A collection of essays, edited by Hal Brands, and published by Johns Hopkins University press, marks the two year anniversary of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It covers all aspects of the war from its origins to its conduct, to the impact of economic sanction and the role of China. It is a terrific resource, with excellent chapters, and it can be downloaded for free.
I worry about Russia’s increasing use of strategic air power in the war and the effect this could have.
A combination of Ukraine running low on air defence interceptors and increasing use of glide bombs by Russia is already having an impact.
If this worsens and the Russian Air Force are able to begin bombing freely from medium altitude in some areas this could become strategically significant.
Were Putin to be able to carve out anything approaching a ‘victory’ in Ukraine (which the above would assist with) I think he will be emboldened and his appetite for risk will go up accordingly.
Excellent piece Lawrence! Great analogy between Stalin not heeding warnings about an imminent German attack and Putin today. Although, if reports are accurate, there was another planned attack foiled by ISIS several days before Crocus City Hall.
Excellent analysis and insight, but is this only about Putin? Suppose he passed away tomorrow? Would much change? I wonder whether the factors that led to the invasion of Ukraine were more systemic and objective factors, which also cohered with Putin's personal "vision" of what "had to be done" there. Is there not some risk in personalizing the etiology of political events that we may be missing something important?
Thank you against for shining a light on the strategies and politics.
As a follower of other substacks that write almost exclusively about the more technical aspects of the fighting and materiel- I find it worrying that the sophistication of NATO doesn’t seem to have answers to the air campaign being waged by Russia. In particular the range capabilities of air launched missiles etc seems to be beyond the range of US interceptors, even if they were being used which so far they haven’t been. What does amaze impress me is the Ukraine ability to quickly devise alternative strategies and tactics. Defending your homeland makes a big difference.
I would also quibble with Kathleen Webber’s view on the time taken for the Chinese and Vietnamese to win their wars. These were civil wars essentially. Ukraine may have been part of the Soviet Union but is now very much its own country.
Fanatic, and also psychopath (defined by Merriam Webster as egocentric, antisocial, lacking remorse and empathy for others and often with criminal tendencies: Putin ticks each box).
If Putin fell under a bus tomorrow and was succeeded by one of his close associates, what would change? Not the system of internal control (that will need a generational change of leadership); but a different autocrat (perhaps in a more collective leadership group) would have the option of doing a cost/benefit analysis of the war, blaming it on Putin, and seeking to extricate Russia. If he could do that without surrendering Crimea, it would be a popular decision. Not a certainty, but a possibility. But, alas, is there a bus that would dare to run over Putin?
Of course, Putin hoped that he would be in Kiev in three days. He was not the only one who thought he would be.
But now that his first aspiration has been frustrated, this is only a reason for a manly man to continue undaunted. It took the Chinese Communist Party three decades to gain control in China, and it took the Vietnamese Communist Party even more decades to gain control of all of Vietnam. This kind of level of persistence is regarded in some circles as heroic rather than fanatic.
Putin wants to get onto the Mount Rushmore of Russian history alongside Ivan, Peter, and Catherine. Moderation doesn't get you there. He wants to bend the arc of history dramatically in Russia.
Frankly, the deaths don't bother him at all. Christianity, which I personally embrace, does have a concept of martyrdom and crusading that Putin invokes to justify any number of deaths. He also makes sure that most of the cannon fodder are drawn from non-Russians whom nobody gives a damn about anyway.
Also, I think Putin has some rational reasons to think that he can win in the VERY long run. Below is a comment I wrote in reaction to the Ukrainian bombing of the Shaheed Missile Factory.
"Recently, Putin thought Ukraine War was tipping in his direction—Western support was weakening, and he would win if he simply continued his present course. Indeed, Putin recently said, “Why shouldn't I negotiate when I'm winning?”
BUT if Ukraine can keep up successful attacks on industrial war production, Putin may have to recalculate.
But I do not think that this would lead to a nuclear escalation. Putin uses nuclear saber rattling to keep Western support for Ukraine muted. There is incontrovertible evidence that XI has told Putin he must not use nukes. This is what the China expert Graham Allison recently said on the subject.
Allison: "So, was it a real serious threat when Putin began talking about conducting tactical nuclear weapon strikes on Ukraine back in October, November 2022 after the invasion? But then, once installed, the American intelligence community concluded the chance was about fifty-fifty. So, there's about a 50% chance that Putin would have conducted nuclear strikes. The Chinese intelligence community, I don't know what they could have put it. But in any case, they thought about this in a collaborative action between both the U.S. and China. Xi Jinping then issued a public warning saying, "We oppose any threat or use of nuclear weapons". And before he made such a public statement - this was when Chancellor Scholz was [in China] in November of 2022. [Xi] obviously called Putin, with whom he has a very close relationship, and said, I've thought about this; I think this is not a good idea, not a good idea for China."
I was somewhat surprised that Russia would let the world see how they had treated their first suspects. They definitely were tortured and beat up. I think one of them was unconscious and on a gurney.
