Putin's Great Miscalculation in Being Drawn into a War of 'Hell to Go Forward, Hell to Pull Back'

(Japanese original version is posted to Diamond Online on March 8, 2022)

Abstract

President Putin probably thought that a missile strike would make it easier for Ukraine to surrender. “Ukrainian President Wlodimir Zelensky is not supported by his people. If Russian troops enter Ukraine, they will be welcomed with open arms. President Zelensky will be ousted and a new pro-Russian president will be elected by the Ukrainian people themselves. It is not a 'change of status quo by force'. Economic sanctions against Russia will not be supported by the international community“. However, President Putin's optimistic speculation did not come true. What is the reason for Ukraine's resistance? And even if Russia withdraws, further threats could be created.

Russia's initial view was a miscalculation.

An 'incident' occurred in which the Russian media outlet RIA Novosti misdirected a Russian 'victory' declaration, saying that 'Ukraine is back in Russian hands', 'the three states of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are acting as a single geopolitical entity' and 'a new world is born'.

The content of the message showed the purpose of President Putin's military invasion. However, even if Ukraine is painstakingly conquered, the 'new world' that Russia aims for will never emerge.

In short, in the approximately 30 years since the end of the Cold War, the former Soviet sphere of influence has receded from East Germany to the Ukraine-Belarus line. Therefore, even if Ukraine is conquered, it will be like a boxer who has been attacked in the ring and driven to the ropes, and then punches out in desperation and hits the target (Article No. 77).

Changes in NATO membership (User:Patrickneil, based off of Image:EU1976-1995.svg by glentamara - work by the contributor himself, CC Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0)

Russia may be in a situation of 'hell to go forward and hell to pull back'. First, it miscalculated that Ukraine did not surrender in the initial offensive. Ukraine was able to fight a thorough war because liberal democracy was steadily taking root in Ukraine.

Outcomes of the spread of liberal democracy in Ukraine.

Following Russia's annexation of the Crimean Peninsula in 2014, institutional reforms have been implemented in Ukraine, including anti-corruption, the banking sector, public procurement, healthcare and the police. Then, democratic elections were held and three presidents were elected. 

With frequent regime changes and President Zelensky's approval rating of around 30 per cent, President Putin perceived the political situation in Ukraine as unstable. In an authoritarian country like Russia, support for a leader can exceed 80%. President Zelensky's power base was deemed fragile.

But in a liberal democracy with freedom of speech, press, academia and ideology, people's views are diverse. It is one in which there is an opposition party and a number of opponents to the leader. The leader's approval rating of about 30 per cent is not low. Rather, it indicates the spread of liberal democracy in Ukraine. Once people know liberal democracy, they never give in to those who try to suppress it (Article No. 220). It is the Ukrainian people who have taken up arms themselves and become militias.

Russian forces number about 900,000 (one-fifth the size of the former Soviet Union), with an estimated 150,000-200,000 deployed in Ukraine. Kiev, on the other hand, has a population of approximately 2.5 million. It has a conscription system and all adult males can handle guns. If they become a militia, the Russian army will be at a clear numerical disadvantage. Kiev would be considerably more difficult to overrun. In the ground battle, the Russian army is struggling mightily and morale is reportedly low. This is where President Putin's biggest miscalculation lies.

What is the predicament of 'hell to go forward, hell to pull back'?

What kind of 'hell to go forward, hell to pull back' predicament is Russia facing? First of all, it is 'hell to go forward'.

The UN General Assembly held an emergency special session and adopted a resolution with the support of 141 of its 193 constituent states, including "the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Russian forces" and "condemnation of the strengthening of nuclear readiness" The number of countries in favour of the resolution at the time of the annexation of Crimea in 2014 was 100. It means that the number of countries criticising Russia has increased significantly.

The international community has lost all faith in Russia's claims. For example, a fire broke out at the Zaporozhye nuclear power plant in south-eastern Ukraine, which was criticised as being 'shelled by Russian troops'. In response, Russia claimed that "neo-Nazis" and "terrorists" had tried to provoke it. Whatever the truth, the international community assumed that Russia had attacked the plant. With all sorts of information flying around, the world believes Ukraine. In the information war, Russia is completely defeated.

If Russian forces commit more ground troops and use nuclear weapons to break the stalemate in the ground war, it would be a 'suicide mission' that would definitively isolate Russia from the international community.

Furthermore, sanctions were decided to exclude Russia from SWIFT, the standard means of transferring funds in international trade. This will have an immense effect soon (Article No. 297, p. 5).

Miscalculation that oil and gas pipelines are not 'weapons'.

