🔒 Premium: As Russia switches focus in Ukraine insiders warn Putin cannot afford to stop

Among many books on the origins of World War One, the best I’ve read is Pulitzer Prize-winning The Guns of August by the late Barbra Tuchman. A 500-page classic, it traces reasons for and early stages of the conflict that transformed the world in ways nobody could have imagined.

Tuchman explains how the tragic mess was created by the arrogance and misplaced loyalties of Europe’s ruling elite; and continued for years longer than necessary because neither side could afford carry the financial and other costs that accompanied admitting defeat.

In the WSJ piece by Walter Russell Mead on Putin’s invasion republished below, stark parallels emerge. Ditto in the accompanying video where Putin’s most vocal Western opponent, fund-manager-turned-activist Bill Browder, argues why the Russian autocrat needs to perpetuate this war.

As the Ukraine conflict enters a new phase, we should all take note. Ukraine is far away from SA, as were theatres which hosted that great conflict of a century ago. Geography, however, did not insulate this country from WW1’s consequences. This time, too. Forewarned is forearmed.

More for you to read today:

The End of Russia’s Empire?

Moscow has a stake in the Ukraine war that is greater than Putin’s career. For them, stakes are ‘almost infinitely great’. 

Bill Browder is CEO and co-founder of Hermitage Capital Management.

By Walter Russell Mead of The Wall Street Journal

As Russia and Ukraine prepare for what could be the biggest tank battle in Europe since World War II, the future of Vladimir Putin’s war remains impossible to predict. Large-scale tank and artillery engagements in the flat open terrain of eastern Ukraine may favor Moscow, and the sheer weight of Russia’s military machine could force territorial gains, but other outcomes are possible. Ukrainian courage, tactical brilliance and access to Western arms and equipment could produce another string of humiliating setbacks for Russia.

The worst-case scenario for Mr. Putin would be for Russia’s war in Ukraine to end in a comprehensive military defeat, with the collapse of pro-Russian enclaves in the Donbas and Moldova and Ukraine’s integration into the West. Such a defeat would be more than a personal humiliation; it could be a career-ending setback for him. It would also deliver a psychological and strategic shock to Russia’s standing and self-image. The course of Russian history would change.

Russia would not be the first former empire to face a moment of historical reckoning. Spain’s 1898 defeat at the hands of the upstart Americans was a watershed moment in Spanish history. The global empire that had defined Spain since the voyages of Columbus had suddenly disappeared, and Spaniards began to question everything from the monarchy to the role of the church.

For Britain and France, their ignominious failure in the 1956 Suez campaign forced both countries to realize that they were no longer independent global powers. The glories of empire were over, and the two former superpowers began, painfully and reluctantly, to adjust to their new circumstances.

A decisive Russian failure in Ukraine could be Moscow’s Suez moment. If Russia fails to conquer the heart of Ukraine (western Ukraine is less of a concern in Russian historical mythology), Russians will be unable to avoid the conclusion that the empire of the czars, painfully assembled over many centuries and restored by Lenin and Stalin after the disasters of World War I, has irrevocably fallen. This will force the kind of deep introspection in Russia that other former empires have had to face. The consequences will be far-reaching.

Under the Romanovs, the communists and Mr. Putin, Russian political thought has been shaped by three beliefs: that Russia is different, that the difference is transcendentally important, and that it gives Russia a unique role in world history. Defeat in Ukraine would radically undermine confidence in these ideas, plunging Russia into an identity crisis with unpredictable political consequences.

The czars, commissars and Putinists all saw Russia as both unique and committed to a struggle against the West. For the czars, Moscow was the “third Rome” that would carry the torch of Christianity and civilization after the first Rome fell to barbarian invaders and the second Rome (Constantinople) fell to the Turks. For the communists, Moscow was the citadel of the global proletarian revolution, fated to annihilate the decadent bourgeois culture of the West. Mr. Putin and his acolytes see the world in similar terms, with Russia committed to a war of survival against Western decadence, soullessness and unbridled greed.

To hold its own in the unequal competition with the more developed West and to provide governance suited to its unique psyche, Russia, its rulers argued, needed to concentrate power at the top. Only someone as strong as Catherine the Great, Stalin or, his admirers maintain, Mr. Putin can enable Russia to prevail in its confrontation with the West.

Ukraine is the heart of the matter. With Ukraine under its thumb, Moscow sees itself as the greatest power in Europe. Without Ukraine, the dream that Russia can recapture the Soviet Union’s status as a superpower will die a bitter death.

Worse, perhaps, from the viewpoint of the “Eurasian” theorists and radical Russian nationalists who provide a veneer of legitimacy for Mr. Putin’s regime, a victory for Orthodox, Slavic and democratic Ukraine over despotic Russia wouldn’t only challenge the personal legitimacy of Mr. Putin. It would challenge the idea of Russian exceptionalism and fatally undermine the view that despotism is the form of governance best suited to the Russian soul.

As the war exposes the darkness inherent in Mr. Putin’s regime, and as atrocities abroad and repression at home impress the mark of Cain ever more deeply on its brow, it is impossible not to hope for a Russian defeat. Nevertheless, caution is in order. Mr. Putin and those around him know that in Ukraine they aren’t fighting only for an adjustment of frontiers. They are fighting for their world, and it may be psychologically impossible for them to accept defeat until every measure, however ruthless, and every weapon, however heinous, has been brought into play.

For Vladimir Putin and the people around him, the stakes in Ukraine are almost infinitely great.

* Walter Russell Mead is the Distinguished Fellow in Strategy and Statesmanship at Hudson Institute, the Global View Columnist at The Wall Street Journal and Professor of Foreign Affairs and Humanities at Bard College in New York. 


As a Premium subscriber you are entitled to full membership of wsj.com (normal price $29 a month). Be sure to action your access through the Premium link on the BizNews website. Because of The Wall Street Journal’s credential requirements, be sure to create a password which has at least 8 characters and includes at least one letter and one number – NB it MAY NOT contain any special characters (ie #, !, @ etc). To maintain access to WSJ.com, you MUST enter our partner’s website via BizNews Premium at least once a month. A final PS, if you had previously signed up for WSJ you’ll need to clear the cookies from your device. Our help desk can assist – [email protected].

If you’d like to help sustain our independent voice, why not share the love by making a gift that keeps giving? Click here to access the BizNews Premium subscription signup form, and be sure tick the relevant box. At R100 a month and inclusive of full membership of The Wall Street Journal, it’s a mind-expanding gift at an incredibly modest price.