I worry about Russia’s increasing use of strategic air power in the war and the effect this could have.
A combination of Ukraine running low on air defence interceptors and increasing use of glide bombs by Russia is already having an impact.
If this worsens and the Russian Air Force are able to begin bombing freely from medium altitude in some areas this could become strategically significant.
Were Putin to be able to carve out anything approaching a ‘victory’ in Ukraine (which the above would assist with) I think he will be emboldened and his appetite for risk will go up accordingly.
Excellent piece Lawrence! Great analogy between Stalin not heeding warnings about an imminent German attack and Putin today. Although, if reports are accurate, there was another planned attack foiled by ISIS several days before Crocus City Hall.
Excellent analysis and insight, but is this only about Putin? Suppose he passed away tomorrow? Would much change? I wonder whether the factors that led to the invasion of Ukraine were more systemic and objective factors, which also cohered with Putin's personal "vision" of what "had to be done" there. Is there not some risk in personalizing the etiology of political events that we may be missing something important?
Thank you against for shining a light on the strategies and politics.
As a follower of other substacks that write almost exclusively about the more technical aspects of the fighting and materiel- I find it worrying that the sophistication of NATO doesn’t seem to have answers to the air campaign being waged by Russia. In particular the range capabilities of air launched missiles etc seems to be beyond the range of US interceptors, even if they were being used which so far they haven’t been. What does amaze impress me is the Ukraine ability to quickly devise alternative strategies and tactics. Defending your homeland makes a big difference.
I would also quibble with Kathleen Webber’s view on the time taken for the Chinese and Vietnamese to win their wars. These were civil wars essentially. Ukraine may have been part of the Soviet Union but is now very much its own country.
Fanatic, and also psychopath (defined by Merriam Webster as egocentric, antisocial, lacking remorse and empathy for others and often with criminal tendencies: Putin ticks each box).
If Putin fell under a bus tomorrow and was succeeded by one of his close associates, what would change? Not the system of internal control (that will need a generational change of leadership); but a different autocrat (perhaps in a more collective leadership group) would have the option of doing a cost/benefit analysis of the war, blaming it on Putin, and seeking to extricate Russia. If he could do that without surrendering Crimea, it would be a popular decision. Not a certainty, but a possibility. But, alas, is there a bus that would dare to run over Putin?
Of course, Putin hoped that he would be in Kiev in three days. He was not the only one who thought he would be.
But now that his first aspiration has been frustrated, this is only a reason for a manly man to continue undaunted. It took the Chinese Communist Party three decades to gain control in China, and it took the Vietnamese Communist Party even more decades to gain control of all of Vietnam. This kind of level of persistence is regarded in some circles as heroic rather than fanatic.
Putin wants to get onto the Mount Rushmore of Russian history alongside Ivan, Peter, and Catherine. Moderation doesn't get you there. He wants to bend the arc of history dramatically in Russia.
Frankly, the deaths don't bother him at all. Christianity, which I personally embrace, does have a concept of martyrdom and crusading that Putin invokes to justify any number of deaths. He also makes sure that most of the cannon fodder are drawn from non-Russians whom nobody gives a damn about anyway.
Also, I think Putin has some rational reasons to think that he can win in the VERY long run. Below is a comment I wrote in reaction to the Ukrainian bombing of the Shaheed Missile Factory.
"Recently, Putin thought Ukraine War was tipping in his direction—Western support was weakening, and he would win if he simply continued his present course. Indeed, Putin recently said, “Why shouldn't I negotiate when I'm winning?”
BUT if Ukraine can keep up successful attacks on industrial war production, Putin may have to recalculate.
But I do not think that this would lead to a nuclear escalation. Putin uses nuclear saber rattling to keep Western support for Ukraine muted. There is incontrovertible evidence that XI has told Putin he must not use nukes. This is what the China expert Graham Allison recently said on the subject.
Allison: "So, was it a real serious threat when Putin began talking about conducting tactical nuclear weapon strikes on Ukraine back in October, November 2022 after the invasion? But then, once installed, the American intelligence community concluded the chance was about fifty-fifty. So, there's about a 50% chance that Putin would have conducted nuclear strikes. The Chinese intelligence community, I don't know what they could have put it. But in any case, they thought about this in a collaborative action between both the U.S. and China. Xi Jinping then issued a public warning saying, "We oppose any threat or use of nuclear weapons". And before he made such a public statement - this was when Chancellor Scholz was [in China] in November of 2022. [Xi] obviously called Putin, with whom he has a very close relationship, and said, I've thought about this; I think this is not a good idea, not a good idea for China."
https://ccgupdate.substack.com/p/henry-huiyao-wang-and-graham-allison
This does not mean, of course, that Putin won't come up with further non-nuclear escalations within the borders of Ukraine.
I was somewhat surprised that Russia would let the world see how they had treated their first suspects. They definitely were tortured and beat up. I think one of them was unconscious and on a gurney.