 |
| Putin's true role model |
Long story short: Putin has lost.
He had already lost even before he ordered a full scale invasion of the Ukraine, or recognized the two fake breakaway "republics" in the Eastern Ukraine. In fact, he lost even earlier than that.
Putin lost when he parked the bulk of the Russian army along Ukraine's border in a flagrant attempt to bully concessions out of Ukraine and the West. This was a move straight out of Hitler and Stalin's playbooks. At that point, the subtle chemistry that had ensured Vladimir Putin's success was destroyed, and with that he became powerless.
For over 20 years, Putin has been a powerful presence on the global geopolitical stage. But this power has always been based upon an unresolved contradiction, that between the ruthless dictator and the pseudo-democratic politician.
The ruthless dictator could impose his will upon the Russian people, while the pseudo-democratic politician could pretend to them that they had "chosen" him in "free and fair" elections, helped along by a clown "opposition" made up of the Communist Party and Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
The "ruthless dictator could also impress Westerners with his brutal glamour and dark charisma, while the pseudo-democratic politician could mollify them and reassure them that he wasn't really a monster, and was well on his way to being just like them.
This dual nature of Putin was the key to his success. However, in the weeks leading up to the present crisis, the ruthless dictator ripped off the mask of the pseudo-democratic politician and completely discarded it. But this did not make him a stronger dictator. Without his pseudo-democratic support he just became a brittle, weakling dictator, lashing out in a futile attempt to bolster and assert his vanishing power.
For over 20 years, Putin has been a powerful presence on the global geopolitical stage. But this power has always been based upon an unresolved contradiction, that between the ruthless dictator and the pseudo-democratic politician.
The ruthless dictator could impose his will upon the Russian people, while the pseudo-democratic politician could pretend to them that they had "chosen" him in "free and fair" elections, helped along by a clown "opposition" made up of the Communist Party and Vladimir Zhirinovsky.
The "ruthless dictator could also impress Westerners with his brutal glamour and dark charisma, while the pseudo-democratic politician could mollify them and reassure them that he wasn't really a monster, and was well on his way to being just like them.
This dual nature of Putin was the key to his success. However, in the weeks leading up to the present crisis, the ruthless dictator ripped off the mask of the pseudo-democratic politician and completely discarded it. But this did not make him a stronger dictator. Without his pseudo-democratic support he just became a brittle, weakling dictator, lashing out in a futile attempt to bolster and assert his vanishing power.
Putin: From this...
This is exactly what the attack on the Ukraine is.
Sure, the Russian military is strong, at least stronger than the Ukrainian one; and the Russian people are strong. But they now have a President who is no longer seen as a careful and calculating leader, or as someone you can even do a deal with. In fact, there is now a suspicion that he is clinically insane.
With the brinkmanship game that Putin was playing during the Winter Olympics, it was clear that he had deteriorated into someone you could not enter into an agreement with. Any agreement with someone like him would be worthless. This is exactly the same mistake that Hitler made, something that became his biggest weakness.
But it's not just international diplomacy that was affected by Putin's unravelling. This eclipse of the pseudo-democratic leader by the ruthless dictator also poisons lesser relationships, like the ones that tie governments and societies together. Putin's actions have not only made the lives of ordinary Russians much more difficult, they have also toxified his relationships with his own elites.
But it's not just international diplomacy that was affected by Putin's unravelling. This eclipse of the pseudo-democratic leader by the ruthless dictator also poisons lesser relationships, like the ones that tie governments and societies together. Putin's actions have not only made the lives of ordinary Russians much more difficult, they have also toxified his relationships with his own elites.
This all happened before the recognition of the fake breakaway republics. Everything since then has merely been a doubling down on ultimate catastrophic failure.
to this...
We are now in an ongoing military situation that is demonstrating the qualities of the Russian and the Ukrainian armies. What we are seeing is a tactical situation unfolding. The strategic decision, however, has already been decided -- namely that Putin's days are ended.
