Putin: Genocide Over Peace

Putin expected to spend a few days marching his troops into Kiev and then occupying the whole of Ukraine without much resistance from Ukrainian military forces. Some in Moscow’s political elite went so far as to argue that they would be welcomed there as heroes. It soon became apparent Putin’s “special military operation” was not going to be a simple or short one. As the days turned into weeks, and the weeks developed into months, Western military analysts began reevaluating the real strength of Russia’s military.

One analyst in Washington suggested this week that if Putin was unable to take Ukraine soon, Russian troops certainly could not win a future war against well-disciplined Finish or Swedish forces should Moscow alter plans and try instead to invade Scandinavia. Russian heavy military equipment also receives a failing grade as it is not holding up well on the battlefield. Ukrainian troops, many using donated Western guns, have destroyed large numbers of Russian armored vehicles and tanks and captured or killed several high-ranking Russian military officers. Recently captured Russian drones revealed that they did not contain advanced technology. Their imaging technology was unsophisticated and similar to that of a hand-held Cannon camera. Putin’s miscalculation of the readiness of his forces, the capability of the country’s military technology, and the reaction of the world to his war crimes, has destabilized the region and lad some to call this a post, post-WWII period leading into a pre-WWIII era.

Putin’s options are narrowing. One unanswered question is: what is the Russian leader capable of doing if faced with the reality that he can’t win in Ukraine? He already is committing atrocities unseen since Hitler’s acts of genocide during WWII. One former US military analyst with an expertise in Russian affairs suggested examining statements Putin made about his childhood. The Russian leader grew up in a housing project filled with rats, which he passed on a regular basis going to and from school. As he tells the story, one day he encountered a cornered rat facing certain demise. Putin says he learned then that a cornered rat will fight to the very end and its own death rather than be captured. That may be how Putin views the war in Ukraine today.

The Russian president has been unable to locate enough Ukrainians to stage even one small rally in support of Russian occupying forces. Teachers resigned en masse when ordered to change the language in which school children are educated from Ukrainian to Russian. In Melitopol some school directors resigned too, despite offers of bonuses to be paid in Russian denominated rubles, according to a report this week from the Jamestown Foundation. Despite the challenges, Putin appears like the cornered rat he recalled from his childhood, to willingly fight until the bitter end.

Forty-seven days into its invasion of Ukraine, Defense One says, “Russia is regrouping for another battle for the Donbas—and has named a Russian general known for his brutality as head of operations in Ukraine.” His name is Gen. Alexander Dvornikov. He also is known as “the Butcher of Syria” for the indiscriminate killing of civilians in Aleppo and Homs.

Pentagon press secretary John Kirby says that “Sadly, we can all expect that the same brutal tactics, that same disregard for civilian life and civilian infrastructure, will probably continue as they now focus in a more geographically confined area in the Donbas” under Gen. Dvornikov.

Most analysts in Washington this week seem to agree that Russia is not retreating but simply reorganizing its forces to prepare for a new major assault. Last weekend satellite imagery indicated the massing of large Russian convoys along routes leading to the occupied Donbas region of Ukraine.

In a speech posted to his Facebook account, Ukrainian president Zelensky told his country’s assembly: “Russia wants to dominate and believes it can do this in only one way… Sending its army that was brought up in total lawlessness to destroy everything that allows other nations to live.” If Putin does succeed in capturing more areas in the Donbas, he still will face an indigenous insurgency movement in the region in the coming years. Western government leaders are calling for Putin personally to face war crimes charges after the recent discovery of a number of mass graves. The war is far from over, even if there is a cessation of hostile fire.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department. She currently teaches at a major university.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.