Putin's Twilight: a Prelude to Darkness or a New Dawn?

In his post on 7 January Lawrence Freedman concluded that “The question of what it takes to get Russia to abandon its war of conquest remains unanswered.”

The answer, at least in part, has to be a change of leadership – most likely a generational change.

For Putin this is a war, not about territory, but about control. He has obsessively sought veto power over Ukraine ever since the Orange Revolution of 2004/5. In his July 2021 essay, he stood against “those who have today given up the full control of Ukraine to external forces.” His objective a year ago was to install a puppet government to control Ukraine. In the spring of 2022 he did not buy into a Ukrainian offer of territorial concessions and neutrality.

Stalemate, ceasefire agreements, frozen conflict – these are all scenarios which,  for want of a better alternative, Putin could accept for a time. They would keep Ukraine under pressure and leave open the possibility for Russia to return to the charge in the future.

But a lasting peace settlement would require Russia to bind itself irrevocably to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity (for the Ukrainians will accept nothing less; nor should their Western backers); and to accept without demur whatever arrangements need to be made to ensure Ukraine’s future security. There would be no Russian veto, still less control.

I find it inconceivable that Putin would agree to such conditions or be trusted if he purported to agree. He has cut off his own avenue for retreat. There cannot be a lasting peace with him or those in his immediate circle who share his paranoia (General Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of the Security Council, being but one obvious example).

A definitive end to the war of conquest (by which I mean a peace settlement and not just a cease-fire) will therefore require new tenants in the gilded halls of the Kremlin. Outsiders cannot determine who leads Russia. When and how can change come from within?