For Four Reasons, Putin’s ‘Insane’ War in Ukraine Now New Normal in International Affairs, Inozemtsev Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Feb. 25 – Few now have any doubt that Putin launched his expanded war against Ukraine in 2022 “not only as the result of the ideology of the new Russian fascism but also as a result of the phenomenal miscalculations of both the fuehrer himself and all his entourage,” Vladislav Inozemtsev says.

            But what needs to be confronted now, the Russian economist and commentator argues, is “why and to what extent this insane war in Europe now taking place at the beginning of the 21^st century has become something normal that the world has grown quite accustomed to” (ru.themoscowtimes.com/2026/02/25/bezumie-stavshee-normoi-a188010).

            According to Inozemtsev, there are four main reasons why “this insanity as become the norm” for so many. First of all, as the first proxy war in Europe, few if anyone can see the way clear for its end and thus believe that they must adapt themselves and their own behavior to what is going on because it is going to last for a long time to come.

            Second, Inozemtsev says, “too many beneficiaries have appeared over the course of the four years of this war,” including not only powers not directly involved but even in the two frontline states; and even including many Russians and Ukrainians who have fled abroad but live in a world in which the war forms an important part of their lives.

            Third, the war has now lasted so long that it has become background noise for almost everyone especially as the front doesn’t move very war in either direction and because Kremlin relied on paying men to fight rather than on any broader political reason and thus avoided having to mobilize massively, something that could have triggered resistance.

            And fourth, neither side is prepared or even able to defeat the other side completely. Russia can’t deploy sufficient resources to end all resistance, and “the West isn’t interested in escalation which could lead to a nuclear war” and recognizes that now it is “impossible” to defeat Russia as other aggressors in Europe were defeated in the past.

            According to Inozemtsev, the war can come to an end in only two ways, which in fact collapse into one: “the departure from the historical arena of the madman who initiated the war and subordinated Russia to its conduct.” The “more radical” option is to promote “some form of regime change in Russia.”

            The other “allows for an immediate end to the conflict on Russia’s terms, with the consolidation of Ukraine’s support system, the restoration of its economy and its incorporation into Western structures, with implicit non-recognition of new borders and boundaries … and the expectation of inevitable future changes in Russia after the natural death of the dictator.”

            Neither of these options, the Russian commentator continues, “should presuppose the restoration of relations with the aggressor country before a change of political regime as that would completely legitimize aggression” and even ensure that Putin would launch more wars in the future.

            But “the saddest circumstance” of this war as it enters its fifth year is not only the continued losses it entails but “also the continued coexistence of the ‘civilized’ world with this brutal reality, a coexistence which itself becomes an additional factor in the continuation of the war” and “widens the gap between what consumes us and what should be our moral compass.”