The Manila Times

UKRAINE: THE END OF PUTIN’S DELUSION?

HERMENEGILDO C. CRUZ

BEHOLD these two euphemisms in recent Russian history: “socialist internationalism” and “special military operation.”

In 1979 the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was characterized as “socialist internationalism.” This meant that all socialist countries had an obligation to assist Third World countries in establishing a proletarian society. It was claimed that there were some “bandits” in Afghanistan who were obstructing this effort. The USSR as the most advanced socialist country therefore had to send its armed forces into the country to eliminate these “bandits.” At that time, the Soviet Union was supported by the fellow socialist countries of Eastern Europe in this endeavor. The contest then was between the Warsaw Pact countries and the Muslim world (mainly Pakistan and the oil-rich Arab countries) supported by the US and Great Britain.

President Putin has termed the ongoing invasion of Ukraine a “special military operation.” The use of the term “invasion” or “war” to describe the action has been declared a crime punishable with imprisonment of up to 15 years pursuant to a recent law passed by the Duma (parliament). The “fraternal socialist countries” in Eastern Europe which had supported the Afghan invasion have become democracies and joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It is thus a Russian solo operation. It has become a conflict between Russia and NATO.

Modern wars are not won by the side that possesses a large armed force. Rather, it is won by the side which has a broader economic base which can be converted into the production of weapons of war. From this perspective, there is a mismatch in the current Ukraine War. The GDPs of each of these seven NATO countries far surpasses that of Russia, namely the United States, Germany, Great Britain, France, Italy and Canada. A prolonged war of attrition will not favor Russia.

The stated goal of the special military operation is the “denazification” of Ukraine. Recall that in the Munich Crisis of 1938, Adolf Hitler justified the annexation of the Sudetenland in order to liberate the “oppressed Germans” residing in the region. In reality, the Germans living there were enjoying all the freedoms of living in a democratic society; Czechoslovakia was at the time a functioning democracy. The “oppressed Germans” in 1938, were actually those living in Nazi Germany. In 1938, the Gestapo established its iron grip on the country. And concentration camps sprouted all over Germany.

By the same token, in 2022 the country that needs “de-nazification” is Putin’s Russia. Ukraine is a functioning democracy albeit with some of the faults of a developing polity like prevalent corruption. It is Putin’s Russia that needs “de-nazification” with its systematic erosion of freedom, as evidenced by its present law putting the invasion of Ukraine beyond criticism. The use of euphemisms in both instances is self-defeating once the body bags of casualties come home. There is an attempt now to conceal this macabre event by having mobile crematoriums accompany the invasion force.

However, there is no way to conceal the maimed and crippled veterans who will come home. What will Putin do to these veterans if they join the demonstrators against the special military operations? The withdrawal from Kyiv and the transfer of the operations to the eastern part of Ukraine could be a case of settling for the consolation prize after the main prize proved unattainable.

It is evident that the big difference between the Afghan War and Ukraine is the casualty figures: The 10-year Afghan War cost an estimated 10,000 Soviet casualties. The same number of casualties was incurred by the Russians in Ukraine in 30 days of combat. If the current war lasts 10 years, the total casualties to be incurred by the Russians could reach over 1 million.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has turned out to be a high intensity conflict reminiscent of the Yom Kippur War of 1973 between Israel and the Arabs. The Israelis exhausted their arms and ammo within one week; they survived only because of a massive re-supply assistance from the US. It also raises the question of how the Ukraine invasion was planned. There is a possibility that there was minimal participation by the Russian military in this operation and the major inputs came from the sycophants who usually surround dictators.

Given the miscalculation as evidenced by the scale of the fighting in Ukraine and the enormous loss of life and war material, the

question is: Can Russia afford such losses? Putin could cut his losses and settle for the annexation of the Donbas region which is populated by a majority of Russian-speaking inhabitants. However, dictators could also have tunnel vision. Putin, under a new scenario, could use chemical weapons to pursue his ambition. This will be a dangerous escalation. If Russia uses chemical weapons, NATO’s response would likely be to give Ukraine long-range offensive weapons which will allow the Ukrainians to respond in kind by attacking the Russian heartland. In this manner, NATO will still manage to keep its policy of not sending its troops to fight in Ukraine.

If Putin persists in his actions, considering the enormous loss of men and material, the only way he can pursue his special military operations is to use conscripts and the conversion of the Russian economy into a war economy. This will call for rationing as inputs for civilian goods will be siphoned into the production of war materials. This makes the war complicated. Putin will have to face pressures from two fronts: he will face not only the continuing pressure from the international community but he will also have to face the dissatisfaction of his citizens. Both actions will be unpopular with the public. Even autocratic governments are not immune from public unrest from an unpopular war. Tsarist rule ended in 1917 when the Russian people rejected further participation in World War 1 due to the massive loss of lives and the consequent economic hardships. Logically, he should cut his losses by settling for the annexation of the Donbas region instead of occupying the whole Ukraine. Dictators, however, have the disadvantage of being surrounded by sycophants who are reluctant to reveal the truth to the “Great Leader.” We will have to wait what Putin does next.

The author is a retired career ambassador and served in the Soviet Union during the term of the reformist Mikhail Gorbachev. He studied Sovietology at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and is the only ambassador to have taken this course. He, therefore, had a frontline view of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Front Page

en-ph

2022-05-21T07:00:00.0000000Z

2022-05-21T07:00:00.0000000Z

https://manilatimes.pressreader.com/article/281629603880715

The Manila Times