Paul
Goble
Staunton, August 10 – With the
defeat of the Russian insurgents in eastern Ukraine now within site and Western
sanctions beginning to bite, many commentators are arguing that Vladimir Putin
must choose between sending in the Russian army as part of a full-scale
invasion or suing for peace and an end of Western sanctions.
Both of those options carry serious
risks: the first could trigger an even more serious conflict between Moscow and
the West, and the second could undermine Putin’s standing with a Russian
population he has whipped up into a frenzy and might even lead some within his
regime to challenge his rule.
But there is a third option -- and
that is not taking any dramatic step in either direction but rather continuing to
interfere in Ukraine as he has been, writer Aleksandr Goldfarb reminds in a
blogpost on Obozrevatel.com (obozrevatel.com/blogs/31259-iz-dvuh-variantov-putin-vyibral-tretij-dlya-sebya-samyij-plohoj--chto-dalshe.htm).
From Putin’s perspective, it seems
clear, such an approach has at least three advantages. First, it allows him to
keep his options open. He can always decide to do one or the other depending on
how things develop – or alternatively, he can create a new crisis elsewhere and
then be in a better position to decide how to behave in Ukraine.
Second, the Kremlin leader may be
drawing on a Soviet precedent, albeit a tricky one: Leon Trotsky’s argument in
1918 that Soviet Russia should not sign the punitive Brest-Litovsk treaty with
Germany but not continue to fight either. Lenin rejected that view in principle
but in fact briefly was compelled to follow in that case and then used on other
occasions.
And third and most important,
pursuing a policy of “no war, no peace” will simultaneously keep
interventionist elements in Russia in line because such people will continue to
believe that Putin is ultimately on their side, and more important, they will
wear out many in Ukraine and the West who want a quick resolution to the
crisis.
Almost nearly daily reports that the
Russian leader is about to launch a full-scale invasion of Ukraine keep
everyone on edge, but with each day he does not do so, ever more people will
argue that he won’t and that the time has come to reach an agreement, possibly
offering recognition of Putin’s occupation of Crimea in exchange for his
promise not to move elsewhere.
As he has demonstrated throughout
his career, Putin is quite prepared to shift quickly and also to make promises
that he has no intention of keeping, especially since the short time horizons
of Western leaders and publics and their rapid shifts in attention to other
problems mean that they want to move on and will not hold him accountable
Indeed, it is quite possible that “no
war, no peace” has become Putin’s strategy, one that he has every reason to
believe will work against those who seem capable of responding to what he does
only on an ad hoc and tactical basis. After all, that strategy allows him a
freedom of action that few are prepared to recognize he very much still has.
No comments:
Post a Comment