Even enormous tactical success won't change the larger facts. Putin, in his stupidity, still thinks it will. He hopes that Russian "shock and awe" and blitzkrieg attacks will defeat the Ukrainian army before it realises it's been attacked. He expects it to melt away, or wake up one day thinking it's "Russian." He also thinks that if he's fast enough, he can pull off a fake coup and put someone in power in Kiev whom he can control like his stooge in Belarus.
Even enormous tactical success won't change the larger facts. Putin, in his stupidity, still thinks it will. He hopes that Russian "shock and awe" and blitzkrieg attacks will defeat the Ukrainian army before it realises it's been attacked. He expects it to melt away, or wake up one day thinking it's "Russian." He also thinks that if he's fast enough, he can pull off a fake coup and put someone in power in Kiev whom he can control like his stooge in Belarus.
But none of this is about to happen. While impressive in parts, the early indications are that the Putin blitzkrieg is heading for the "shitzkrieg." The Ukrainian army is putting up much stiffer resistance than Putin expected. Also, there have already been numerous peace demonstrations in Russia itself, with Putin's goon squads arresting hundreds and possibly thousands of people.
But these are mere details in the bigger picture. Even if the Ukrainian army collapses and Putin pulls off his lightning war, the real problem he has is that there is no finishing line. He has started a race that doesn't have a termination point except for his own fall from power and death. If he gets to Kiev and puts in some Ukrainian version of his Belarussian puppet Aleksandr Lukashenko what then? Is the war over? Of course not.
Putin will not be accepted and nor will his Quisling stooge. The war of tanks and bombs may die down a little, but what about the diplomatic and economic war? What about the new war between Putin and his people, between Putin and the relatives of dead Russian soldiers, between Putin and his own oligarchs who have seen their wealth annihilated in its Western bolt holes?
By casting off his pseudo-democratic pretentions, Putin does not emerge as the 100% strongman that his idiot followers in the West believe. Instead, he emerges as a feeble, fragile, and brittle dictator, ready, like CeauČescu in 1989, to be hunted from his palaces and suspended from a meat hook.
But these are mere details in the bigger picture. Even if the Ukrainian army collapses and Putin pulls off his lightning war, the real problem he has is that there is no finishing line. He has started a race that doesn't have a termination point except for his own fall from power and death. If he gets to Kiev and puts in some Ukrainian version of his Belarussian puppet Aleksandr Lukashenko what then? Is the war over? Of course not.
Putin will not be accepted and nor will his Quisling stooge. The war of tanks and bombs may die down a little, but what about the diplomatic and economic war? What about the new war between Putin and his people, between Putin and the relatives of dead Russian soldiers, between Putin and his own oligarchs who have seen their wealth annihilated in its Western bolt holes?
By casting off his pseudo-democratic pretentions, Putin does not emerge as the 100% strongman that his idiot followers in the West believe. Instead, he emerges as a feeble, fragile, and brittle dictator, ready, like CeauČescu in 1989, to be hunted from his palaces and suspended from a meat hook.
...to this?
The pseudo-democratic politician was always a big component of Putin's poisonous but potent alchemy. It was the pseudo-democratic politician who kept the disgust of the West at bay while they continued to buy Russia's gas and oil. It was also the pseudo-democratic politician who used his charm to persuade Angela Merkel of Germany to veto Ukraine and Georgia's applications to join NATO.
The pseudo-democratic politician was, in fact, the harder working part of Putin's overall image. But now that image has dissolved into a poor parody of 1938 Hitler, a creature that the rest of the World knows it can never trust or do a deal with again.
The pseudo-democratic politician was, in fact, the harder working part of Putin's overall image. But now that image has dissolved into a poor parody of 1938 Hitler, a creature that the rest of the World knows it can never trust or do a deal with again.
___________________________________
Colin Liddell was the Chief Editor of Affirmative Right and is currently the Chief Editor of Neokrat. He is also the author of Interviews & Obituaries, a collection of encounters with the dead and the famous. Support his work by buying it here (USA), here (UK), and here (Australia).
