When Putin has bitten off a piece that is too big, he tends to double the stakes. The question is mainly about how far a monopolist can go, writes ‘s foreign journalist Mika Mäkeläinen.
Working at the British Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Nigel Gould-Davies rate (switch to another service)that the war has been a massive strategic mistake for Putin.
He said Putin had completely underestimated Ukraine’s resistance as well as the West’s ability to retaliate. Putin’s miscalculations about Ukraine, Russia and the rest of the world have now pushed him into a corner.
According to Gould-Davies, Putin has even underestimated the anti-war power of the Russians, even though his monarch is able to keep the scenes of patriotism upright.
According to the investigator, Putin’s attack on the Slavic brotherhood was his greatest mistake of all time.
However, Putin is not used to it admit their mistakes. Surrounded by Jesus men, the monarch always finds the culprit in the rest of the world.
The question of the fate of Russia, Ukraine and Europe as a whole is what Putin will do next – because he has to do something differently than before.
Gould-Davies says Putin now needs to end the war quickly. One way to do that is escalation (moving to another service) that is, accelerating the brutal war only to harder rounds until Ukraine is defeated by any means.
Another option is to negotiate a peace agreement in which he waives most of his demands, such as a change of leadership in Ukraine.
How do we know which way Putin will choose?
As a basis for the assessment, it is worth exploring Putin’s parallel reality.
In an interview with , a Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya said at one time that Putin is a executioner who decided to assassinate an entire nation. That time it was about the Chechens. Politkovskaya was assassinated four years later on Putin’s birthday.
Now it’s about the Ukrainians.
In light of what we know about Putin, a peace deal would be too humiliating a loss for him. It could also jeopardize his own power.
The question is mainly how far Putin can go.
In practice, according to the newspaper, it could mean, for example, the blatant bombardment of Ukrainian cities, more intimidation with nuclear weapons or the extension of the war beyond Ukraine.
According to the newspaper, Putin may also turn the conflict between Russia and the United States to divert attention away from failure in Ukraine. It could mean serious cyber threats against U.S. infrastructure.
Putin can hardly do that without the use of more destructive weapons.
Russia’s ability to use tactical nuclear weapons is now being talked about by many scientists. For example, a researcher at the British Chatham House Research Institute Patricia Lewis does not take a position on the likelihood of using a nuclear weapon, but on his views can read about it here (you will switch to another service).
Director of Research at the International Council on Foreign Relations Jeremy Shapiro in turn rate (switch to another service)that the use of tactical nuclear weapons is possible, though unlikely.
Already in 2009 Russia warned (switch to another service) to use nuclear weapons “preventively”, including in local war, if it feels its security is threatened.
The calmness of the White House is based on the fact that the purpose of strategic nuclear weapons is to maintain a balance of terror, the ability to counter massive counterattack. Using them would mean mutual destruction. Therefore, they are not used.
At least not if the button pressers are absolutely sane.
This analysis is in the eleventh series that News continues during the Russian invasion. We publish a brief but in-depth and context-sensitive analysis every day at about 12 noon.
You can discuss this topic until Monday, March 7 at 11 p.m.