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.
There are numerous Russian women who also support Putin's line. And, please bear in mind, the male is not defined by relentless aggressiveness. That is a very sexist approach.
Unfortunately statistics support my statement of male aggressiveness. Look at murders, rapes and other violent crime and see for yourself. Of course there are women who support Putin and there are women who are violent, but my statement isn’t sexist, it reflects reality.
I realise that men are aggressive. I said, to counter your statement, that the male is not defined by relentless aggressiveness (which I believe to be the purport of your statement). It may well be that, as more women are inducted into the armed forces to serve in the front line, that they will be aggressive, even relentlessly so. Hopefully, or they won't be much use. However, I would not then contend that the "female" is defined by aggression. I remain of the view that your original comment is sexist.
Your purported belief is off the mark just a bit. I am not claiming that men are DEFINED by aggressiveness, only that it is a common trait, particularly among those so called alpha males in the ruling elites.
Hope springs eternal Asa but I'll be very, very surprised if a woman lead and maintained protest movement leads to a change of government in Russia. In all truth if it happens in Iran it will be a world first, unless I've missed something.
Thanks Trizzo. I've done a bit of reading. While there was a women's lead stike in Russia shortly before the February Revolution in Russia (ie not the Bolshevik coup) it appears to be one of a number of streams that lead to the the overflowing of the dam and a change of government. That's a long way from being a women led and maintained movement that single handedly overthrew a government.
Well, that only confirms my view that women can play a more crucial role in big political events than what is commonly talked about! As the Chinese say, women support half the sky!
Of course it is only a hope! But the women of Iran support that hope. Female leaders also do not tend to start wars. (Yes, I know there are exceptions, but I in general) I believe gender equality is more important than most us realize. And in the case of Russia, what other hope is there?
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.
Actually, I read somewher that the best long term hope for a rappochement between Russia and the West (especially Europe) may be the realization that there's not much to be gained out of being a client state for China. It's noticeable that China has offered Russia very little support and has used its bargaining position to drive a very hard bargain in its purchase of hydrocarbons. But it will need a post Putin government.
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.
I agree with your analysis RSLaking but to tackle corruption and kleptocracy would take a great concern for the abstract concept of the common good. I don't think the ruling elite has this - let alone the problem that too many of them are into it or are friends with the high ranking thieves.
I was thinking of how pervasive corruption (plus a rigid centralized command structure) has severely weakened the armed forces despite the vast sums budgeted for modernization.
Perhaps Putin had assumed that part of the money would be siphoned off, but there would still be sufficient to equip the army.
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 ?
Watching Russia from outside its seems the epitome of an insane asylum allowed to run itself. An armed insane asylum, but an asylum nonetheless.
Putin and his ‘acolytes’ (whether chained or equally insane is a question for debate) have turned an entire nation to one objective, to carry on fighting until they win, or only the man himself is left. It is a plan, and with WW2 trench lines and regular missile launches it may work, I think it’s still too hard to call.
But, in doing so Putin has changed Russia in a manner that is hard to sustain without high expenditure, and with a kleptocracy that has its hands forever in the till. Russia is not China, and for all Xi’s faults, the Peoples Army is motivated and armed in a manner that the average Mobik can only dream of.
So if Russia wins it will have destroyed itself in the process, and in subjugating Ukraine will find running a colony is much harder than simply managing the depredation of its own subjects. And if it loses, it will face the anger of surviving soldiers, subjugated citizens, and an ex-patriot population with skills and money that it lacks, some of whom may well begin to covet Putin’s throne.
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.
Mr Wild - the people who call themselves liberals in the United States are most certainly not liberals. And they do have many things in common with Mr Putin - like him they support rigged elections (most recently in Arizona in November 2022), like him they support censorship (real liberals are against censorship Mr Wild), like him the oppose the right keep and bear arms (indeed Ukrainians found with arms are murdered by Mr Putin's men - just as Ukrainians found with weapons were murdered in Soviet times). Mr Wild what you call liberalism has nothing in common with real liberalism - other than the word. And, sadly, modern American "liberalism" (which is not liberalism at all) has a lot in common with the regime of Mr Putin - especially in its belief that private property rights, including in land, must give way to the "interests of the people" and that all basic things of human life (from education, to sickness, to old age) must be dominated by the state.
Western "liberals" are not liberals at all. Liberals do not support censorship - fake "liberals" do, first for statements they regarded as "racist", "sexist" "homophobic", "transphobic" and so on (the standard Herbert Marcuse tapdance - and Dr Marcuse was most certainly NOT a liberal, he was a Marxist), but later the censorship of any opinion they opposed on any political or cultural question - from the safety of the Covid injections, to historic temperature figures, to criticism of obviously rigged elections. Liberals do not support the sexual mutilation of children - the fake "liberals" the Biden Administration (or rather the people behind this senile puppet) openly celebrate the sexual mutilation of children - that is not liberalism Mr Wild. The two "alternatives" feed off each other - rather like Oceania, Eurasia and East Asia in "1984" - Mr Putin does not support Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion, or the right to keep and bear arms (Ukrainians who are found with weapons are murdered by the men from Moscow - just as they were in Soviet times). And the claims one hears in support of Mr Putin "there was no Covid lockdown in Russia" (and on and on) are all LIES - in reality Mr Putin is a vicious dictator with no regard for basic liberties under natural law (natural justice).
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.
There are numerous Russian women who also support Putin's line. And, please bear in mind, the male is not defined by relentless aggressiveness. That is a very sexist approach.