The endgame Putin wants is Europe accepts new reality in exchange for Russian gas. I dont see why that's so implausible an outcome.
ReplyDeleteIf the West were serious about making sure Putin loses this, we'd be hearing about a radical Western pivot back towards nuclear. Anti-nuclear greens would be treated like flat earthers rather than a privileged order in the new post-christian western priesthood. Putin's gamble is that the West is now morally addicted to Thunbergism, and so it can't build nuclear, meaning his gas is what determines whether Germany is a first or second world country. The moral monopoly of the green midwit means even Norwegian gas won't even be permitted to save the day.
ReplyDeleteAll it needs to end this conflict is that the US guarantees that no more former Soviet republics will be allowed into NATO (and no more fake color revolutions to be staged to this end) and Russia the territorial integrity of these states (perhaps minus Crimea). That would be a win-win-situation. We need buffer states between NATO and Russia, the Finlandization of a corridor from the Baltic to the Black Sea anyway for peace. Great powers have always had buffer or client states in between them to maintain a level of security for both. That is the sensible thing to have, that is realpolitik.
ReplyDeleteRussia is not a great power. It is not even a great military power. Why will the West make any concessions? Putin has clearly lost his gamble.
DeleteYour assessment is a bit wrong, Russia has the means to wipe you out, and they will make use of these means this time around if you do not stop meddling in Europe.
DeleteThe above response of Anonymous from 26 February 2022 at 20:16 wasn't me.
DeleteRussia is still a great power. It has about the same size and international weight as under Peter I when it rose to one. And great powers follow in their influence sphere their own rules, especially when they feel their security threatened. We can condemn this but it remains a fact of international politics.
I talked a bit to Canadians. None of them is under any illusion that the US would not invade Canada if Ottawa is about to break free from NATO and join Chinese or Russian alliances. Because the US could not tolerate enemy bases so near its heartland under any circumstances.
And we don't need to refer to hypothetical scenarios. The US was almost ready to wage WWIII to prevent the Soviets from getting a foothold in Cuba.
And now Russia is trying to do the same thing. Secure its own backyard from being overtaken by its opponent (NATO). Buchanan has again the right perspective on things:
https://buchanan.org/blog/did-we-provoke-putins-war-in-ukraine-159120
Putin has certainly crossed his Rubicon. But you might be selling him short comparing his moves to those of Hitler, who was completely delusional. I don't see Putin rebuffing his generals and experts like Hitler did.
ReplyDeleteMy main criticism of Putin is that, if he really has the power he seems to have, he should have done more for Russia's revival and regeneration. Western politicians are totally handicapped by "checks and balances" of parliamentary democracy, he is not.
Putin liberates Europe from the deep state.
ReplyDeleteGAME OVER for George Soros' and his Ukraine with a European Cross for child trafficking, organ trafficking and drugs trafficking.
The poor Ukrainians now have to die for their corrupt upper class which is in bondage to the West and which is extremely exploiting Ukraine.
Putin has won!!!
Thank you Putin for fighting for a better world for all of us too!
Utter nonsense. You are sounding more like some garden variety neocon Russia-hater every day, you and Greg Johnson alike. Comparing Vlad to aAdolf is quite wacky on your part, Colin. Your stock has plummeted greatly in recent years.
ReplyDeleteI can't believe how bad some people are at reading. You've completely missed the point, which is how Putin is viewed by Russians and Western leaders. He was a double act and it worked great for a time, but now he's a one trick pony and that makes him weaker as a political leader. That is the thesis of this article and I have seen nothing in your comment to challenge it. Being a Putinfag is fine, but why do your lot get so emotional about it? I would reflect on that if I were you.
DeleteIf Russia's goal is either to conquer all of Ukraine, or simply to install a puppet regime, then they blundered bad. Puppet regimes installed by foreign powers don't last, and if they try to absorb the whole thing, they will have a permanent insurgency on their hands, and the whole thing will be more trouble than it's worth.
