It is clear that assurances given by Putin are worthless. There can be no reconciliation with Russia while Putin holds sway. Similarly I don’t believe Russia should be re-admitted to the community of nations while it occupies any part of Ukraine. No sporting, trade, or art links. The Russian people must see their armed forces humiliated. Regarding security guarantees, the Russians will just have to accept we have no interest in an attack upon their criminal state.
This is an eminently sensible and grim read. There clearly can be no lasting peace and security while Putin is in power and his successor would need to do a lot before s/he could gain the trust of Russia’s near abroad. On present indications there is no reason at all to expect such a leader won’t share the same world view or in any case would lack the desire to face the ugly reality that it will never have another empire in the foreseeable future. The only good news is that Russia’s war machine has proven vastly less competent than thought, it has sustained grievous losses and its economy looks unlikely to allow it to be built into anything like what it was in Feb 2022.
This excellent article goes to the heart of the problem with Russia and Russian ambitions. At this point it is obviously anybody’s guess what will happen at the end of the war. Power hungry men will flock like vultures to take over Putin’s throne once he, inevitably, becomes a carcass to be picked over. It is easy to be discouraged and only see repetition of this nightmarish pattern. The realist take is however very male in its relentless aggressiveness.
My thought here relates to the current riots in Iran, which was started by, and is sustained by, women. I wouldn’t underestimate the power of Russian women. Not that they are organized right now in anything but small groups of aggrieved mothers and wives of slain soldiers in a senseless war. But just like the women of Iran, once they find a voice, we might all be surprised by what could be achieved.
For the past 20 years Russia co-existed with and profited from its Western neighbors, its most lucrative market for its fossil fuels. Putin destroyed that relationship by acting out his old man's lingering anger over the loss of the satellites after the break up of the USSR. I don't see any way of Russia and the West returning to pragmatic co-existence as long as Putin remains in power to act on his grudges and delusions. He has shown how worthless Russian commitments to respecting sovereignty are, and even the most cynical Euro leaders shouldn't believe that any treaty signed by Putin will bring a lasting peace. It is horribly fascinating to watch Europe, Russia, Ukraine, and the US caught in this crisis without an apparent solution. So much for real politick.
To quote you, "The West will expect Russia to come to terms with what it has done to Ukraine, which will be painful, if there is to be any return to ‘normal’ relations, to accept that this war was its choice and that it must respond positively to demands for reparations and war crimes trials."
It is very hard to see any Russian Government and/or a majority of the people agreeing to pay to replace the buildings and infrastructure that are being destroyed or for the personal injury and loss of life, they are now inflicting or allowing any Russians to be tried for war crimes, either within Russia or abroad.
"Realists" have been grossly unrealistic for decades, and their arguments about "Russia" "security have ignored a basic realist variable - correlation of forces - particularly since US forces in Europe dropped to 25,000 before 2014, with no tanks permanently in Europe. Hardly enough to threaten Russia. I'd agree that the problem is "Russian security" as soon as one of them can explain to me why Russian elites have spent decades vacationing in NATO countries, parking yachts in (southern) NATO ports, sending kids to NATO schools, and keeping their ill-gotten gains in NATO banks.
We do, however, need to start shaping a narrative of a post-war Russia successfully cooperating with Europe, even in the middle of this war. If that narrative is not out there, then the greedy and self-interested denizens of Moscow will have few options other than striving to stay in the good graces of the existing power vertical. A new leader is unlikely to emerge unless its clear that there will be a path forward for him, something other than being a tributary state to China.
There's an old story about a billionaire, who was asked what he wanted in order to feel safe and secure. The billionaire replied "I only want my fair share" - and when asked what his fair share was, he replied "Everything I have, and everything you have, and everything everyone else has." Putin's paranoia is born out of insatiable greed for property and control - it's more of a mental illness than a philosophy of power - and like for psychopathy, there is no cure. And there's sign that this paranoia has been ongoing for 25 years if not longer. Putin's game plan - which he has obviously been following - is set out here: https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics The only answer is confinement on a locked ward along with other like personalities.
Any future Russian leader can only conform, the established pattern seems ingrained.
For each country, its own security/self-interest will always prevail, as the ambivalence of EU countries in rationing support for Ukraine demonstrates - even despite the proximity of this war, their EU diplomatic contracts, and the clear ability to make decisions.
I know nothing, but your insights strike me as vital to the West's after-conflict plans. Is anyone in the western security institutions paying attention? Understanding that Russia's grievances are mostly culture war issues and that Russia's woes are primarily self-inflicted is crucial to our dealings with Putin now and after the war (should such a time ever come!).
The fuure, and indeed current, Russian leadership will at some point have to figure out how far its aims of national security are being undercut from within by corruption and kleptocracy.
Putin appears to have given the kleptocrats a free hand in exchange for personal loyalty. Unfortunately, this state of affairs included those charged with supplying and maintaining the armed forces, and extended far down through the chain of command.
