A Tale of Two Leaders Pt. 2: #Putinfail
The Russian leader thought he could bully his way into a political victory in Ukraine, instead he's not just isolated Russia and united NATO, he's exposed himself as a lousy strategic thinker
I’m Michael A. Cohen, and this is Truth and Consequences: A no-holds-barred look at the absurdities, hypocrisies, and surreality of American politics. If you received this email - or you are a free subscriber - and you’d like to subscribe: you can sign up here.
I’ll be Zoom Chatting at 12:30 Friday, and I am so excited for this one. In honor of President’s Day, which is this Monday, I’ll be joined by Margaret O’Mara, a historian at the University of Washington, to talk all things presidential. We’re gonna rank best and worst, talk about how the presidency has evolved over the years, and discuss why most American presidents are pretty meh. Margaret is a brilliant historian, so it should make for a fantastic discussion. Here’s the link and I look forward to seeing you tomorrow.
#PutinFail
(Click here to listen to today’s newsletter)
On Tuesday, I wrote about President Biden’s deft handling of the crisis in Ukraine. Now it’s time to look at the other side of the coin — how is Vladimir Putin doing. Your answer below, in gif form.
It’s genuinely hard to do justice to how poorly Putin has dealt with Ukraine over the past eight years. It wasn’t long ago, after all, that the two countries had a close relationship. But after the 2014 Maidan Revolution and the ouster of Ukraine’s pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, things took a turn for the worse — and exacerbated by Putin’s tactless and aggressive behavior toward Kyiv.
The low point was the 2014 seizure and annexation of Crimea weeks after Maidan. Then came the direct support for pro-Russian rebels in the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine, who launched a protracted and bloody insurgency. These moves were intended to coerce Ukraine. Instead, they have had the exact opposite effect. It’s remarkable to consider that in 2014, Ukrainian support for NATO membership hovered around 15 to 20 percent — and Putin was considered the most popular politician in the country. According to two recent polls, approximately 60 percent of Ukrainians now support NATO accession. Moreover, by seizing Crimea and backing the insurgency in Eastern Ukraine, Putin has literally removed a significant portion of the country’s pro-Russian voters.
The effect of these actions is two-fold. First, it’s encouraged Ukrainian leaders, like President Volodymyr Zelensky, to be less solicitous of the country’s pro-Russian minority. Second, it has made it more difficult for Zelensky to compromise with Moscow for fear of a domestic political backlash.
Quite simply, Russia — more than any other actor — has firmly pushed Ukraine into the arms of the West. It’s true that the current crisis has shown that the West will not defend Ukraine and that NATO membership is not going to happen any time soon (but that was well-known before the conflict). From that perspective, Putin can claim he’s won the battle. But he’s lost the war for Ukraine’s future. Putin’s actions have confirmed what many Ukrainians now believe — that their destiny lies to the West and not with Moscow. He’s made it nearly impossible for Ukraine to remain within the Russian sphere of influence willingly. Now the only way that happens, going forward, is via coercion.
More Of The Same
In the current crisis, Putin has doubled down on eight years of failed strategy. By massing troops along the Ukrainian border and threatening invasion without any clear casus belli, he’s left little doubt about who is to blame if there is war. The ham-handedness of Putin’s machinations has had geopolitical implications. Because his actions are almost comically aggressive and blustering, it’s made it relatively easy for European nations and the United States to not just push back on him — but to do so in a united fashion.
One of Putin’s long-standing foreign policy goals is sowing division among NATO allies and even within the European Union. He has, to put it charitably, miserably failed. If anything he’s united NATO in a way that hasn’t been the case in years and provided a justification for the alliance to continue. He’s even undercut his perennial complaints about NATO expansion. Indeed, the last few weeks and months have demonstrated that expanding NATO as a tool for containing Russia wasn’t a half-bad idea.
