Will Vladimir Putin back down before the world’s condemnation? What would convince him to end his war against Ukraine? And if he did stop the slaughter of innocent civilians, how could he save face and claim justification for the atrocities he inflicted?
History hints at answers to these questions. Did Hitler or Mussolini ever back down? The former died at his own hand and the latter at the hands of an angry mob. Dictators do not shamefacedly surrender. Why? Because they can never admit they were wrong. Therefore, once they obtain unlimited power, they can never willingly relinquish it. If forced out of power, they lament their grievances and accuse others of wrongdoing and of a great injustice against themselves, their followers, and their alleged ideals. Consider Hitler’s response to his conviction for treason (reference previous blog). He declared himself innocent before a divine court, much as Putin elicits his justification from an aggrieved history. Specifically, he blames the West for the fall of the Soviet empire, which he terms a violation of Russian sovereignty. And Mussolini wanted to restore Italians to the citizenship of a great nation, to relive its imperial past. Even in America, Donald Trump wanted to make America great again. MAGA was his justification for fomenting violence and running roughshod over Democratic institutions, including a free election, the very heart of a democracy. Even before the recent Presidential election, he predicted he could not lose unless the election was rigged. These sick men can never admit defeat and will hold their grievances close as salve for an inflated ego. Naturally, they must always claim themselves unjustly maligned.
Mature human beings admit their mistakes and exemplify the ability to learn from them. But dictators, even wannabe dictators, are unable to do so. When they also are demagogues, they project themselves as great leaders unable to err and somehow superior to ordinary men, even above the law. Their rule-breaking bravado and promise of a mythological panacea can plant the seeds for revolution or nation-reconstruction and even justification for world conquests. Vladimir Putin has already won his revolution against Russia’s budding democracy. And he has built a strong nuclear armed country out of the ruins of the former Soviet empire. Although he has yet to restore its empire, he is well on his way to doing so. Parts of Georgia and Crimea are now part of Russia. By various hegemonic means, including the use of military force wherever necessary, he has included into Russia’s orbit parts of eastern Ukraine, Belorussia, Kazakhstan, and Syria. Can he allow Ukraine to remain a free democratic state more aligned with western Europe than Russia’s dictator-controlled kleptocracy? Does anyone believe he can or will do so?
History tells us that dictators die before backing down—even at the point of their own gun. It’s not the world they fear to face. It’s themselves. They refuse to recognize the monster in their mirror. The current dilemma facing the world is Putin’s nuclear leverage. He simply cannot be ignored. Could he challenge NATO and the US to step down from the brink of nuclear devastation and accede to his annexation of Ukraine in his empire building quest? He could, and he has. But would either NATO or any sane US President risk a nuclear world war? In other words, can they call Putin’s bluff?
Again, let’s look at history. In October 1962, America and Russia confronted each other over the Cuban Missile Crisis. America, representing the entire Western hemisphere (by virtue of the Monroe Doctrine), ordered Russia’s Cuban missile bases to be deconstructed and removed. Russia was willing to negotiate removal of these potentially nuclear armed missiles if America would do likewise with its nuclear armed missiles in Turkey. Both sides eventually reached agreement, and the crisis ended. Recently, Putin agreed to a similar quid pro quo. America and Russia have signed a mutual agreement to limit a/o pull back short-range nuclear missiles stationed in Europe. But this agreement does not require removal. As a result, Russia can use its nuclear arsenal as a threat in future conflicts—like this conflict in Ukraine or possibly future conflicts in Eastern Europe. Putin alleges these short-range nuclear missiles pose a threat at Russia’s doorstep. But would he be prepared to remove all medium range missiles from Europe’s doorstep in return for a matching disarmament from NATO? Or would he rather be free to threaten nuclear war over Ukraine? I suspect the latter is true: Putin cares less about the possibility of nuclear war than he does about empire building. Ukraine is a step towards Putin’s dream of restoring the Russian empire. His nuclear arsenal is another means to his end. In terms of nuclear warheads, Russia may be considered the greatest nuclear power in the world. Putin believes neither NATO nor any sane US President would risk a nuclear war over Ukraine. In other words, Putin is not bluffing, for he believes he has the winning hand.
