Staunton, November 19 – While many in the West accept Vladimir Putin’s self-evaluation of his moves on Karabakh at face value as evidence of his power and skills, an increasing number of Russian analysts are disputing his claims and labelling that outcome and others as evidence of the defeat after defeat he has faced across the post-Soviet space.
Andrey Illarionov points out that in the south Caucasus, Putin wasn’t able to prevent the beginning of military operations, stop them when he wanted, and achieved a ceasefire only when his former ally, Armenia, capitulated. And still more, he couldn’t keep Turkey from expanding its foothold in the post-Soviet space (aillarionov.livejournal.com/1209093.html).
Konstantin Eggert agrees and argues that what has happened appears to be beyond Putin’s understanding as far as its future dimensions are concerned for Russia and its immediate neighbors (dw.com/ru/kommentarij-vremja-moskvy-na-juzhnom-kavkaze-vyshlo-nastalo-vremja-ankary/a-55652196
That shouldn’t have surprised anyone: Moscow’s only exports are military force and corruption; and “the Kremlin always loses when one talks about democracy. Any honest elections will bring victory to politicians who focus on values and not on massive theft and the anger of the ridiculous Putin regime.”