Unyielding Putin: The Myth of Humiliation and Its Implications
Introduction
The narrative that Vladimir Putin has been humiliated due to the recent developments in Ukraine, particularly involving the PMC Wagner and other actors, has gained significant traction. However, the situation is more complex. While Putin's actions and decisions have certainly taken a hit, the narrative of a thoroughly humiliated leader is an oversimplification that fails to capture the broader geopolitical context and Putin's strategic responses. This article delves into the reality behind Putin's situation, analyzing the implications for both the Russian state and international relations.
1. The Reality of Humiliation
The notion that Putin has been deeply humiliated is a point of contention. While it's true that Putin's support for Wagner, a private military company he heavily invested in, led to significant unrest and volatility, this doesn’t necessarily equate to humiliation. Humiliation implies a loss of face or power that affects one's standing and reputation. In Putin's case, his actions and the outcome of the mutiny demonstrate resilience and command.
Notably, Putin was not the one to flee Moscow; it was the PMC Wagner forces that did so, signaling a disconnection between Putin's command and the forces acting under his name. Moreover, Putin's decision to rely on Lukashenko for a peace deal highlights a strategic move rather than a sign of weakness. This maneuver underlines Putin's adaptability and ongoing diplomatic efforts.
For Putin, humiliation is a relative term. His fundamental goal remains steadfast: maintaining control and sovereignty over Ukraine and the broader region. Any perceived weakness would undermine this goal. Therefore, Putin's actions, including disbanding Wagner and relying on external mediation, are precisely calculated to recalibrate his position.
2. The Consequences of the Mutiny
The recent mutiny has plunged Russia into a state of heightened uncertainty. Critical decisions such as disbanding Wagner and the encounter of Yevgeny Prigozhin, a powerful businessmen linked to Putin, with Lukashenko, indicate a shift in power dynamics. It raises questions about the integrity of Putin's command and the stability of the Russian military.
There are several key points to consider:
Resilience and Command: If Putin has truly felt defeated or humiliated, his subsequent actions, including disbanding Wagner and relying on other actors like Lukashenko, suggest otherwise. This maneuver aligns with his long-term strategic goals and demonstrates that he is not a weakened leader. Power Dynamics: The disbandment of Wagner and the involvement of Prigozhin and Lukashenko indicate an internal struggle for power and control. This does not automatically equate to humiliation. These actions are more indicative of political maneuvering in a complex geopolitical landscape. Strategic Calculations: Putin’s decisions, including the reliance on Lukashenko for a peace deal, demonstrate that he is not boxed in. Instead, these actions are part of a strategic play to maintain leverage and influence.3. The West’s Role and Misunderstandings
The narrative of Putin being humiliated with the phrase "must do more" from the West, particularly Germany, reflects a misunderstanding of Russian strategic aspirations. While the West may be frustrated with the slow pace of progress in Ukraine, it is crucial to recognize that the conflict goes beyond military actions. It involves complex political, economic, and social dimensions.
Historically, the US-Russia relations have shown that deals with the West are often transient and may not hold up over time. This is why Putin’s reliance on Lukashenko is strategic—Lukashenko is a partner who, under the current circumstances, is less likely to betray Putin.
The West’s aversion to any form of loss and their willingness to expend resources to achieve their goals is a double-edged sword. While the West can impose significant costs on Russia, the latter can use these efforts as leverage to solidify its position and prepare for the long-term conflict.
4. The Role of PMC Wagner and Prigozhin
PMC Wagner’s rise and its subsequent mutiny have put a spotlight on the private military sector. The group’s actions have demonstrated the risks associated with allowing private actors to become powerful military forces. This raises concerns about the stability of nations that rely on such groups.
Yevgeny Prigozhin, a wealthy businessman known for his links to Putin, played a central role in the mutiny. His involvement and subsequent threat to Lukashenko highlight the internal power struggles within the Russian military and political sphere. Predictions that Prigozhin will be killed if he remains in Russia reflect the Russian government's intolerance of such threats to its authority.
Conclusion
While the recent events have certainly affected Putin’s standing, the narrative of humiliation is an oversimplification. Putin remains a resilient leader who is actively reevaluating and recalibrating his strategies to navigate the complexities of the conflict. The ongoing mutiny and the reliance on external actors like Lukashenko underscore the strategic calculations and power dynamics at play.
The West, particularly the United States, should approach this conflict with a nuanced understanding of the geopolitical landscape. Excessive pressure and a lack of strategic foresight may backfire and strengthen Putin's resolve. Instead of focusing on humiliation, it is more productive to focus on building a comprehensive, long-term strategy that addresses the root causes of the conflict.