ReplyDeleteBut if the Kiev offensive is a feint, and the goal is only to grab the Donbas and a land bridge to Crimea, give or take some adjacent territory, they should be able to pull that off and profit from it long term. The people there are less hostile to Russia, the population is also considerably older there than in the West (thus less likely to foster an insurgency), and the land is mostly flat plains, as opposed to the more wooded and hilly West, which is also unfavorable toward an insurgency.
Russia is unlikely to come out of this smelling like roses, especially if their military performance continues to be so underwhelming, but I think the big story here is how thoroughly the Europeans have played themselves. Without a friendly Russian neighbor as a source of natural resources. Macron's dreams of a European strategic independence is wholly implausible. They are probably now more dependent on the US than ever.
Now, this next bit is a little out there, but what about this scenario: China makes a big move. No, not Taiwan. Instead they declare hard support for Russia. First they get Russia to shut off all gas exports to Europe, and promise to make up the difference, or at least most of it. Then they declare an absolute embargo against any nation that has sanctions on Russia, OR any country that trades with a country that has sanctions on Russia. In other words, the third world (in the original non-allied meaning of the word) must choose between business with China or with the West.
I understand that, though they are gradually growing out of the role, China remains an export economy. And such a move would obviously cause a recession in China. But it would cause a much deeper recession in the west (where recession is probably coming anyways). More than that, such a move has the potential to totally isolate the West, Europe would be virtually crippled and the US wouldn't be a whole lot better off. Obviously some third world countries would choose the Western sphere, maybe even most of them, but I can't see such a move not ultimately strengthening China relative to the West. Some number of European states would probably even defect to the Chinese side.
It would be a very painful thing for them to do, and very out-of-character, but if they did, I think it would be game-set-match. And they could settle the Taiwanese issue at their leisure.
If Russia's goal is either to conquer all of Ukraine, or simply to install a puppet regime, then they blundered bad. Puppet regimes installed by foreign powers don't last, and if they try to absorb the whole thing, they will have a permanent insurgency on their hands, and the whole thing will be more trouble than it's worth.
ReplyDeleteBut if the Kiev offensive is a feint, and the goal is only to grab the Donbas and a land bridge to Crimea, give or take some adjacent territory, they should be able to pull that off and profit from it long term. The people there are less hostile to Russia, the population is also considerably older there than in the West (thus less likely to foster an insurgency), and the land is mostly flat plains, as opposed to the more wooded and hilly West, which is also unfavorable toward an insurgency.
Russia is unlikely to come out of this smelling like roses, especially if their military performance continues to be so underwhelming, but I think the big story here is how thoroughly the Europeans have played themselves. Without a friendly Russian neighbor as a source of natural resources. Macron's dreams of a European strategic independence is wholly implausible. They are probably now more dependent on the US than ever.
Now, this next bit is a little out there, but what about this scenario: China makes a big move. No, not Taiwan. Instead they declare hard support for Russia. First they get Russia to shut off all gas exports to Europe, and promise to make up the difference, or at least most of it. Then they declare an absolute embargo against any nation that has sanctions on Russia, OR any country that trades with a country that has sanctions on Russia. In other words, the third world (in the original non-allied meaning of the word) must choose between business with China or with the West.
I understand that, though they are gradually growing out of the role, China remains an export economy. And such a move would obviously cause a recession in China. But it would cause a much deeper recession in the west (where recession is probably coming anyways). More than that, such a move has the potential to totally isolate the West, Europe would be virtually crippled and the US wouldn't be a whole lot better off. Obviously some third world countries would choose the Western sphere, maybe even most of them, but I can't see such a move not ultimately strengthening China relative to the West. Some number of European states would probably even defect to the Chinese side.
It would be a very painful thing for them to do, and very out-of-character, but if they did, I think it would be game-set-match. And they could settle the Taiwanese issue at their leisure.