“The History of the world is but the biography of great men.” Thomas Carlyle’s opinion is certainly old fashioned and has been reworked by historians to three concepts: History is made mostly by individuals; those individuals are mostly men; and those individuals are to be regarded not just as great, but aside from a few villains, admirable (according to Sean Lang, Senior Lecturer at Anglia Ruskin University).
Today, it seems the second two conditions are pretty irrelevant considering the scholarship and history of the world, but the initial point is certainly relevant to Putin’s actions in the Ukraine.
When I was a young man, the revealed knowledge about the incipient European Union and NATO was that if European nations traded with each other, and there was a substantial European (and American) force to deter aggression from the Soviet Union, the continuous wars in Europe would be a thing of the past. My hope, and many idealists’, was primarily that inter-European economic dependencies and interactions would lead to a Europe at peace.
Guess what, it worked for 75 years. With all the trade issues and complaints about the European Union’s high handed regulations and diminishment of national sovereignty (and even with Britain’s exit), armed international conflict was never something even considered in Europe. It took one man, with a corrupted vision of a new Russian Empire, to undo the peace of the Western World.
The arguments put forth by Putin—a megalomaniacal despot with a quasi-racist justification for the seizure of territory newly separated from the collapsed Soviet Union—are eerily reminiscent of Hitler’s claims for seizing Austria and other European nations, including appeals to national myths and the alteration of the history of the region. None of these are even remotely true, but most importantly, no nation should invade and attempt to annex another sovereign state. (See the UN Charter, adopted in 1945, as an example of the codification of the prohibition against armed conflict except for the common good).
I find it remarkable that any sentient individual can possibly dredge up any argument or set of facts to justify Russia’s past or present armed aggression against Ukraine. War is probably the best example of our species’ inability to rise to the ideals of our various religious beliefs, but the avoidance of war in Europe since the mid-20th century is a prime example of the benefits of peace—economically, socially, and politically.
In a recent lecture, James Brooke discussed the status of Russian arms. A former reporter for The New York Times, a former bureau chief of the Voice of America in Russia, and a long time resident and consultant in Russia and the Ukraine, his local and national prospective on the war is unique and broadly based.
He reported that the most recent estimate of Russian military deaths in the last year is 10 times the 14,000 plus deaths in Russia’s ten year conflict in Afghanistan, and that the invasion force has literally been cut in half. The war in Afghanistan and the corruption and undemocratic Soviet state were major factors in the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union.
Reports from Russia show that younger citizens continue to flee the state, while the army in the field has been decimated. Russian soldiers in the field regularly refer to themselves as canon-fodder, and new replacements are more difficult to find because of the flight of possible conscripts and the emptying out of prisons.
Recent Pentagon reports show that one-half (2,000) of Russian tanks have been destroyed as well as thousands of other armored personnel vehicles. Troops are being used as they were in the Second World War, resulting in mass casualties to no effect. For all its self-vaunted military capability, Russia is fighting an old style artillery war, devastating cities with no tactical or strategic purpose. The Joint Chiefs have commented on the lack of coordination or any substantial strategic or often tactical planning in both combat units and in the higher commands.
Brooke described the Russian’s Iranian drones as flying typewriters, slow, inefficient, and able to be defended against. Russia’s military equipment—particularly armor and artillery—are no match for the new arms which will be arriving in Ukraine in a few months, just in time for operations in the spring, when the fields and roads are more passable. (The American Abrams tanks are not significant because of the long training time and fuel issues, but the Tiger tanks will allow new significant offensive capability for Ukrainian forces.)
The loss of the Russian flagship to two anti-ship missiles was particularly devastating since Putin visited it at least five times bragging about its capabilities. (Actually, it’s usefulness now would be problematical, since the Baltic sea is now controlled almost completely with NATO aligned countries, including Finland and Sweden, who promptly realized the threat of Russia and changed their quasi-neutral postures immediately upon the invasion.) Brooke reports that the Russian Air Force is also ineffective because of Ukrainian antiaircraft missiles and, therefore, no longer engages in flights over Ukraine.
NATO had been concerned, especially with the build-up of a 400,000 person invasion force, that if Russia’s plan to quickly seize Kyiv was accomplished, the Kremlin may have been ready to invade a NATO state. There was intense planning and preparation for such a scenario. Today, Pentagon and NATO war planning has virtually dismissed such a probability because of the decimation of Russian forces and the incompetence of the army. One of the worst results for Putin has been the demonstration of the inabilities of his armed forces, and the destruction of the myth of their power and competence.
As for its threats of the use of tactical nuclear weapons, they are considered militarily unlikely, since there are no cities or installations which would make their use worthwhile, and they would convert the Asian nuclear nations, particularly Pakistan and India, into instant enemies. China would also desert Russia, almost entirely isolating it.
All said, as the fool’s errand continues, thousands of people are needlessly dying and Ukraine is fighting for its life with great spirit and determination. How does it stop? Certainly Europe and the U.S. must continue their unreserved support, but they can only advise a sovereign state which is fighting an invader. The ramifications throughout the world are endless, from increased energy costs to food insecurity. One wonders if the winter had been colder whether the stalwart support from Europe would erode as the economic cost of the war started to bite more deeply.
Perhaps a truce, such as was made to end the Korean War, is the most possible “interim” solution. (Although the truce protocols and boundaries in Korea have not changed in 70 years.) If you were Ukrainian, would you accept a stand down to the current boundaries, and perhaps an agreement not to join the EU or NATO? If you were Putin, how do you declare a victory and leave after killing perhaps 200,000 of your soldiers and failing in your promise to annex Ukraine? Tough questions, which must be resolved before the killing stops.
The pressures on all of the world from Putin’s misadventure has been widespread and diverse. The decrease in economic activity in almost every nation and the horrors of war have personally affected all of us. Peace is better than war, but the Korean War only ended when the armies were stalemated and more lives and treasure were spent. The impetus for a resolution has never been greater, hopefully it will happen sooner than later.
