Winston Churchill once described the Soviet Union as a riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. Maybe that is still an apt description of Putin – – and then maybe not. To me Putin’s actions, especially now, are quite understandable. I’m not saying justified, but surely understandable. The Soviet Union fracture in 1991 was a dark moment for a proud country whose obsession with power and control was its raison d’etre.
NATO was created in 1949 as an intergovernmental military alliance initially between 10 European countries plus the U.S. and Canada.
“NATO is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes. If diplomatic efforts fail, it has the military power to undertake crisis management operations. These are carried out under the collective defense clause of NATO’s founding treaty, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty or under United Nations mandate, alone or in cooperation with other countries and international organizations.”
Not explicitly written, it was in essence a defense treaty of nations against growing post World War II threats from the USSR. Following the declaration of independence by many of the former Soviet republics and other countries that had been under Soviet dominance, NATO began its drive to incorporate many of those into NATO. Today there are 15 European counties in NATO that were once under Soviet domination.
The Russians have pretty much always been paranoid about their vulnerability to invasions. During WW II the USSR sustained between 8 and 10 million military deaths and another 10-14 million civilian deaths, plus widespread destruction. Napoleon’s army invaded Russia in1812 and set fire to Moscow. Perhaps their concern about the expansion of a military organization right up to their borders is not altogether difficult to understand.
Putin rose to the leadership role in Russia over 22 years ago. The loss of Russia’s former glory has weighed heavily on him, and he sees his legacy resting on his ability to secure Russian borders and to regain its former regional, if not its international, prominence.
Probably the most crucial former client state of Russia is the Ukraine. It is the largest, among the most advanced and is seen as essential to Russian defense. The Ukraine shares a border of almost 1500 miles with Russia. For Putin, control of the Ukraine, or at least preventing it from falling into the camp of western Europe, is likely his highest foreign policy objective.
So here we are today with some 150,000 Russian troops on the border of the Ukraine, poised for an imminent invasion to secure that objective. Putin has dominated the news and commanded attention of leaders worldwide. He loves that. Will he or won’t he invade? That has been the question for weeks. If one weighs the pros and cons of an invasion from the Russian perspective, it’s hard to see that it would accomplish Putin’s objective. For sure the Russian forces can overwhelm the Ukrainian forces – – – but at what cost? The Russians could well suffer serious, embarrassing losses, the Ukrainian people would be galvanized against Putin, concerted guerilla resistance against Russian presence could ensue, many nations would impose further sanctions and the heavy costs of a war would add to the economic woes of the country. What rational person would pursue such a policy when such consequences might obtain?
I personally believe that Putin’s action started as something of a test, one great bluff, a scare tactic to get world attention, a shot across the bow as a warning to the pro-western government of President Zelensky and other countries watching. To me Putin has now pretty much painted himself into a corner. Things seem to have gotten out of his control. If he goes to war, he will reap a major dilemma, but if he withdraws without meaningful concessions, he will suffer an even greater dilemma. War or peace will hinge on whether the world will give Putin a face-saving exit. Only that will defuse the crisis. But how far is the western world willing to go? That is the question.
- – – – Just the view of a common man
Views of a Common Man 
We’ll explained but what is the solution? What could the west give Putin to save face ?
Sent from my iPad
LikeLike
I agree with the previous comment. I appreciate how well you explained the situation and feel it is a true dilemma, but what is the solution?
LikeLike
The silver lining of this activity is both leaders; Putin and Biden; have low ratings from their people and both will see better ratings after the scare.
LikeLike
Ollie’s assessment that Putin’s action started as something of a test, that he has now pretty much painted himself into a corner, that things seem to have gotten out of his control, and that war or peace will hinge on whether the world will give Putin a face-saving exit, is interesting and valid. On the contrary, however, I believe Putin is very much in control. The fact that he (Russia) proposed some of the most one-sided set of demands ever made to the U.S. and NATO under the guise of “security guarantees” to end the crisis over Ukraine says it all. The Putin government is unimpressed with our government’s administration.
The head of the Russian delegation at the Vienna negotiations on Military Security and Arms Control, Konstantin Gavrilov, declared, “There arrives a moment of truth when the West either accepts our proposals or other ways will be found to safeguard Russia’s security.” Russia’s extreme proposals are backed with nuclear threats which have been common in the past, but the operational dispersals of their Yars mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) force are not common, and they are being placed in firing positions across different locations in Russia.
William Alberque, Director of Strategy, Technology, and Arms Control at the prestigious International Institute of Strategic Studies, has pointed out that engaging Russia’s demands would reward Russia for seeking negotiations “at the point of a gun, and send a chilling message that Russia has succeeded in limiting the sovereignty of Euro-Atlantic states outside of the Alliance.” A boost to Putin’s popularity and power.
Dr. Mark B. Schneider, Senior Analyst with the National Institute for Public Policy, warns that Putin’s approach to arms control clearly involves treaties with little substance, asymmetric effects, and minimal verification buttressed by a “bodyguard of lies” with regard to the range of its strike missiles. Instead of the U.S. rejecting the Russian demands out of hand, our administration is negotiating about them. This assures either a failed negotiation or an unmitigated disaster for us. This definitely should not be used as a “face saving” exit for Putin.
General George S. Patton was a military genius summarily silenced because he was an outspoken critic of Stalin and a vocal proponent of liberating Berlin and the German people from certain communist aggression. Robert Orlando, a filmmaker and public speaker, calls Patton the first victim of the cold war. He further states that it seems the “what if’s” of history echo in Patton’s words about Russia when he stood with his massive 3rd Army on the outskirts of Prague in a potential face off with the Red Army, and was not permitted to advance or capture the city. Who can argue that Patton’s notion of meeting the enemy “now, rather than later” in retrospect seems a worthy and prudent strategy of a seasoned tactician?
LikeLike