrender, and as of now Russian forces have failed to execute much easier maneuvers.
Will paid subscribers receive an email link to the live Q& A?
Yes - just before 8pm UK time tomorrow
Thanks so much!
As always an excellent analysis ! I think Mr. Freedman made the point when he commented that Putin is not the first autocrat to confuse his personal destiny with that of his country. We try to think of Russian strategy in material terms but a lot of what is happening is within Putin´s mind & psichology. What happens if an autocrat´s plan misfires as it happened to tsar Nicholas I or more recently to Hitler ? They might have the wish to bring down the world with them as a sort of punishment and vengance.
Luckily Putin is not one of them and his control of power is not boundless. As war drags on there will be cracks on the system. Population has not much to say but oligarchs,security apparatchiks and military leaders will wonder if they can afford keeping all this frenzy on. We know that not everybody will be happy scaling up the armed deployment.
Putin's psychology is not too difficult. He is an abused child.
Hitler was an abused child. Stalin. Putin. Child abuse causes PTSD.
PTSD leaves the victim permanently angry
PTSD leaves some victims in extreme desire for power and control
PTSD destroys human empathy and trust
PTSD victims believe the world owes them a living
Sound familiar?
Also read, "People of the Lie" Scott Peck
Excellent article. Perhaps now is the time to engage conversation with the Russian generals and ask them whether their leader is acting in the interests of their nation, their people and their economy. If not, why are they continuing to obey him?
As Russia is a police state, it may make more sense to speak to people in the various police/internal security/spy agencies.
One almost gets the impression that in the back of your mind you believe Zelensky should have surrendered immediately to prevent all the suffering and satisfy Putin’s dreams. No deaths of civilians.No leveling of cities. No millions of refugees. No threat of nukes. No high oil prices. No revitalization of NATO. Business as usual with a satiated Putin.
"If, as Zelensky has stated, any peace deal should be put to a referendum, it is not hard to guess that any debate will be dominated by hawks rather than doves."
If it ever got to such a stage it would be a situation similar to the Armistice of 1918, Ukraine would have to give up territory and military material to Russian custody such as to make resumption of hostilities extremely disadvantageous to Ukraine - hence the carrot to make the referendum succeed would be the return of occupied territories other than the Donbass (and Crimea)
Why is that? If Ukraine is winning the war, they would want to make resuming hostilities extremely disadvantageous to Russia.
Well if Ukraine is winning the war, then they aren't going to make territorial concessions anyway, so there will be no need for a referendum. I was just pointing out how a referendum-dependent settlement would work, if it got to that point. The Ukraine government would be strongly backing the "yes" vote as their preferred solution.
Ukraine is certainly winning the war on twitter, but governments that are winning wars don't generally sacrifice 10 000 troops to be ground to pieces in a major city when offered the chance to have them lay down their arms and be evacuated to government held territory.
Actually, holding Mariupol and attritting is the way to go regardless of how the war is going. The UA also doesn't have 10K in Mariupol.
But in any case, evacuating is an option only if Russia can be trusted to allow anyone to evacuate safely and their history shows that Russia can't be trusted to do that.
BTW, saying that any peace deal would be subject to a referendum is a smart move: it essentially means that a disarmed Ukraine isn't an option. Russia just has to live with that.
Well stated. If Putin wants to go back the way he came, he will find North Korea waiting for him. But a North Korea that must block the truth from all sides. He cannot win in Ukraine, but he must win. One hopes his delusions about himself extend to his ability to survive. Or his delusions are not blinding that he will finally stop the escalation.