Putin’s Dangerous Ukraine Brinksmanship Fantasy Needs to Stop – Opinion

With the US authorizing the transferring of anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons from NATO countries to Ukraine to begin to set up military defenses against a Russian attack, the argument over the fate of Ukraine due to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s agenda enters a new and far more dangerous phase.

Both sides now recognize the danger in this development and have called for a pause to ease tensions, assess the situation and attempt to resolve it. This will be a difficult task because Ukraine’s situation has etched itself into Europe’s consciousness far more than any tensions right now.

Mr. Putin’s Bad Poker Hand

I’m going to be frank in saying that Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t the great chess player many in the West credit him with. In fact, he’s an awful poker player. The fact of the matter is that he’s playing with a bad hand. He’s gone all-in on a bid to rebuild the former greatness of the Soviet Union, but that’s a pipe dream, a domestic politics campaign story, and deep down I’m quite sure Mr. Putin knows this.

Russia’s GDP is a mere $1.483 trillion in 2020. That’s smaller than the Western European nations of Italy ($1.886 trillion), France ($2.603 trillion), Germany ($3.806 trillion), or the U.K. ($2.708 trillion). Russia’s economy is also smaller than Canada ($1.643 trillion), India ($2.623 trillion), or the State of California ($3.0 trillion).

The facts speak for themselves. Russia is capable of starting a conflict, but it can’t finance one for a long time. This would require too much money. Mr. Putin’s strategy is a grand bluff. The strategy depends on countries west of Russia’s border with Ukraine giving in to Putin’s demands. That’s unlikely to happen.

It’s a rogue strategy that, personally, I compare more closely to the immature demands for concessions by North Korea and Iran, than a country that in my view, deserves better stature and certainly held to higher standards of composure.

Don’t be afraid, Putin. Your country has a large GDP, and you should treat it as a friend and partner to your EU major neighbors.  You deal with them economically. You don’t play well with them culturally because of the Fisher wound in your heart that the Soviet Union lost so much when the Cold War ended. But that’s the past, sir. Your country isn’t part of their New Europe club, and it needs to be.

Bitter Advice

What’s the prize for this little adventure? Ukraine with its paltry $155 billion GDP. Despite the “one people, one economy” story of the Russian leader, this is not the “return to greatness as an economic power” remake of the Soviet economy that Mr. Putin wants as his narrative. It’s an economic blip.

Objectively, I’d advise against gobbling Ukraine on purely self-interest grounds for Russia. Russia will be unable to afford the negative economic effects it would have on its economy. Russia will feel more isolated. Russia will become more isolated, which could further drag down its already weak domestic economy.

Putin understands well the dire financial state of several Russian Federation countries. He also knows that his country’s being organized around oligarchy governance is incompatible with Western Europe’s economic co-dependency culture.

It’s time to bust myths and recognize that Mr. Putin has spent years working himself into his own finger trap, and his ability to change direction for his nation is now limited by his own inertia.

The only solution for Russia is to give up the fantasyland of an equal Russian Empire to Western Europe.

Returning to Olde Europe

The United States has a tendency to lose sight of the history before 1776. This is what got us in trouble with Afghanistan. Now it might get us in trouble in Europe.

What’s going on with Ukraine isn’t about western values, NATO, or America.  It’s about the very nature of how cultural tensions and economic interests in Europe have been resolved since the Hundred Years War ended in 1453.

It began in Middle Ages. It decimated the landscape. In its aftermath, there came a pattern of tiny wars, “minuet” conflicts, in Europe that spared the infrastructure, even as lines of borders shifted in a long series of safety valve wars. This was an easier way for elites to quarrel. Most often, the outcomes could be negotiated without any changes in borders. This conflict model maintained relative stability over five hundred years.

The 20th anniversary saw the end of these quarrels.^ThThe post-industrial revolution was the catalyst for total war in Europe. World War II brought about a devastating outcome. To prevent the same thing from ever happening again after the war, the Allies, despite deep divisions, established a complicated system of power balances that would deter any thought of starting war. There were superpowers. Sometimes, they forced people to sign up for a team. The era of global stability, which was based on polarity & deterrence, lasted half a century.

The European Union was created. The European Union was created to end the Cold War. It also began a process of restoring Europe’s minuet squabbles status. A growing network of interconnections between elite clubs of 1 trillion- to $5 trillion GDP countries is helping Europe to regain its former 500 year landscape.

Russia, however, is not included in the club. It’s become the last nation trying to hold onto the temporary fix after World War II. The rest of Europe is moving back to where it’s been comfortable since 1453.

The former Warsaw Pact countries like the idea of being part in the return to Olde Europa. However, they don’t mind the Soviets lingering on their borders. They enjoy the buffers provided by the Steppes in the west. It’s soothing. They’ll be willing to engage in a long and expensive siege to keep that sense of security.

Warfare is expensive. Putin doesn’t have the money to pay for a siege. Russia would be inundated if he invades. This will dwarf the 20-years of chaos in Afghanistan. This is what Putin understands. He’ll go broke. He will also be bankrupt, and his nation and people will go into further ruin. The world knows this, and he is aware of it. This bleak outlook is not what I can imagine Mr. Putin wanting.

Is the US a constructive nation?

America was part of the international alliance that caused the tensions in the 20^Th Century.  Also, our minds are still in demobilization. That is why we continue to see the Russians and Soviets.

However, we’re outsiders. Europe’s future belongs to the indigenous peoples of the region and their ability to get along. However, Club Europa can still benefit from our advocacy.

Don’t get me wrong. This is not a decision made by the United States for self-interest.  To stabilize our country’s future, we need an important and stable trading partner in Europe. The USA’s economy needs vast markets and counterparties across both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans to flourish. Our national interest is in creating these trade conditions.

Creating a future that returns all the peer $1 to 5 trillion GDP countries to “minuet stability” Europe, including Russia, would be, in my view, a worthy goal as the next step in demobilization from World War II. The key priority is to get Europe to continue with the next five hundred years’ regional stability.

All policy analysts and leaders around the world should know that while this is an intimidating suggestion for a proud man, Vladimir Putin needs Russia to be a member of the club. I don’t think he can turn this corner by himself. He will need help to get out of his own way.

It’s awfully hard for other European peers to invite Russia back into the alliance. Since 1945, these countries have played hill-and-valley power games together.  In order for them to be able to build their next generation together, they will have to heal old wounds dating back to the Middle Ages. But I think it’s worth the effort.

The United States could also prove to be a tremendous help in this area. This was possible once before. The Soviet Union, which was already in crisis due to the cost of its military equipment, was beginning to collapse. There were Americans who suggested that helping the Confederation of Independent States find solid economic foundations was the best way for Europe to be stabilized. We are experiencing the same problems today with Russia because it didn’t happen.

But it’s never too late to set things back on a path to peace. The US can be Russia’s advocate, if Mr. Putin is willing to set aside his Soviet fantasy, to facilitate its return to the community of peers of post-Hundred Years War Europe.

These conditions could be very difficult. Taking a lesson from the West’s debacle in Afghanistan, lingering corruption and autocracy models would have to be replaced by systems more compatible with the rest of Europe. That’s the only way for true regional stability to flourish.

It would have to be Mr. Putin’s greatest act of love for his country to alter course in this more promising direction. It will highly likely mean the end of his era, and the beginning of the next phase of Russia’s history. It is a deep call for humanity’s good. It is not unlike asking his predecessors to “tear down this wall.”

Is it possible? It is very difficult. But those of you reading this who understand the meaning of the title I am quoting, “Getting to Yes” has never been easy.