No matter how this current crisis turns out, Putin has further contributed to his nation’s political and economic isolation. In addition, his moves will encourage European countries to wean themselves off of Russian natural gas (which is already happening), and he’s united NATO against him. That is a trifecta of failure.
From a public relations standpoint, an unending set of US intelligence leaks, contradicting Russia’s lies about the conflict, hinting at dissension within his military ranks, and highlighting his nefarious plans in advance (like trying to launch the war off of a false flag operation) have exposed Putin’s strategic shortcomings. At every step of this crisis, he’s been outsmarted and outplayed, and primarily by the United States.
Yet, what’s even more amazing is that things could get worse. Because Putin’s been unable to coerce Ukraine into bending to his will, he’s painted himself into a corner. Either back down and look like a paper tiger or risk going to war. After a day or two of hopeful signs that the latter might be avoided, the last 24 hours have seen the opposite — more Russian troop movements, cyber attacks in Ukraine, increased shelling from pro-Russian insurgents in Donbas, and an even larger set of ridiculous demands from Moscow. These include a demand that no NATO or US military assets be allowed in countries once part of the Soviet Union (the three Baltic states) and the removal of all NATO military capabilities in countries that joined NATO after 1997. None of these things will happen, and for Putin to raise them, this late in the crisis only highlights the unreasonableness of his position. A smart strategist would have asked for a simple assurance from NATO that the alliance would not grant membership to Ukraine. NATO would have said no, but the request is not entirely unreasonable. Instead, he asked for the moon and the stars and ended up making himself look like an unreasonable actor.
And make no mistake, if Putin does decide to invade, it will be disastrous for Russia. It’s almost certain that Russian forces will prevail, but any prolonged occupation or even annexation of Ukrainian territory will likely lead to an insurgency. That will cost Russia tremendously in both blood and treasure. When you throw in the almost certain economic sanctions that will result from a military foray into Ukraine, Russia is looking at long-term economic pain and further political isolation. Putin will become a pariah and Russia a pariah state with few friends in the region or the world.
Moreover, there doesn’t appear to be strong domestic support for an attack on Ukraine. If Russian boys start coming home in body bags, one can imagine that discontent at home will rise too. As bad as war would be for Ukraine, it would be an even bigger disaster for Russia.
But all is not lost for all Vlad. He could walk himself off the ledge. He could recognize that the NATO membership for Ukraine isn’t going to happen any time soon and that the West has little interest in protecting Kyiv. He could look at the West’s muted response to him sending tens of thousands of troops into Belarus as a tacit acceptance of a Russian sphere of influence in its near abroad. Backing down will make him look weak and undermine his credibility, but so what? There are worse fates.
But, from a long-term perspective, the damage has already been done. NATO remains united and even galvanized. Ukraine’s shift to the West — politically, economically, and culturally — will continue. Putin’s image as a bully has been bolstered, and the notion that he is a brilliant and wily strategist punctured. As noted above … not great Bob, not great at all.
What’s Going On?
I have a new piece up at MSNBC on how the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved into a choose-your-own-adventure.
The Economist shares my view that Putin has screwed the pooch on this one.
Remember that volcano eruption near the Pacific island of Tonga a few weeks back? It turns out the plumes reached 38 miles into the atmosphere.
Democrats have a major rural voter problem.
Good piece by CNN’s Brian Stelter on how pro-Trump lies spread on right-wing media.
Your daily reminder that if Jesus came back and saw what's going on in his name, he'd never stop throwing up.
Musical Interlude
The last bit made me think about this great Woody Guthrie song.
U2’s cover of the song is excellent.
This US song comes from the 1988 album “Folkways: A Vision Shared – A Tribute to Woody Guthrie & Leadbelly,” which is fantastic and worth a listen. Here’s Little Richard and Fishbone demolishing “Rock Island Line.”
President Biden is a master. In time he is going to get everything he wants. He doesn’t get thrown off course by all the noise and negativity. He is so underestimated and undervalued snd I’m convinced it’s because of ageism, which is despicable and disgusting and hateful.