Thank you for another cogent piece of analysis. This reinforces what a terrible predicament Putin has put his country in. Fundamentally, autocracies are strong but brittle. And Russia’s is being put under great strain.
A Moscow-based friend, the popular and very kind dean of a music school, sent her two college age children to China for their education and told them, "Never come back."
Thanks for this. Whats remarkable is that throughout the period of the cold war Moscow was never so violently destabilising in Europe than it is under Putin.
How long do you suppose Putin will direct military operations himself?
And on a related note, it is said that generals always fight the last war - especially if they won it. How long will the Russian military strategist(s) stick with the Grozny model?
A brilliant analysis of Putin's decreasing options, and eventually locked-in position if Ukraine persists. His repeated threats are no longer heeded, even the nuclear saber rattling. How might this all end ? A stagnated gerontic presidency until natural death with pervasive propaganda to cover up the gigantic mishap. Or perhaps a final desperate nuclear demo to get the full attention. For certain Putin is seriously disappointed with the ukrainians and the West, and will eventually be even more disappointed with the russian people as they tire of his pointless crusade.
Is it the principle of collective security rather than just NATO itself that Putin doesnt like? Reason US stayed out of League of Nations, and initial opposition by either Germany or Italy to 1938 steel pact.
Why are Russia's nuclear capabilities not included among Putin's options? Is this the unthinkable end-game that is the ultimate terror? Given Putin's character, is it not entirely possible that he might take the risk of calling the West's bluff by deploying tactical nukes, for example, if the war in Ukraine continues to be bogged down? Or perhaps the nuclear arsenal will assume a strategic position similar to that of poison gas during WW2. Or perhaps the reality, or Putin's perception of reality, is that the West's nuclear capability is so superior to Russia's that this might not, after all, be an option.
Another good article. I loved the quote from Tom McTague about the lack of appeal for a return to the Soviet Union from the former colonies.
I'm wryly amused to read analysts saying that Putin's persistence with the war reflects a canny decision to play a long game because he's decided he can out last the West and his opponents. Leaving aside that no-one has had a chance to give him a good long interview (and who would trust him to tell the truth?) surely the most plausible explanation is that admitting defeat this early in the war seems vanishingly unlikley. Sure he likely hopes for diminishing resolve from his enemies but I'd say that's a small factor next to a refusal to admit defeat or even mistakes. But the chances of the Ukrainians, even under heavy pressure for everyone saying OK to the loss of territory seems just as likely as Putin becoming a peacenik.
The really interesting question is Putin's refusal to order a mass mobilization over Ukraine. Sure it would be politically unpopular but if he has any chance of 'winning' this war it seems essential. Surely he must be confident in his hold on power regardless of public opinion. His sticking with an inadequately sized and steadily weakening military realy does look like policy paralyisis - and dumbo paralysis at that.
However you haven’t made much analysis of the costs and pressures that are being exerted on Europe . You presuppose an ability to grimly cope in seeing off Russian gains .
The facts stand though that without Russian gas , oil, fertiliser , rare metals and so on - The Western machine also begins to fray significantly and not just at the edges but from the centre. Germany is rightly concerned about irreversible economic stagnation resulting from withdrawals of energy supplies from Russia . Where Germany goes the EU follows . Whilst Putin has limited options , the EU in particular has enormous difficulties which are going to be a lot more apparent over the Autumn months. Putin has banked on this , as he has on economic hardship leading to social unrest . Europe is not the place of 30 years ago - with millions of immigrants a factor yet to be understood in any future internal tensions .
Russia does hold many of the cards. Regardless of accepting Ukraine into Europe , Russian boots will remain on the ground .
These are realities that are not changing anytime soon.
Russian boots will remain on the ground only if they manage to stay there. The economic disruption and suffering of Russia's economy is worse than what Europe is going/will go through (whatever supply disruptions will be in the West, Russia will suffer many times more. So the West may ease off. But I doubt it. The US committed 14% of it's GDP to the Korean War at it's height. Western economies are nowhere near that level yet.
True but this is also with assumptions the west esp Europe can actually scale up. The USA is capable of this but a cost benefit ratio which includes needing to face off with - China does not make unlimited aid a foregone conclusion. Russia is largely self sufficient in all the basics and has borders with china and the Middle East via the caspian that make supplying itself achievable in the face of the severest sanctions .
