Bloomberg: waiting will not help the West defeat Putin in Ukraine

The Royal Institute of International Relations of Great Britain Chatham House published the 58-page report “The Russian Challenge”, which contains many brilliant and exceptionally correct assessments of ideological root causes, working methods and economic features of the regime of Russian President Vladimir Putin. I did not find any flaws in the facts and analysis that were presented by experienced authors of the report, including the two former British ambassadors in Moscow.

Nevertheless, the scarcity of constructive proposals in the report shows that Putin has quite successfully involved Russia and the West in unproductive tug-of-war, which will not solve any problems.

The provisions of the report on how the parties have reached such a point are highly realistic. In the first three years of his reign, Putin advocated closer integration with Europe and the West as a whole, but then he changed direction, preferring to strengthen the state, prompted by this improvement in the economic position of his country. As a result, its values ​​and goals came into conflict with European ones.

There were clashes due to the expansion of the European Union and NATO, and the culmination was the Ukrainian crisis. Meanwhile, systemic corruption, state centralism and the deterioration of the terms of trade have created structural problems in the Russian economy, leading it to a recession. But Putin managed to present this situation to the Russians as part of a Western conspiracy against their country, and therefore it is unlikely that anyone will overthrow him in the near future. Putin today occupies such an important place in the political system of Russia that it is now impossible to predict which leader will come to replace him.

The authors state the facts systematically, with an indication of the symptoms and consequences. From different angles, they come to the conclusion that the stalemate is inevitable. Former British ambassador to Russia Roderic Lyne describes the predicament that Putin fell into as follows:

“He can't afford to be seen as backing down. He must create something that he can present as victory. But this is a very costly confrontation, and will continue to be so. The longer it lasts, the more difficult it will be for him to show that it is beneficial for Russia. Putin has to constantly convince his people that this is a fight for survival.”

“On the other hand, the West cannot retreat either,” writes James Sherr, who until recently directed the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House:

“The betrayal of Ukraine (what else can you call it?), and soon after that of Moldova and Georgia, will increase the number of “Vichy” states in Europe, which will not feel any love for the remnants of the West, much less respect. Then Latvians or Poles can rightfully ask: if the West does not want to defend the Charter of Paris by all means short of war, then will it defend the North Atlantic Treaty through war if a “hybrid” threat arises?

It is difficult to resolve the conflict in the case when neither side wants to retreat. Economic sanctions, which were a direct response to Putin’s aggression, failed to achieve any practical goals. They were counterproductive, backfiring.

As Philip Hanson, who prepared the economic part of the report, writes:

“The sanctions currently in place are unlikely to cause the kind of economic turmoil that would create the need for radical change. On the contrary, they give the Russian leadership a very convenient scapegoat to blame for stagflation: the West. There is also an opinion that they strengthen the forces of nationalism and statehood, which oppose uncompromising market reforms in Russia. Even if nationalism and state centralism were gaining ground in Russia and its political leadership even before 2014, this is still a serious unintended consequence of Western sanctions.”

However, the West today has been trapped in its sanctions policy. He can not retreat in this matter, as in all others. “The weakening of sanctions while maintaining the unchanged situation in Ukraine,” writes Hanson, “gives its own signal that the West is going to back down and that it is possible to make new adventures with impunity.”

The total war against Russia is another option, but I have not yet seen any serious expert make such a proposal. This is not the case in the Chatham House report.

In fact, their advice comes down to what you have to wait. They say that the West should support Ukraine, turning it into a strong, self-sufficient and sovereign state, should encourage the European aspirations of other former Soviet republics, as well as enhance the authority of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. In a broader sense, the West must arm itself, resist Kremlin propaganda, deprive Russia of the levers of political influence on energy markets and maintain sanctions. In no case can not return to the usual state of relations with Russia. Over time, the Russian leadership will change, and it will be possible to establish contacts with it again, the report authors say. And even if the new regime is “worse” than Putin’s from the point of view of the West, he will not have the problem that Putin has - the impossibility of retreating.

The disadvantage of these recommendations is that they lay down, in essence, a passive policy that depends on Putin’s passivity. If we talk about this in chess terminology, then Putin is not in a stalemate, but in a zugzwang situation. He is forced to make new moves, even if they worsen his position. And all because of the fact that he must continue to promote and defend his concept of the “war of civilizations” among the Russians. Long lulls are unacceptable for him, he needs all new events to keep the audience relaxed.

If Western leaders do not signal their readiness to normalize relations, for example, by lifting the sanctions while freezing the conflict in the east of Ukraine, or by forcing Ukraine to take a softer position on the issue of reintegrating the territories held by the separatists, Putin may sharpen this conflict even more .

In recent days, fighting has broken out in the Donbas. The pro-Russian rebels are attacking, but cannot yet take the city of Marinka, located not far from Donetsk. If you look at recent events, you can make the following conclusion: when the rebels suffer military defeats, regular Russian troops come and smash the Ukrainian army. If a shaky truce is broken, and everything repeats, the West will no longer be able to play its game of waiting. He can decide on the armament of Ukraine, and then, instead of restoring its economy, it will be involved in a destructive full-scale war. In other words, for the West, the stalemate situation can also turn into zugzwang.

Understanding perfectly the root causes and the current state of the “Russian challenge,” the best Western experts, and therefore the Western leaders, cannot take the courage to take a firm stand. As after the annexation of the Crimea, the choice before them is very simple: to fight until victory or negotiate. Wait will not work.