Unfortunately statistics support my statement of male aggressiveness. Look at murders, rapes and other violent crime and see for yourself. Of course there are women who support Putin and there are women who are violent, but my statement isn’t sexist, it reflects reality.
I realise that men are aggressive. I said, to counter your statement, that the male is not defined by relentless aggressiveness (which I believe to be the purport of your statement). It may well be that, as more women are inducted into the armed forces to serve in the front line, that they will be aggressive, even relentlessly so. Hopefully, or they won't be much use. However, I would not then contend that the "female" is defined by aggression. I remain of the view that your original comment is sexist.
Your purported belief is off the mark just a bit. I am not claiming that men are DEFINED by aggressiveness, only that it is a common trait, particularly among those so called alpha males in the ruling elites.
Hope springs eternal Asa but I'll be very, very surprised if a woman lead and maintained protest movement leads to a change of government in Russia. In all truth if it happens in Iran it will be a world first, unless I've missed something.
You should read up about what what happened on February 23, 1917 International Women’s Day.
Thanks Trizzo. I've done a bit of reading. While there was a women's lead stike in Russia shortly before the February Revolution in Russia (ie not the Bolshevik coup) it appears to be one of a number of streams that lead to the the overflowing of the dam and a change of government. That's a long way from being a women led and maintained movement that single handedly overthrew a government.
Well, that only confirms my view that women can play a more crucial role in big political events than what is commonly talked about! As the Chinese say, women support half the sky!
Of course it is only a hope! But the women of Iran support that hope. Female leaders also do not tend to start wars. (Yes, I know there are exceptions, but I in general) I believe gender equality is more important than most us realize. And in the case of Russia, what other hope is there?
Catherine the Great’s Azov campaigns in the Russo-Turkish wars?
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.
Actually, I read somewher that the best long term hope for a rappochement between Russia and the West (especially Europe) may be the realization that there's not much to be gained out of being a client state for China. It's noticeable that China has offered Russia very little support and has used its bargaining position to drive a very hard bargain in its purchase of hydrocarbons. But it will need a post Putin government.
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.
I agree with your analysis RSLaking but to tackle corruption and kleptocracy would take a great concern for the abstract concept of the common good. I don't think the ruling elite has this - let alone the problem that too many of them are into it or are friends with the high ranking thieves.
I was thinking of how pervasive corruption (plus a rigid centralized command structure) has severely weakened the armed forces despite the vast sums budgeted for modernization.
Perhaps Putin had assumed that part of the money would be siphoned off, but there would still be sufficient to equip the army.
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 ?
Watching Russia from outside its seems the epitome of an insane asylum allowed to run itself. An armed insane asylum, but an asylum nonetheless.
Putin and his ‘acolytes’ (whether chained or equally insane is a question for debate) have turned an entire nation to one objective, to carry on fighting until they win, or only the man himself is left. It is a plan, and with WW2 trench lines and regular missile launches it may work, I think it’s still too hard to call.
But, in doing so Putin has changed Russia in a manner that is hard to sustain without high expenditure, and with a kleptocracy that has its hands forever in the till. Russia is not China, and for all Xi’s faults, the Peoples Army is motivated and armed in a manner that the average Mobik can only dream of.
So if Russia wins it will have destroyed itself in the process, and in subjugating Ukraine will find running a colony is much harder than simply managing the depredation of its own subjects. And if it loses, it will face the anger of surviving soldiers, subjugated citizens, and an ex-patriot population with skills and money that it lacks, some of whom may well begin to covet Putin’s throne.
To be Russian is truly to be blessed.
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.
The statement that Western liberals are in anyway comprable to Putin, reveals a lot more about Paul Marks than it does about Western Liberals.
Mr Wild - the people who call themselves liberals in the United States are most certainly not liberals. And they do have many things in common with Mr Putin - like him they support rigged elections (most recently in Arizona in November 2022), like him they support censorship (real liberals are against censorship Mr Wild), like him the oppose the right keep and bear arms (indeed Ukrainians found with arms are murdered by Mr Putin's men - just as Ukrainians found with weapons were murdered in Soviet times). Mr Wild what you call liberalism has nothing in common with real liberalism - other than the word. And, sadly, modern American "liberalism" (which is not liberalism at all) has a lot in common with the regime of Mr Putin - especially in its belief that private property rights, including in land, must give way to the "interests of the people" and that all basic things of human life (from education, to sickness, to old age) must be dominated by the state.
Western "liberals" are not liberals at all. Liberals do not support censorship - fake "liberals" do, first for statements they regarded as "racist", "sexist" "homophobic", "transphobic" and so on (the standard Herbert Marcuse tapdance - and Dr Marcuse was most certainly NOT a liberal, he was a Marxist), but later the censorship of any opinion they opposed on any political or cultural question - from the safety of the Covid injections, to historic temperature figures, to criticism of obviously rigged elections. Liberals do not support the sexual mutilation of children - the fake "liberals" the Biden Administration (or rather the people behind this senile puppet) openly celebrate the sexual mutilation of children - that is not liberalism Mr Wild. The two "alternatives" feed off each other - rather like Oceania, Eurasia and East Asia in "1984" - Mr Putin does not support Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Religion, or the right to keep and bear arms (Ukrainians who are found with weapons are murdered by the men from Moscow - just as they were in Soviet times). And the claims one hears in support of Mr Putin "there was no Covid lockdown in Russia" (and on and on) are all LIES - in reality Mr Putin is a vicious dictator with no regard for basic liberties under natural law (natural justice).
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.