As long as Russia had only small local or far-off squabbles to deal with, this situation didn't pose an internal threat. However, it is going to come back to bite.
As ever, a compelling analysis of how the elusive ‘security’ issue may determine outcomes rather than ‘ solutions’ for the Russian nation - as is. But doesn’t the reality of perennial Russian political culture within the post-Soviet Federation inevitably call for the next Russian leader to be at least as authoritarian? A new regime, supported by an arguably irreplaceable economic elite, only able to co-exist with Western liberal democracies by othering them ?
Trying to reassure or conciliate Putin is a fool's game. Defeat, destroy, replace him. Then deal with his successor on the basis of a severely weakened and battered Russian state needing to avoid any more conflict. That is the realistic approach.
Further to my previous post, I have the idea that there are F16 fighters becoming redundant in NATO countries and perhaps also older F/A18 versions and F15 fighters. If so, it may be time to begin training Ukrainian air force personnel to fly them. I doubt they would be inferior to MiGs and Sukhois. Actual deployment might be something to consider later.
Whilst it is necessary to think about the future, the main focus must remain on the present, which means concentrating on winning the war in Ukraine. The Ukrainians have, in the last couple of days, predicted a new major Russian offensive beginning at the worst (for Ukraine) at the end of January and at the best in March. The Head of Ukraine's armed forces has also stated that he believes Ukraine can win the war if adequate materiel is provided. There is now ample proof of this statement from Kyiv, Kharkiv and Kherson. NATO members must make sure that what is necessary to this end is provided. NATO must also scale up the pressure on Russia. Ukraine needs to have the ability to use NATO provided weapons in direct attacks on Russian territory. If a new Russian offensive is planned, there will be concentrations of forces near the Ukrainian borders as in February and these will need to be interdicted. The obvious example is the longer range HIMARS rockets.
Mr Putin is a brutal dictator who actually shares many of the assumptions of Western "liberalism" - which is not liberalism at all. Mr Putin is against Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion (try speaking against the regime - or setting up a church without government approval) just as false Western "liberals" hate Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. Mr Putin also hates (and mocks) the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and he believes that the interests of "the people" are more important that individual private property, especially in land, just as Western "liberals" (who, again, are not liberals at all) do. The idea that fake Western "liberalism" and the brutal dictator Mr Putin are opposites is a falsehood - they have a lot in common.
It is clear that assurances given by Putin are worthless. There can be no reconciliation with Russia while Putin holds sway. Similarly I don’t believe Russia should be re-admitted to the community of nations while it occupies any part of Ukraine. No sporting, trade, or art links. The Russian people must see their armed forces humiliated. Regarding security guarantees, the Russians will just have to accept we have no interest in an attack upon their criminal state.
This is an eminently sensible and grim read. There clearly can be no lasting peace and security while Putin is in power and his successor would need to do a lot before s/he could gain the trust of Russia’s near abroad. On present indications there is no reason at all to expect such a leader won’t share the same world view or in any case would lack the desire to face the ugly reality that it will never have another empire in the foreseeable future. The only good news is that Russia’s war machine has proven vastly less competent than thought, it has sustained grievous losses and its economy looks unlikely to allow it to be built into anything like what it was in Feb 2022.
This excellent article goes to the heart of the problem with Russia and Russian ambitions. At this point it is obviously anybody’s guess what will happen at the end of the war. Power hungry men will flock like vultures to take over Putin’s throne once he, inevitably, becomes a carcass to be picked over. It is easy to be discouraged and only see repetition of this nightmarish pattern. The realist take is however very male in its relentless aggressiveness.
My thought here relates to the current riots in Iran, which was started by, and is sustained by, women. I wouldn’t underestimate the power of Russian women. Not that they are organized right now in anything but small groups of aggrieved mothers and wives of slain soldiers in a senseless war. But just like the women of Iran, once they find a voice, we might all be surprised by what could be achieved.
For the past 20 years Russia co-existed with and profited from its Western neighbors, its most lucrative market for its fossil fuels. Putin destroyed that relationship by acting out his old man's lingering anger over the loss of the satellites after the break up of the USSR. I don't see any way of Russia and the West returning to pragmatic co-existence as long as Putin remains in power to act on his grudges and delusions. He has shown how worthless Russian commitments to respecting sovereignty are, and even the most cynical Euro leaders shouldn't believe that any treaty signed by Putin will bring a lasting peace. It is horribly fascinating to watch Europe, Russia, Ukraine, and the US caught in this crisis without an apparent solution. So much for real politick.
To quote you, "The West will expect Russia to come to terms with what it has done to Ukraine, which will be painful, if there is to be any return to ‘normal’ relations, to accept that this war was its choice and that it must respond positively to demands for reparations and war crimes trials."
