Peter, I want to ask you a question generally unrelated to this article, but I am posing it anyway because you are one of the smartest and most informed writers here, and you also respond to virtually every request. Something I and others thank you for.
We see so many people "justify" Putin's Ukraine military operation because of the verbal agreement that the US would not support any expansion of NATO into the former Warsaw Pact countries. Now if this was a verbal agreement between Putin and an American presidential administration, which apparently is now considered the consensus, don't you think that Putin certainly knew such a verbal agreement could not be considered binding beyond that particular American administration's tenure?
I mean this seems kinda obvious to many of us, but is never mentioned by those Putin apologists, much less the anti-USA crowd, and is so often fed into the discussions as some kind of Binding Decision, that it renders the discussions disingenuous. Just would like to hear your expert analysis on this, or even a short comment, especially relative to other similar decisions.
I am not defending the NATO expansion, or criticizing Putin's concerns, or even recognizing the validity of claiming the US is responsible for the 'coup" that seemingly led to these long running hostilities, a subject, another 'consensus,' that is quite debatable, especially considering the results.
Putin is an ethnonationalist authoritarian (i.e., fascist) as well as a corrupt thug. Which means he only gives a damn about verbal agreements when it suits him.
He's had his eye on Ukraine for a while. In his worldview, Ukraine exists as a satellite of the Muscovite Russian Empire or not at all.
Militarily, Ukraine in NATO is a strategic existential threat to Russia. Territory like Ukraine is what allows Russian military doctrine to work: use the strategic depth of Ukraine to bleed an invader dry. Ukraine being on the other team makes Russia proper indefensible.
Putin's problem is he's a bully rather than a military commander or a statesman-like leader. He could have squeezed Europe on a formal NATO guarantee anytime after about 2017. He could have invested in more pipeline infrastructure to the east and greater LNG capacity around Sakhalin, and not been dependent on Europe for energy export revenue.
He could have gotten everything he needed without firing a shot, but he decided to a) invade Ukraine with an inadequate and undersupplied force, b) targeted civilian infrastructure almost wantonly, which arguably constitutes war crimes, and c) was economically unprepared for the inevitable NATO/EU sanctions.
Putin forgot that NATO exists because Russia was perceived as a military threat to Western Europe, and so when he proved NATO was still relevant the responses were almost formulaic. No matter what the outcome is in Ukraine, the EU and it's 30%+ of Russia's export revenue is gone for good, and Putin has no way to replace it.
In the end, it's not a question of why Putin invaded Ukraine, it's a question of how strategically shortsighted he was by invading Ukraine. In one grand fustercluck he exposed the incompetence of the Russian military and the Achilles Heel of the Russian economy for the whole world to see.
There is no good ending for Putin here. There may be no good ending for NATO, and the best ending for Ukraine is total devastation, but Russia as a geopolitical player is effectively ended. And when the other ultranationalists in the Kremlin realize just how badly he screwed the pooch his "retirement" will be abrupt and unpleasant.
To the best of my knowledge, this incarnation is my first experience with anything resembling journalism.
However, I have always had a passion for history, for facts and figures, and have been blessed with a fairly good memory--which comes in handy when writing my Substack!
I simply track down the data and go where it leads, and then share that journey with my subscribers. (Each of my articles starts out as much a learning experience for me as anything else, which is itself a fascinating experience).
I'm glad you like my work--and all gratuities are gratefully accepted! (Although if a paying subscription isn't in the available budget, please share my articles as much as you can. Nothing is quite so gratifying in publishing a Substack newsletter as seeing the readership grow!)
This is a very thought provoking article.
Peter, I want to ask you a question generally unrelated to this article, but I am posing it anyway because you are one of the smartest and most informed writers here, and you also respond to virtually every request. Something I and others thank you for.
We see so many people "justify" Putin's Ukraine military operation because of the verbal agreement that the US would not support any expansion of NATO into the former Warsaw Pact countries. Now if this was a verbal agreement between Putin and an American presidential administration, which apparently is now considered the consensus, don't you think that Putin certainly knew such a verbal agreement could not be considered binding beyond that particular American administration's tenure?
I mean this seems kinda obvious to many of us, but is never mentioned by those Putin apologists, much less the anti-USA crowd, and is so often fed into the discussions as some kind of Binding Decision, that it renders the discussions disingenuous. Just would like to hear your expert analysis on this, or even a short comment, especially relative to other similar decisions.
I am not defending the NATO expansion, or criticizing Putin's concerns, or even recognizing the validity of claiming the US is responsible for the 'coup" that seemingly led to these long running hostilities, a subject, another 'consensus,' that is quite debatable, especially considering the results.
Putin is an ethnonationalist authoritarian (i.e., fascist) as well as a corrupt thug. Which means he only gives a damn about verbal agreements when it suits him.
He's had his eye on Ukraine for a while. In his worldview, Ukraine exists as a satellite of the Muscovite Russian Empire or not at all.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181
Militarily, Ukraine in NATO is a strategic existential threat to Russia. Territory like Ukraine is what allows Russian military doctrine to work: use the strategic depth of Ukraine to bleed an invader dry. Ukraine being on the other team makes Russia proper indefensible.
Putin's problem is he's a bully rather than a military commander or a statesman-like leader. He could have squeezed Europe on a formal NATO guarantee anytime after about 2017. He could have invested in more pipeline infrastructure to the east and greater LNG capacity around Sakhalin, and not been dependent on Europe for energy export revenue.
He could have gotten everything he needed without firing a shot, but he decided to a) invade Ukraine with an inadequate and undersupplied force, b) targeted civilian infrastructure almost wantonly, which arguably constitutes war crimes, and c) was economically unprepared for the inevitable NATO/EU sanctions.
Putin forgot that NATO exists because Russia was perceived as a military threat to Western Europe, and so when he proved NATO was still relevant the responses were almost formulaic. No matter what the outcome is in Ukraine, the EU and it's 30%+ of Russia's export revenue is gone for good, and Putin has no way to replace it.
In the end, it's not a question of why Putin invaded Ukraine, it's a question of how strategically shortsighted he was by invading Ukraine. In one grand fustercluck he exposed the incompetence of the Russian military and the Achilles Heel of the Russian economy for the whole world to see.
There is no good ending for Putin here. There may be no good ending for NATO, and the best ending for Ukraine is total devastation, but Russia as a geopolitical player is effectively ended. And when the other ultranationalists in the Kremlin realize just how badly he screwed the pooch his "retirement" will be abrupt and unpleasant.
Incredible!
Were you a Newspaper editor in a previous life?
You, PNK, are one of a few incredible resources on this platform.
I have to find a way to become a paying subscriber!
To the best of my knowledge, this incarnation is my first experience with anything resembling journalism.
However, I have always had a passion for history, for facts and figures, and have been blessed with a fairly good memory--which comes in handy when writing my Substack!
I simply track down the data and go where it leads, and then share that journey with my subscribers. (Each of my articles starts out as much a learning experience for me as anything else, which is itself a fascinating experience).
I'm glad you like my work--and all gratuities are gratefully accepted! (Although if a paying subscription isn't in the available budget, please share my articles as much as you can. Nothing is quite so gratifying in publishing a Substack newsletter as seeing the readership grow!)