So why destroy Ukraine in the process of adding it to Putin’s revived empire? Does he want that part of Ukraine that traditionally has been the breadbasket for Russia? But he already has a hold on part of Ukraine’s agricultural area and a significant part of its industrial base as well. Why then attempt to demolish Ukraine as a productive country? Perhaps he considers it just a steppingstone to his broader purpose. Imagine Europe with a nuclear armed attack force on its border with no intervening land mass in between. Russia would then have a strategic advantage in a lightening attack on Europe. What leverage would that advantage have over Europe? Add this potential leverage to the economic leverage Russia already has as Europe’s main energy provider. Today it provides over 40% of the gas and oil required to serve Europe’s energy needs. In Putin’s mind, the suffering of Ukrainians is trivial to Russia’s divinely ordained mission to rule from the Atlantic to the Pacific. His scorched earth assault on Ukrainian homes, schools, hospitals, and supportive infrastructure is just part of his grander scheme. But does not his brutality reveal a deeper animosity to the people of Ukraine?
The answer is on the lips of today’s Ukrainian refugees. Putin detests a democracy on his border and despises Ukrainians’ freedom, most especially because they are so closely related to Russian history and to present-day Russians. They exemplify a lifestyle diametrically opposed to Putin’s vision of Eurasia. For the Russian people not only are related to Ukrainians by race and history but are also witness to what Ukrainians have achieved as a democratically free state. Putin sees Ukraine as a threat to his control over the Russian population and to his vision of Russia’s future dominance over Europe. He sees Ukraine as a threat to everything he is and represents. In other words, for Putin, this war seems to be personal.
So how does the West deal with a fanatic¹ who can weigh both the threat of nuclear war and his hold on power in the same balance? What happens if NATO with US concurrence decides to enforce a “no fly” zone over Ukraine to protect innocent civilians from death and homelessness? In desperation, would Putin unleash nuclear war? Well, he just recently went through nuclear war exercises with his military. Were those exercises preparatory or just a provocative warning to the West?
Remember the moments during the Cuban Missile Crisis when US and Russian ships faced off in the Atlantic. President Kennedy was in direct contact with the US naval officer in that confrontation. If fired upon, the President reserved for himself the order to return fire. What Kennedy did not know was that the missiles in Cuba were not only armed but that Khrushchev had already given the order to fire if fired upon. A single blip in the command structure or misunderstanding on either side could have resulted in the destruction of the entire East Coast of the United States and of a mutually devastating exchange of nuclear warheads between Russia and the United States. Historians who study this episode have concluded that neither side wanted nuclear war at the outset. But circumstances—and provocative escalations in offensive maneuvers—could have led to a nuclear disaster. This history should give us all a pause, especially decision-makers on either side.
Remember when President Obama not only wanted to stop nuclear proliferation but to begin reducing nuclear arsenals to zero. Those policy objectives were the impetus for nuclear arms reduction agreements with Russia, extension of the agreement with Pakistan for the US to dismember their nuclear stockpile during a war, and the pursuit of an Iranian agreement limiting enrichment of uranium to peaceful purposes. But the world has since lost its momentum on nuclear disarmament agreements. And that loss is magnified by the present Putin threat to world peace. As long as nuclear arsenals exist—and the danger of some madman using them as leverage in negotiations for peace or war, the world will remain hostage to a fanatic¹ like Putin. There is no good option in dealing with Putin’s threats. Is he bluffing? Or is he so deluded by his paranoia that he would risk a nuclear war? If one can trust in his sanity, then NATO should declare a free fly zone over Ukraine. And the NATO member states should make Ukraine a provisional member of NATO and immediately seek an armistice agreement with Russia so that NATO peacekeeping troops and NGO’s can begin to restore public services to Ukrainians. If Putin can no longer be considered reasonable, then the only remaining option is a Russian insurrection. The financial sanctions may lead to that result, but it needs to be supported by an information campaign within Russia. It has been reported that many Russians are protesting the war. But Russian history teaches a sad fact: whether it’s the Bolsheviks, the Soviets, or modern day kleptocrats, any change in Russia involves a bloodletting.
