If anything is surprising about Vladimir Putin’s war against Ukraine, it’s that the plan was practically written by a retired British Army general. Sir John Hackett, in his novel, The Third World War: August 1985, published more than 40 years ago, along with his co-authors, described how the Soviet Union invaded western Europe, used a nuclear missile, and, after Great Britain and the United States responded in kind, experienced a coup. Coincidentally enough, in the novel, it’s a Ukrainian, Vasyl Duglenko, who becomes the Soviet Union’s new leader and sues for peace, bringing down the federation and leaving Russia isolated and alone.
The only question today is how Putin’s "special military operation" ends. Will he turn to nuclear weapons, as described in Sir John’s book, or will he continue to fight a conventional war, possibly expanding it against NATO? Will another revolution break out in Russia, similar to what happened during the First World War? And will Putin’s allies, whether it’s China or a former Soviet republic, join him on his military adventure or decline the opportunity?
The only thing that’s certain, as of right now, is that the West is responding to Russia’s aggression and Putin’s war aims haven’t been met, at least not yet. Given that NATO appears to have found its backbone, it doesn’t appear Russia will be successful.
The best way to end this – to show the average Russian, and those in the government, that Putin’s military adventurism was ill-conceived and without any payoff – is for Ukraine to inflict the highest number of casualties possible against Russian armed forces and to liberate the territory that Moscow seized in 2014. Anything less could provide the average Russian, as well as someone in Putin’s government, with a lingering sense that their invasion is or was winnable.
As for Putin’s latest speech, if he wants to return the country to its “glory days” of the 19th century, so be it. By isolating his country from the West, which has a higher standard of living than Russia, Putin is leading it onto a suicidal path, economically and militarily. In addition, he is, without question, worried about his citizens because he’s censoring and silencing them. Most certainly, he’s making sure Moscow has one reliable ally, China, which could very well be encouraging this fool’s errand so it can gain insight into the U.S. and allied response should it attack Taiwan.
Then there’s the issue of Moscow suspending The New START Treaty. Could this lead Putin to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine or a NATO country? It’s hard to fathom he isn’t aware of how NATO would respond. But given the underestimation of NATO’s response to his conventional attack, a nuclear exchange isn’t out of the question.
If Russia’s military operation continues without success, say for another year or two, which appears possible, Putin could likely become even more apprehensive, not so much about how he’s perceived by other countries but by his own people, perhaps even those closest to him. Will it lead him to enact a modern-day version of Joseph Stalin’s Great Terror?
Russia has a history of revolution. It’s not limited to just 1917. Its people turned against their leaders recently, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, taking down the Soviet Union. At some point, after experiencing the despondency of a soured economy and anguish and torment from burying their sons, brothers, cousins, fathers, and uncles from a failed military operation, they’ll likely do what Sir John and his co-authors wrote: They’ll revolt.
How bloody could this next revolution be? Could it be successful and who will be in charge next – one of Putin’s former cronies or a surprise, someone no one saw on the horizon?
Putin would be well-advised to declare victory and leave Ukraine.