The Korean War era example is reasonable enough but Korea and Russia are not comparable entities in size or military clout, and america has multiple potential theatres to contend with in the event of a major escalation with Russia.
Russia already runs on a lower level of economic sophistication and technological complexity and therefore should be more robust than tech driven , resource sensitive modern western states .
I personally conclude this is a decade of conflict ahead , and will not end anytime soon until economic realities of decline debilitate one side overwhelmingly . We will see …
I think Daemon is right that we're in for a long decade of conflict before one side gives up. That said, while Russia holds some cards his opponents hold pretty good ones too. Europe may be in for a bad winter (though they hope to lessen the strain) but after that they will find new markets and up re-newables. Furthermore in the short term, Western European leaders will be able to pin much of the hardship onto Putin. Thanks to Putin's legendry diplomatic skills (legendry in the sense of non-existant) being seen to bow to Putin is politically toxic in all Western democracies. America is only giving money/equipment rather than soldiers to Ukraine. They lasted a long time supporting an unloved regime in Afghanistan and that involved the huge expense of transporting and supplying tens of thousands of soldiers. I'm sure Putin hopes for declining resolve in the West but he'd be unwise to bank on it. And Putin isn't going to stay in power forever.
U.S. staying power in Korean War and Afghanistan War aren't good analogues here. No U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine makes this a MUCH different dynamic politically in Washington. Not to mention that Washington is far more divided and distracted by domestic issues than it ever was during those two wars.
Yes Josh, no boots of the ground means no returning body-bags and war wounded. This makes the US staying long term in Ukraine LESS costly for the US and hence more likely to keep the US in long term. I agree that Washington is more divided/distracted by domestic issues than before, and I worry a return of Trump and 'America First' and also 'who cares about allies and democracy' coming to power. But he hasn't yet and the overwhelming majority of Republican Senators and Congressmen have voted repeatedly for arms for Ukraine.
Thank you for another cogent piece of analysis. This reinforces what a terrible predicament Putin has put his country in. Fundamentally, autocracies are strong but brittle. And Russia’s is being put under great strain.
A Moscow-based friend, the popular and very kind dean of a music school, sent her two college age children to China for their education and told them, "Never come back."
Thanks for this. Whats remarkable is that throughout the period of the cold war Moscow was never so violently destabilising in Europe than it is under Putin.
The USSR was led by leaders that had a better grasp on reality.
Well said Richard!
How long do you suppose Putin will direct military operations himself?
And on a related note, it is said that generals always fight the last war - especially if they won it. How long will the Russian military strategist(s) stick with the Grozny model?
A brilliant analysis of Putin's decreasing options, and eventually locked-in position if Ukraine persists. His repeated threats are no longer heeded, even the nuclear saber rattling. How might this all end ? A stagnated gerontic presidency until natural death with pervasive propaganda to cover up the gigantic mishap. Or perhaps a final desperate nuclear demo to get the full attention. For certain Putin is seriously disappointed with the ukrainians and the West, and will eventually be even more disappointed with the russian people as they tire of his pointless crusade.
Attacking the Suwalki Gap would ensure political support for mobilization of the entire population.
War with NATO. Brilliant idea! What could go wrong?
Who says that decision should be rational. Putler Is a psycho. And will turn down Russia with him.
Great piece, thanks!
Is it the principle of collective security rather than just NATO itself that Putin doesnt like? Reason US stayed out of League of Nations, and initial opposition by either Germany or Italy to 1938 steel pact.
Why are Russia's nuclear capabilities not included among Putin's options? Is this the unthinkable end-game that is the ultimate terror? Given Putin's character, is it not entirely possible that he might take the risk of calling the West's bluff by deploying tactical nukes, for example, if the war in Ukraine continues to be bogged down? Or perhaps the nuclear arsenal will assume a strategic position similar to that of poison gas during WW2. Or perhaps the reality, or Putin's perception of reality, is that the West's nuclear capability is so superior to Russia's that this might not, after all, be an option.
Great analysis!
Another good article. I loved the quote from Tom McTague about the lack of appeal for a return to the Soviet Union from the former colonies.