And so, the world finds itself held captive to a macabre rerun of Rome burning while the emperor plays his violin. But, in this case, it is Ukraine that burns. Its people are left homeless or dead. And Putin sits twenty or thirty feet away from all human contact, locked into his maniacal euphoria over the exercise of his unlimited power to demolish a free, democratic nation. Meanwhile, we are all held hostage to scenes of destruction and human misery, all of which are eerily reminiscent of 20th century World Wars.
Nevertheless, all nations of the world must come together to support Ukraine. It’s struggle against a megalomaniac affirms every nation’s right to govern itself freely and within secure borders. Most especially, democratic nations should support each other’s self-governance against the threat of autocrats within or outside of their borders. The Ukrainian people have shown how far they would go to preserve their freedom in a democratic state. They are willing to risk life and home for that freedom. Their example should remind democracies around the world how precious their freedom is in a dangerous world.
We Americans have kept the democratic fires we lit in 1776 burning for more than two centuries. The lesson Ukrainians teach us is simple: we cannot take our freedom for granted. Both without and within, there are those who would undermine our freedom: Putin, most certainly at NATO’s border; and Trump, surreptitiously, from within. Because we maintain a sophisticated defense system that extends over land, air, sea, and space, it seems unlikely that Russia would engage America in a nuclear war. But we should be concerned about Putin’s sanity and the looming threat he poses to Europe. President Biden is right not to play Putin’s high stakes game of war and destruction under the threat of nuclear war. Instead, his economic sanctions have moved this contest to the very seat of Putin’s power, that is the support of the Russian people for his Presidency. Our President once said that he looked into Putin’s eyes and could not see a soul. If Russians can begin to see the inhumane and ruthless way this fanatic¹ pursues his vision of power and glory, they will turn away in disgust and force him off his would-be throne. Frankly, he deserves the fate of Hitler and his like.
The more immediate threat to our freedom comes from the degradation of our own politics. We have a Putinesque character in Donald Trump who thinks Putin is a “genus” and that his characterization of an invading army as peacekeepers is a “brilliant” description of an unprovoked violent annexation of a free and independent country. Fortunately, we do not need to risk our lives or our homes to defeat our Putin wannabe. We can expose his attack on our democratic institutions via Congressional oversight. We can hold him accountable for any crimes he may have committed in a court of law. And, if he should attempt to regain the office of the Presidency, we will have no need to lay down our lives to defend ourselves, like the Ukrainians. We have the power to commit him and the Party that may choose to support him to the ashbin of history. We still have the democratic power of the vote.
Although war in Europe may not be imminent, it still lurks as a more ominous possibility. The invasion of Ukraine could devolve into a broader war, even a nuclear exchange between Russia and the combined response of NATO and the US. Certainly, no sane leader would risk mutual destruction by uncorking a nuclear Armageddon. But a fanatic¹ might.
_______________________________________________________
¹ As my readers know, I believe the roots of words embellish their meaning and render a deeper, perhaps unconscious, implication or “weight” to their perception. And the word “fanatic,” for example, does imply more than a raving lunatic. Its Latin root is the adjective fanaticus, meaning “inspired by deity, enthusiastic, raving.” The deity aspect is central to its connotation for fanaticus comes from the noun fanum, which means “temple.” Putin believes he has a mandate from God to restore Mother Russia to its rightful dominion over all land within ocean borders. Perhaps, I can not say more than what Livy proclaimed many centuries ago about the beliefs of such men as Putin: Isti philosophi superstitiousi et paene fanatici. (My translation: Such philosophies are highly superstitious and always inspired by raving religious extremism.)