PART 3:
In making the decision to invade Ukraine, Mr. Putin seems to have been carried away, away from rationality, away from a correct reading of history and current events. His passion and hubris overcame his heretofore caution, deliberateness and patience.
There had been examples of Mr. Putin’s political and military aggressiveness, which were of limited scope and purpose. The Chechen war was more a Russian internal affair pacifying an Islamic insurrection and terrorism than a part of a grand scheme. Up until the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, his talks and speeches were measured, indicating a man of careful thoughts and consideration.
However, his public statements and deeds indicated early that he had a plan, a grandiose plan and he has pursued it deliberately and determinedly. It also shows a man having a Napoleon (short man) complex wanting to do big things for big glory and to bully at any chance he gets.
A small man, he has tried to project a macho image riding a horse bare chested, unleashing his large Labrador in a small room where he received former German chancellor Angela Merkel who had been known to be scared of dogs. Reading unfavorable comments in the German media, he of course said that he did not mean to scare her. But the picture of a clear smirk on his face belies his explanation.
He advocated the aggression doctrine of striking your opponent first if a fight was inevitable. As if to publicize it, at least 10 of his political opponents were killed very publicly. One may argue that he just followed the Russian tradition of killing his enemies wherever they could be found. Joseph Stalin pursued his nemesis Leon Trotsky 11 years until he had him killed in Mexico.
His speech after Crimea was taken by Russia shows him to be a passionate and angry man:
“They have lied to us many times, made decisions behind our backs, placed us before an accomplished fact. This happened with NATO’s expansion to the East, as well as the deployment of military infrastructure at our borders. They kept telling us the same thing: ‘Well, this does not concern you.’ That’s easy to say.’”
He is resentful and his resentment had probably simmered for a long time. He has felt the indignity of his country and took it upon himself to do something about it such as restoring if not all then at least some territories of the former Soviet Union. He wants to bring back the glory and respect that he believes Russia deserves.
He closely followed the U.S.’s military and political ventures in Afghanistan and Syria with deep interest. He went into Crimea because he saw that the U.S. was bogged down in the Middle East and Afghanistan. In 2022, when the U.S. decided to withdraw from Afghanistan, he saw his golden opportunity and made his move on Ukraine on the wrong assumption that the U.S. and its allies had lost their will to confront Russia.
Contrary to what he said in his After-Crimea speech, he followed the same old bully strategy. There was no referendum by the Ukrainians, there was no freedom of choice. In his speech he asked us, the American people: “Isn’t the desire of Crimea’s residents to freely choose their fate such a value?” When it comes to the desire of the Ukrainians, he just ignored it and bullied through Ukraine’s borders with divisions of infantry, artilleries, and air power, without asking the Ukrainians for their free choice, the same bully strategy he had used in Georgia and Chechnya.
To make the desire of the Ukrainians even much less significant, he got his nuclear weapons ready and publicly announced it.
(Next, Part 4)
