Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Treeamigo's avatar

I would be cautious of narratives and extrapolation. Should we ignore Russia’s success and excellent planning in Ukraine 2014, in Georgia (or its more Stalinesque bloodbaths in Syria and Chechnya)?

The most recent invasion of Ukraine was an ill-conceived decapitation strike. Russia actually thought its fifth columnists would deliver more cities bloodlessly (like Kherson was) and the Spesnatz would take out the Zelensky government. Western intelligence, AWACS and battlefield surveillance, Ukrainian fortitude and bravery and mostly Putin’s miscalculation made this a spectacular failure. The invasion force, outside of Donbas, was structured as an occupation and municipal governance force, not one meant to take land cm by cm against entrenched opposition, and Putin’s paranoia prevented even the alleged occupation forces from properly planning and training.

Putin now controls only the most strategic (to Russia) bits of Ukraine- a southern land bridge and a bit more of the Donbas than it had before. With the addition of a few hundred thousand troops and defensive lines built for depth, it will become much more difficult for Ukraine to dislodge these forces. The amount of artillery (ex Himars, MLRS) that NATO has donated is largely irrelevant along a front this large (Ukraine has thousands of artillery pieces, including captured Russian ones, while NATO has sent dozens). HIMARS and MLRS are vital but the missiles/rockets are in short supply and are being used judiciously. Ukraine and the US love the narrative about US weaponry…..because Ukraine wants and needs more and it makes the US/NATO donors look good. Let’s remember the fighting is being done by people risking their lives.

Ukraine is a basket case with an economy reliant on charity. That is not the case with the Russian economy (though as each year passes it may go backwards in time by a decade).

Putin has unleashed chaos within Russia and for Russia with this invasion, but its overall strategy is a simple one of regional hegemony and control, not chaos. Russia’s ties to the Middle East and Iran are much stronger than the EU’s, who should really be the power trying to influence and stabilize this region. Meanwhile, Putin is still very influential in the ex-CIS and has intervened in Kazakhstan, Belarus and Azerbaijan/Armenia successfully in the past year.

This conflict has revealed that (ex-nukes) Putin is no real military threat to NATO, and he has proved he can live alongside chastened but suspicious neighbors like Georgia. Meanwhile, his ties to Asia are deepening (necessarily) as a result of the conflict.

We don’t “need” Russia perhaps, but let’s not underestimate the role that its hegemonic power had in stabilizing the CIS which would certainly have descended into Syrian style sectarian civil war otherwise.

Russia’s future role is unknown and probably many years in the future - after Putin and probably his nationalistic successor. We shall see

Expand full comment
Lee's avatar

Typo mate, just helping out offering some free Sub-editor services 😀

Before the war, its military was believed to be the world’s third most powerful on the planet

You only need either ‘worlds’ or ‘on the planet’ not both

Expand full comment
69 more comments...

No posts