The decision to exclude Russia from SWIFT shows that Russia could not use its oil and gas pipelines as a bargaining tool in international politics. If the exclusion is implemented, Russia will lose a large part of its state revenues as trade in oil and natural gas exports via pipelines, which constitute a large part of the Russian economy, will cease.

As a trading partner, Europe can collect LNG from the US, the Middle East and South-East Asia, although it faces higher costs. US President Joe Biden and European Commission President Urszula Van der Leyen issued a joint statement expressing their intention to work together to maintain a stable supply of natural gas to Europe, of which the EU depends on Russia for about 40%.

President Biden also expressed his intention to nominate Qatar, a leading producer of liquefied natural gas (LNG), as a 'non-NATO ally', a key ally that is not a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). He expects Qatar to raise its gas supply to Europe.

Furthermore, Western oil majors are withdrawing from the Russian oil and gas business one after another. BP of the UK has decided to sell its 19.75% stake in Russian oil giant Rosneft and to withdraw from all joint ventures in Russia. US ExxonMobil also withdrew from its Sakhalin 1 oil and natural development project in Sakhalin, Russia, and British Shell announced its withdrawal from Sakhalin 2 (Article No. 90). Shell will also withdraw from the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline and from the development of oil fields in western Siberia.

Russian oil and natural gas development has historically depended on Western oil majors. This is because the Russian oil industry would not have been possible without the majors' technologies at each stage of drilling, extraction and refining, as well as their sales networks and financial strength in foreign markets (Article No. 103, p 2).

The withdrawal of the majors could be a situation that could threaten the very existence of Russia's oil and natural gas business. And it could lead to the collapse of the Russian economy itself (Article No. 142, p2).

Military aggression in Ukraine has led to a 'Russia-away' even in neighbouring countries

Russia has demanded 'legally binding assurances from the US and NATO that NATO will not expand further'. But Russia's military aggression has accelerated NATO's eastward expansion.

Ukraine has signed an application to join the EU. The former Soviet Union constituent states of Moldova and Georgia, which, like the pro-Russian-controlled regions of eastern Ukraine, have unilaterally declared 'independence' within their countries, have also signed membership applications to the EU.

This move could lead to the expansion of NATO. Already, Ukraine and Georgia have been recognised by NATO as potential members. Moldova is a member of NATO's Partnership for Peace programme.

In addition, support for NATO membership has exceeded half for the first time in opinion polls in non-NATO member states Sweden and Finland. Russia's military invasion of Ukraine has accelerated the 'Russia-neutral' trend among non-NATO members in Europe.

Furthermore, if Russia's military action escalates, China, which is said to be supporting Russia economically, and India, which remains neutral, may be forced to abandon Russia.

Some believe that the Chinese Communist Party has drawn President Putin into the war.

'Hell to pull out', but if President Putin decides to withdraw Russian troops from Ukraine, his regime is in danger of collapse. The public will discover that the 'great Russian power' that the President has appealed to is an illusion (Article No. 142). Support for the president will fall to the ground and the regime will become 'dead'. A coup attempt to unseat or assassinate the president is also possible.

It may be necessary to consider now what will happen to the 'post-Putin' President, who will be ousted after the conflict ends.

There are a number of things of concern. The opposition 'Russian Communist Party' has proposed to the Russian parliament to recognise the independence of eastern Ukraine, which triggered the Ukrainian conflict. The Russian Communist Party is noted to be under the strong influence of the Chinese Communist Party. It is possible that the Chinese Communist Party could be seen as having drawn President Putin into the war.

It is also interesting to note that Ukraine has asked China to mediate with Russia. Russia and China have close relations, but Ukraine also has deep ties with China through 'One Belt, One Road'.

China has maintained a wait-and-see attitude to the Ukrainian conflict, but it has already given up on President Putin, and if it begins to mediate the conflict with a view to a 'post-Putin' role, this could be a serious situation for the liberal-democratic camp.

Meanwhile, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has stepped forward to play the role of arbitrator. Turkey is a NATO member and can be considered a proxy for the West. However, the President is known for his authoritarian statecraft and has good relations with Russia. It is not clear whether he will arbitrate in the face of liberal democracy or authoritarianism.

The Ukrainian conflict has put Russia in 'hell to pull back and hell to go forward' by the actions of the Ukrainian people to protect their liberal democracy. However, history has shown that after the ouster of authoritarian leaders, such as the 'Arab Spring', liberal democracy was not brought about, and in the chaos, worse leaders emerged.

There may be a risk in a 'post-Putin' Russia of the emergence of an even more authoritarian leader than President Putin, backed by the Chinese Communist Party. Are the liberal democratic camps, including the US and NATO and Japan, prepared to counter this?