This strikes me as a very astute observation of Putin's predicament by John Sipher. Sipher argues that Putin's weakness is driving him to take risks that a more stable autocrat would not take. "Regimes" he writes "that rule by fear live in fear." Putin's fear is the prospect of continual decline. Putin benefitted from soaring gas prices from 2001-2009 to reinvigorate Russia's economy after the smoldering shitshow of the '90s. However, that revival was built on resource money and some infrastructure spending. The weakening gas prices (up until recently) deprived him of the money he needed to spread around Russia and keep people happy. We saw the same dynamic in PRI Mexico and late Communism in Russia itself. You chain yourself to oil revenues and you make yourself dependent on global markets outside your control.
Russia has been fundamentally unable to follow China's path of authoritarian politics wedded to more liberal markets. Because the Russian legal system is designed to coddle the wealthy and powerful, there is no sanctity of contract. While that is occasionally an issue in China, it is standard in Russia. There is no reason to invest in long term, human capital relationship in Russia. In fact, quite the opposite, as Russia has experienced a pervasive "brain drain" under Putin's heavy hand.
Putin's previous invasions of Ukraine have brought more hardships to the Russian economy, and there are signals that the West will place even more sanctions should he invade again. Russia rivals any country in its poor handling of Covid, and faces a long term demographic decline as its birth rate is below the replacement level and no one in their right mind would immigrate there. I've always compared Russia to Mexico, in terms of its economy, and I think that comparison still stands.
Putin has been obsessed with Russia's "humiliation" at the end of the Cold War. His long term goal, as Sipher notes, is to destroy NATO. This is why he backed Trump, and likely why Trump openly threatened to pull the US out of Europe. That has been and remains Putin's primary goal. Putin's sabre rattling also serves Beijing by stalling the "Asian Pivot" preferred by Obama and Biden. If America has to defend Europe, it will weaken itself in Asia. That does not mean, however, that confrontation with NATO, the EU and the US will benefit Russia.
Putin likely looks at his 2014 invasion of Ukraine and 2008 invasion of Georgia as being successful templates for any action he takes in Ukraine. However, there are other examples of Russian military folly. The invasion of Finland shortly before World War II comes to mind. You could cast your memory back further and look at the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5. An overly confident tsarist regime thought it could handle the Japanese easily and were humiliated. This led directly to the first Russian Revolution of 1905. Theda Skocpol has theorized that the leading cause of revolution is international humiliation of some sort. When a regime founders on the world stage, it delegitimizes authoritarian regimes, especially.
Putin, therefore, cannot back down, but he also can't move forward. For all the ugly flaws we see in democracy, especially recently, the problems with authoritarianism are far deeper. Putin can talk himself into any number of disastrous courses of actions, because his authority is only barely checked by the sycophants he surrounds himself with.
Putin will likely miscalculate, because miscalculations are really the only viable options he has.
UPDATE: Adam Silverman has a more detailed military plan of what the US and the West should do.
No comments:
Post a Comment