Paul Goble
Staunton, Jan. 25 – Putin has compelling personal reasons for continuing his war in Ukraine and/or launching new wars elsewhere, Vladimir Pastukhov says; but all of those require that his war is going well for Russia. But today, his war in Ukraine is proving to be unsuccessful for Russia even thought it is at present even more unsuccessful for Ukraine.
According to the London-based Russian analyst, “war is the zone of maximum political comfort” for him, something that prompts “the interesting question: might Putin dare to live on without a war?” (t.me/v_pastukhov/1798 reposted at echofm.online/opinions/risknet-li-putin-zhit-dalshe-bez-vojny).
“There are many reasons for this,” Pastukhov says; but “it is worth repeating some of them.” First of all, “war is a powerful political tranquilizer which disables the critical consciousness of the aggressively passive majority.” Second, war abroad allows him to bring terror home.
Third, “the combination of the themes ‘corruption and social injustice’ which is the Achilles’ heel of his regime is completely pushed to the periphery of the information agenda during wartime and replaced by patriotic hysteria.” And fourth, it is “the best co er for solving … the successful transfer of power to the next generation.”
These and other factors favoring a continuation of the war are all “working ‘like clockwork’” for Putin; but their success depends “on the condition that the war is being waged successfully.” However, Pstukhov argues, “the war in Ukraine has ceased to be successful for Russia, and the fact that it now looks even less successful for Ukraine doesn’t change that.”
“So what’s ‘wrong’ with the war as far as Putin is concerned? the Russian analyst asks rhetorically. Many have been offered, “but again it makes sense to briefly recall why the war is a dead end” now for the Kremlin:
First, “the possibilities of waging war as a "colonial expedition" by the hands of "mercenaries," whose recruitment is carried out using medieval methods, are practically exhausted. Ahead looms another mobilization with its unpredictable socio-political consequences.”
Second, “the plateau of stability, ensured by the efforts of the Mishustin-Nabiullina government, has its limits. The lack of real economic growth and technological prospects practically guarantees stagnation and inflation, which will inevitably provoke the victory of ‘the refrigerator’ over ‘the "television’ if not this year, then next.”
And third, “the use of terrorist methods of warfare in the center of Europe has its limitations, and at some point will provoke a ‘continental blockade, … to which it will be necessary to respond with direct aggression against Ukraine's European allies, which is easy in words, but not so simple in practice: many in the Kremlin are still living too well to want to die.”
“In these circumstances,” Pastukhov argues, “there is a risk that the continuation of the war will lead the regime to a critical point, beyond which all its advantages will turn into disadvantages in a very historically short period of time.” Admiration for toughness will be replaced by charges that it isn’t being prosecuted well.
Moreover, “the war will cease to be considered a factor to which all the absurdities and inconveniences of Russian life can be attributed, and accusations of corruption will come not from liberals and Navalny supporters, but from pro-government and nationalist groups who will believe thieves and swindlers stole their victory.
Putin is thus now “carefully weighing the risks for himself of continuing the war and the risks of ending it,” the analyst says. “Like a medieval alchemist, he is searching for a formulat to end the war that will transform the dung heap of its unforeseen complications into a gold medal of a victorious hero.”
“If he thinks he has found it” but only then, Pastukhov concludes, Putin “will take the risk” of ending his aggression.
No comments:
Post a Comment