It is very hard to see any Russian Government and/or a majority of the people agreeing to pay to replace the buildings and infrastructure that are being destroyed or for the personal injury and loss of life, they are now inflicting or allowing any Russians to be tried for war crimes, either within Russia or abroad.
"Realists" have been grossly unrealistic for decades, and their arguments about "Russia" "security have ignored a basic realist variable - correlation of forces - particularly since US forces in Europe dropped to 25,000 before 2014, with no tanks permanently in Europe. Hardly enough to threaten Russia. I'd agree that the problem is "Russian security" as soon as one of them can explain to me why Russian elites have spent decades vacationing in NATO countries, parking yachts in (southern) NATO ports, sending kids to NATO schools, and keeping their ill-gotten gains in NATO banks.
We do, however, need to start shaping a narrative of a post-war Russia successfully cooperating with Europe, even in the middle of this war. If that narrative is not out there, then the greedy and self-interested denizens of Moscow will have few options other than striving to stay in the good graces of the existing power vertical. A new leader is unlikely to emerge unless its clear that there will be a path forward for him, something other than being a tributary state to China.
There's an old story about a billionaire, who was asked what he wanted in order to feel safe and secure. The billionaire replied "I only want my fair share" - and when asked what his fair share was, he replied "Everything I have, and everything you have, and everything everyone else has." Putin's paranoia is born out of insatiable greed for property and control - it's more of a mental illness than a philosophy of power - and like for psychopathy, there is no cure. And there's sign that this paranoia has been ongoing for 25 years if not longer. Putin's game plan - which he has obviously been following - is set out here: https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics The only answer is confinement on a locked ward along with other like personalities.
Any future Russian leader can only conform, the established pattern seems ingrained.
For each country, its own security/self-interest will always prevail, as the ambivalence of EU countries in rationing support for Ukraine demonstrates - even despite the proximity of this war, their EU diplomatic contracts, and the clear ability to make decisions.
I know nothing, but your insights strike me as vital to the West's after-conflict plans. Is anyone in the western security institutions paying attention? Understanding that Russia's grievances are mostly culture war issues and that Russia's woes are primarily self-inflicted is crucial to our dealings with Putin now and after the war (should such a time ever come!).
The fuure, and indeed current, Russian leadership will at some point have to figure out how far its aims of national security are being undercut from within by corruption and kleptocracy.
Putin appears to have given the kleptocrats a free hand in exchange for personal loyalty. Unfortunately, this state of affairs included those charged with supplying and maintaining the armed forces, and extended far down through the chain of command.
As long as Russia had only small local or far-off squabbles to deal with, this situation didn't pose an internal threat. However, it is going to come back to bite.
As ever, a compelling analysis of how the elusive ‘security’ issue may determine outcomes rather than ‘ solutions’ for the Russian nation - as is. But doesn’t the reality of perennial Russian political culture within the post-Soviet Federation inevitably call for the next Russian leader to be at least as authoritarian? A new regime, supported by an arguably irreplaceable economic elite, only able to co-exist with Western liberal democracies by othering them ?
Trying to reassure or conciliate Putin is a fool's game. Defeat, destroy, replace him. Then deal with his successor on the basis of a severely weakened and battered Russian state needing to avoid any more conflict. That is the realistic approach.
Further to my previous post, I have the idea that there are F16 fighters becoming redundant in NATO countries and perhaps also older F/A18 versions and F15 fighters. If so, it may be time to begin training Ukrainian air force personnel to fly them. I doubt they would be inferior to MiGs and Sukhois. Actual deployment might be something to consider later.
Whilst it is necessary to think about the future, the main focus must remain on the present, which means concentrating on winning the war in Ukraine. The Ukrainians have, in the last couple of days, predicted a new major Russian offensive beginning at the worst (for Ukraine) at the end of January and at the best in March. The Head of Ukraine's armed forces has also stated that he believes Ukraine can win the war if adequate materiel is provided. There is now ample proof of this statement from Kyiv, Kharkiv and Kherson. NATO members must make sure that what is necessary to this end is provided. NATO must also scale up the pressure on Russia. Ukraine needs to have the ability to use NATO provided weapons in direct attacks on Russian territory. If a new Russian offensive is planned, there will be concentrations of forces near the Ukrainian borders as in February and these will need to be interdicted. The obvious example is the longer range HIMARS rockets.
Mr Putin is a brutal dictator who actually shares many of the assumptions of Western "liberalism" - which is not liberalism at all. Mr Putin is against Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion (try speaking against the regime - or setting up a church without government approval) just as false Western "liberals" hate Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. Mr Putin also hates (and mocks) the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and he believes that the interests of "the people" are more important that individual private property, especially in land, just as Western "liberals" (who, again, are not liberals at all) do. The idea that fake Western "liberalism" and the brutal dictator Mr Putin are opposites is a falsehood - they have a lot in common.
I hope this essay is included in President Biden's daily brief, as well as Mr. Berman's Foreign Policy essay if the president hasn't seen it already.