Saturday 25 February 2023

One Year On: Putin Still Leads The Gang

 

A year ago yesterday, I wrote about Putin's invasion of Ukraine. So much has happened since, so much blood has been spilt and so much discussion has taken place, that I thought I'd revisit my post from a year ago, to see if my original view has been changed by events.

I found one statement that I think has been proven to be accurate, and I stand by it now:

"I think he (Putin) operates like the street gang member he was. As Wordsworth said: "The child is father of the man", and Putin will only act according to the instincts he developed on the streets as a kid."

I believe that, like any teenage gangster, Putin thought that, as he had got away with military aggression in Chechnya, Georgia and the Crimea, he could do the same when he invaded Ukraine. Well, he got that wrong. The Ukrainians, as we know, have resisted magnificently. A terrible price has been paid by Ukraine in terms of destruction, displacement and bloodshed, but, contrary to Putin's expectations, his illegal incursion was repulsed, and the initial Russian territorial gains have been considerably reduced by Ukrainian counter-attacks. The Ukrainian will to resist, despite much suffering, remains undiminished, albeit with NATO support.

For someone who grew up during the Cold War, the Russian military performance has been a revelation. For decades, we were led to believe that the Russian/Soviet/Red Army was a formidable, unstoppable force. I remember one Tory windbag in the 70s, a devout Daily Telegraph reader, declaring that "They (the Red Army) could be at the Channel in three days".

Well, events in Afghanistan, Chechnya (in the first Chechen War, at least) and now in Ukraine have proven that fear to be groundless, even though that fear did assist our military in acquiring more funds. The Russian Army has had a bloody nose in all those places, and it is still bleeding in Ukraine. Some estimates put Russian casualties at 200, 000. Like all armies that are doing badly, they have lashed out at innocent civilians, and there is ample evidence of Russian war crimes. When the Red Army occupied Germany in WW2,  they acquired a fearsome reputation for sex crimes against German women. Some Russian soldiers have followed this example by carrying out multiple rapes in Ukraine.

What interests me here is how Putin has reacted to these reverses and to international opprobrium. Like the leader of the gang he sees himself as being, hostile criticism and the suffering of innocent people are irrelevant for him. In fact, he never mentions it. Failures on the battlefield he sees as not being his fault. Unsuccessful or cautious commanders are replaced, as happened under Stalin in WW2. It's not clear if any have been shot yet - but give it time. Dissent in Russia is suppressed, so it's no wonder that up to 700, 000 young Russians have voted with their feet and fled abroad. This will mean nothing to Putin. All that matters to him is his ego and personal aggrandisement, channelled into Russian nationalism. Human life, and humane considerations, mean nothing to Vladimir Putin.

NATO support for Ukraine is welcome and effective, but undoubtedly late. Action was urged before, during the invasions of Georgia and Crimea, but nothing happened. The main reasons were because of business links with Russia and - very important - Russian "support" for the "War on Terror". It's often forgotten that Putin allowed the US military to supply the initial invasion of Afghanistan, post-9/11, from Russian territory. I can see no way out of this situation, but Putin must be resisted effectively. However, even if defeated, his abiding feeling of resentment will lead him to take other kinds of action. We already have indications of this.


Last year, I knew of the Salisbury poison attack and the murder of Alexander Litvinenko. After the invasion of Ukraine, though, I decided to learn more about Putin, his rise to power, and his interference in the affairs of other countries, such as the US 2016 presidential election and Brexit. I happened upon one very interesting book, which showed me that Putin has been behind many more murders of opponents, not simply in Russia, which I knew about, but here in the UK and, to a lesser extent, in the USA. The book, "From Russia With Blood", by Heidi Blake, is a good starting point, listing a number of murders and suspicious deaths over 20 years of people who have incurred the displeasure of Vladimir Putin. This includes the well-known killing and attempted killings of Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal to the lesser-known killings of Scot Young and Boris Berezovsky (both officially dismissed as "suicides"). Also covered is the death of Alex Chapman, who was married for four years to the Russian spy Anna Chapman. 

The book is not without flaws, as has been pointed out by Leonid Ragozin, but Blake's research into these deaths and near-deaths is admirable. I believe that we should make a realistic assessment of  Putin and his street gang attitudes. We should face up to the fact that he will be a threat to the west, whatever the outcome in Ukraine. We should look upon these assassinations as a portent of how Putin will react. Russia, as Afghanistan was said to be, could become a haven for terrorists. Let's face up to the fact that British citizens and others living here have been killed by Russian terrorists already; more could follow.


Dawn Sturgess, a British victim of Russian state terrorism. Died after finding a discarded bottle of Novichok used in the Salisbury Poisonings, 2018. R.I.P.

1 comment:

  1. Putin is ex-KGB, the brutal enforcers of a supposedly communist state, and ruthlessness has therefore been the hallmark of his adult life. His invasion of Ukraine was a high-risk strategy because if it fails, he is likely to be replaced. It is ironic that he describes the Ukrainian regime as neo-Nazis, seeing that he is in real terms a fascist himself.

    Russian armed forces have always been poorly trained, ill-disciplined and badly led, going back centuries to the time of the Tsars. Russia and the USSR has always relied on having a mass population of peasants who could be conscripted and used as cannon fodder and if they were wiped out, there were plenty more where they came from. It's a heartless mentality that doesn't work so well in the modern age, as demonstrated by the numbers of young Russian citizens who have fled abroad to avoid conscription.

    I'm a pacifist but I recognise there is a huge difference between the ethos of, for example, the British armed forces and the Russian. There is an effective, well-trained officer class in the UK forces and the aim has long been to cultivate an 'esprit de corps' among the soldiers; that is why British veterans are often proud of the units in which they served. In contrast, the Russian officer style consists of employing threats, bullying and harsh discipline.

    Putin lied to his troops. A woman in a Ukrainian village overrun by the Russians and then retaken by Ukraine stated that the Russian soldiers had said that they'd been told they were liberators and would be welcomed with flowers and open arms.

    I can think of only one thing worse than a badly disciplined army and that is a badly disciplined army that feels it has been conned into a war with no discernible aims against an enemy that - despite the initial claims of Putin - is clearly determined to resist, whatever the cost.

    Putin has been in power too long and is now convinced he is the only person who can lead Russia. That is megalomania, a type of mental disorder, which means Putin will progressively become more irrational and unpredictable. To have such a person in charge of one of the biggest nuclear arsenals on the planet is intensely worrying. We are closer to nuclear war today than at any time in the past, including the Cuban Missile Crisis.

    ReplyDelete