I'm wryly amused to read analysts saying that Putin's persistence with the war reflects a canny decision to play a long game because he's decided he can out last the West and his opponents. Leaving aside that no-one has had a chance to give him a good long interview (and who would trust him to tell the truth?) surely the most plausible explanation is that admitting defeat this early in the war seems vanishingly unlikley. Sure he likely hopes for diminishing resolve from his enemies but I'd say that's a small factor next to a refusal to admit defeat or even mistakes. But the chances of the Ukrainians, even under heavy pressure for everyone saying OK to the loss of territory seems just as likely as Putin becoming a peacenik.
The really interesting question is Putin's refusal to order a mass mobilization over Ukraine. Sure it would be politically unpopular but if he has any chance of 'winning' this war it seems essential. Surely he must be confident in his hold on power regardless of public opinion. His sticking with an inadequately sized and steadily weakening military realy does look like policy paralyisis - and dumbo paralysis at that.
This is a very good read .
However you haven’t made much analysis of the costs and pressures that are being exerted on Europe . You presuppose an ability to grimly cope in seeing off Russian gains .
The facts stand though that without Russian gas , oil, fertiliser , rare metals and so on - The Western machine also begins to fray significantly and not just at the edges but from the centre. Germany is rightly concerned about irreversible economic stagnation resulting from withdrawals of energy supplies from Russia . Where Germany goes the EU follows . Whilst Putin has limited options , the EU in particular has enormous difficulties which are going to be a lot more apparent over the Autumn months. Putin has banked on this , as he has on economic hardship leading to social unrest . Europe is not the place of 30 years ago - with millions of immigrants a factor yet to be understood in any future internal tensions .
Russia does hold many of the cards. Regardless of accepting Ukraine into Europe , Russian boots will remain on the ground .
These are realities that are not changing anytime soon.
Russian boots will remain on the ground only if they manage to stay there. The economic disruption and suffering of Russia's economy is worse than what Europe is going/will go through (whatever supply disruptions will be in the West, Russia will suffer many times more. So the West may ease off. But I doubt it. The US committed 14% of it's GDP to the Korean War at it's height. Western economies are nowhere near that level yet.
True but this is also with assumptions the west esp Europe can actually scale up. The USA is capable of this but a cost benefit ratio which includes needing to face off with - China does not make unlimited aid a foregone conclusion. Russia is largely self sufficient in all the basics and has borders with china and the Middle East via the caspian that make supplying itself achievable in the face of the severest sanctions .
The Korean War era example is reasonable enough but Korea and Russia are not comparable entities in size or military clout, and america has multiple potential theatres to contend with in the event of a major escalation with Russia.
Russia already runs on a lower level of economic sophistication and technological complexity and therefore should be more robust than tech driven , resource sensitive modern western states .
I personally conclude this is a decade of conflict ahead , and will not end anytime soon until economic realities of decline debilitate one side overwhelmingly . We will see …
I think Daemon is right that we're in for a long decade of conflict before one side gives up. That said, while Russia holds some cards his opponents hold pretty good ones too. Europe may be in for a bad winter (though they hope to lessen the strain) but after that they will find new markets and up re-newables. Furthermore in the short term, Western European leaders will be able to pin much of the hardship onto Putin. Thanks to Putin's legendry diplomatic skills (legendry in the sense of non-existant) being seen to bow to Putin is politically toxic in all Western democracies. America is only giving money/equipment rather than soldiers to Ukraine. They lasted a long time supporting an unloved regime in Afghanistan and that involved the huge expense of transporting and supplying tens of thousands of soldiers. I'm sure Putin hopes for declining resolve in the West but he'd be unwise to bank on it. And Putin isn't going to stay in power forever.
U.S. staying power in Korean War and Afghanistan War aren't good analogues here. No U.S. boots on the ground in Ukraine makes this a MUCH different dynamic politically in Washington. Not to mention that Washington is far more divided and distracted by domestic issues than it ever was during those two wars.
Yes Josh, no boots of the ground means no returning body-bags and war wounded. This makes the US staying long term in Ukraine LESS costly for the US and hence more likely to keep the US in long term. I agree that Washington is more divided/distracted by domestic issues than before, and I worry a return of Trump and 'America First' and also 'who cares about allies and democracy' coming to power. But he hasn't yet and the overwhelming majority of Republican Senators and Congressmen have voted repeatedly for arms for Ukraine.
I am very pro-Trump and very much Slava Ukraini