Do not trust Vladimir Putin. Never trust Russia!
The conventional wisdom is that Vladimir Putin catastrophically miscalculated.
Columnist Bret Stephens echo opinion published in The Seattle Times: Putin wrongly thought that the Russian-speaking Ukrainians would welcome his marauder troops.
This caused the Russians to regroup and wipe out Grozny from afar, using artillery and air power. (It appears this tactic is exactly what is happening, a déjà vu nightmare, in Kyiv right now.)
Letters editor The Seattle TimesRe: “Ask Chechens about Vladimir Putin’s playbook” [March 31, Opinion]:
Bret Stephens’ scenario about Putin’s intentions seems not only plausible but highly likely. He said that Putin may not have intended to take over Ukraine, but instead had his eye on Europe’s second-largest known reserves of natural gas in Ukraine’s east and the “enormous shale-gas field” in the eastern provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk, as well as his effort to control most of Ukraine’s coastline.
Attacking civilian locations seems a calculated move to gain energy resources by intimidating Ukraine into agreeing to territory control and neutrality on Russia’s border. The devastation of Ukraine’s infrastructure will keep its economy tied up with rebuilding. Meanwhile, Europe and the U.S. will be putting our resources into caring for the displaced and traumatized refugees. So Russia gets away with all of this by threatening the West with nuclear and chemical warfare. I agree with Stephens that Putin’s crazy like a fox.
Sonja Larson, Mill Creek
 |
Pablo Lobato graphic |
Columnist Bret Stephens echo opinion published in The Seattle Times: Putin wrongly thought that the Russian-speaking Ukrainians would welcome his marauder troops.
But, they didn’t.
He thought he’d swiftly depose Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s government.
But, he hasn’t.
He thought he’d divide NATO. But, instead, he has united it.
He thought he had sanction-proofed his economy. Instead he has wrecked it. He thought the Chinese would help him out. They’re hedging their bets. He thought his modernized military would make mincemeat of Ukrainian forces. Amazingly, the strong Ukrainians are making mincemeat out of the Russians, at least on some fronts.
Putin’s miscalculations raise questions about his strategic judgment and mental state. Who, if anyone, is advising him? Has he lost contact with reality? Is he physically unwell? Mentally? Condoleezza Rice warns: “He’s not in control of his emotions. Something is wrong.” Russia’s sieges of Mariupol and Kharkiv — two heavily Russian-speaking cities that Putin claims to be “liberating” from Ukrainian oppression — resemble what the Nazis did to Warsaw, Poland, and what Putin himself did to Grozny, Chechnya.
Several analysts have compared Putin to a cornered rat, more dangerous now that he’s no longer in control of events. They want to give him a safe way out of the predicament he allegedly created for himself. Hence the almost universal scorn poured on President Joe Biden for saying in Poland, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
The conventional wisdom is entirely plausible. It has the benefit of vindicating the West’s strategy of supporting Ukraine defensively. And it tends toward the conclusion that the best outcome is one in which Putin finds some face-saving way out: additional Ukrainian territory, a Ukrainian pledge of neutrality, a lifting of some of the sanctions.
But what if the conventional wisdom is wrong? What if the West is only playing into Putin’s hands once again?
The possibility is suggested in a powerful reminiscence from The New York Times’ Carlotta Gall, about her experience covering Russia’s siege of Grozny, during the first Chechen war in the mid-1990s. In the early phases of the war, motivated Chechen fighters wiped out a Russian armored brigade, stunning Moscow.
Putin’s miscalculations raise questions about his strategic judgment and mental state. Who, if anyone, is advising him? Has he lost contact with reality? Is he physically unwell? Mentally? Condoleezza Rice warns: “He’s not in control of his emotions. Something is wrong.” Russia’s sieges of Mariupol and Kharkiv — two heavily Russian-speaking cities that Putin claims to be “liberating” from Ukrainian oppression — resemble what the Nazis did to Warsaw, Poland, and what Putin himself did to Grozny, Chechnya.
Several analysts have compared Putin to a cornered rat, more dangerous now that he’s no longer in control of events. They want to give him a safe way out of the predicament he allegedly created for himself. Hence the almost universal scorn poured on President Joe Biden for saying in Poland, “For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power.”
The conventional wisdom is entirely plausible. It has the benefit of vindicating the West’s strategy of supporting Ukraine defensively. And it tends toward the conclusion that the best outcome is one in which Putin finds some face-saving way out: additional Ukrainian territory, a Ukrainian pledge of neutrality, a lifting of some of the sanctions.
But what if the conventional wisdom is wrong? What if the West is only playing into Putin’s hands once again?
The possibility is suggested in a powerful reminiscence from The New York Times’ Carlotta Gall, about her experience covering Russia’s siege of Grozny, during the first Chechen war in the mid-1990s. In the early phases of the war, motivated Chechen fighters wiped out a Russian armored brigade, stunning Moscow.
Russia's War in Chechnya: Victims Speak Out, in Human Rights Watch:
 |
| Chechen flag bearing the image of Akhmad Kadyrov former Head of the Chechen Republic. |
Ask the Chechens about Putin’s playbook: Russian forces showed utter contempt for civilian lives in the breakaway republic of Chechnya. Eyewitnesses told researchers about Russian bombs, shells or mortar fire levelling apartment buildings, entire neighborhoods, and single-family homes in Grozny, and hitting civilian areas in outlying villages in Chechnya and in neighboring Ingushetiya. Russian ground forces reportedly opened fire on civilians from a railroad car. Russian forces also destroyed at least two hospitals, and part of a third, an orphanage and several markets areas. They inflicted hundreds of civilian deaths, gruesome casualties and caused an estimated 350,000 people to flee.
 |
| Vladimir Putin is Donald Trump's evil soul |
Bret Stephens’ scenario about Putin’s intentions seems not only plausible but highly likely. He said that Putin may not have intended to take over Ukraine, but instead had his eye on Europe’s second-largest known reserves of natural gas in Ukraine’s east and the “enormous shale-gas field” in the eastern provinces of Luhansk and Donetsk, as well as his effort to control most of Ukraine’s coastline.
Attacking civilian locations seems a calculated move to gain energy resources by intimidating Ukraine into agreeing to territory control and neutrality on Russia’s border. The devastation of Ukraine’s infrastructure will keep its economy tied up with rebuilding. Meanwhile, Europe and the U.S. will be putting our resources into caring for the displaced and traumatized refugees. So Russia gets away with all of this by threatening the West with nuclear and chemical warfare. I agree with Stephens that Putin’s crazy like a fox.
Sonja Larson, Mill Creek
Labels: Akhmad Kadyrov, Bret Stephens, Mill Creek, Seattle Times, Sonja Larson, Washington
posted by Juliana L'Heureux | 11:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home