Putin’s Choice

Changing Strategy

The Associated Press reported this morning that Russia “may” change strategy in Ukraine. The month long invasion is stalled: the divisions surrounding Kyiv seem unable to close in on the city and are actually being pushed back from the northwestern suburbs. And while Russian long-range artillery, missiles and air attacks are still laying waste to civilian targets, killing thousands; Ukraine shows no signs of surrender. Even the hundred thousand starving in Mariupol refuse to give up.

The AP speculation comes from the Russian Defense Minister who changed “the message” from Moscow. Instead of “de-Nazifying” all of Ukraine, all of a sudden he speaks of “consolidating” the Eastern Provinces of Donbas as “independent” of Ukraine and continuing to control the critical naval bases in Crimea. In short, Russia is talking about keeping what they already had, before the tanks rolled across the borders and the missiles attacked civilian targets.

But one man speaking from Moscow is NOT a change in strategy, unless that one man is Vladimir Putin. So there’s nothing certain for Russian forces in Ukraine. What is certain: Ukrainian resistance has embarrassed the “second greatest” power in the world. They did not retreat, they did not fold, and the Russian Army is faced with many thousands of soldiers killed and wounded, for little gained.

Russian History

Those facts are not lost on Putin.  He has only to look back sixty years into Russian history to foresee his future.  In 1962, the Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khrushchev, determined to counter US nuclear weapons in Turkey by placing Soviet missiles in Cuba.  The technical reason was a request for mutual defense from the Cuban government.  Cuban leader Fidel Castro was fresh off a US sponsored invasion at the Bay of Pigs, an attack that failed miserably and left the new Kennedy Administration looking incompetent and weak. 

Khrushchev followed up with massive military aid to Cuba, and secret development of missile launch sites on the Island.  American U-2 spy planes revealed those sites to the Kennedy government, and the young President was faced with a dilemma.  No US President could allow hostile nuclear weapons ninety miles off the coast.  But attacks on the missile sites were guaranteed to cause Soviet casualties, and could trigger a nuclear launch, and World War III.

Missile Crisis

The resulting confrontation is known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.  The world teetered on the brink of nuclear disaster, as US Naval ships and Soviet submarines were head-to-head in the Caribbean.  Premier Khrushchev realized he had “overreached”, and while the ultimate solution included removing the US missiles from Turkey, it was the public removal of the missile bases from Cuba that became the headlines.  The Soviets were defeated and worse, humiliated on the world stage.  Kennedy out-maneuvered the Soviet leader.

Both Kennedy and Khrushchev would be out of power within two years.  Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in November of 1963.  His assassin had rumored connections to the Cuban government.  Khrushchev was removed from office at gunpoint by the senior Soviet leadership in October of 1964.  There were multiple reasons for the ouster, but his failure in the Cuban Missile Crisis loomed large.  He spent the remaining seven years of his life isolated in a country “dacha”, living on 400 Rubles a month ($1300). 

The Cost of Adventure

Putin is the authoritarian leader of Russia, just as Khrushchev was in 1962.  He led his nation into a military “adventure” in Ukraine that was only going to last a couple weeks.  Now more than a month later, that invasion cost thousands of Russian soldiers lives, the destruction of the Russian economy, and caused the re-vitalization of the NATO alliance against Russia.  At this point, Putin’s “adventure” has weakened Russia in almost every category. It’s become his Cuban Missile Crisis.

It is possible that Putin recognizes the position he is in, and will cut his losses in Ukraine.  But it is just as possible that he will “double-down” on his Ukrainian strategy.  NATO has made the boundaries fairly clear:  no chemical or nuclear weapons, no attacks outside of the boundaries of Ukraine – and NATO will not directly intervene.  And the current humiliation of the Russian military may not be something that Putin can “live” with – both in principle, and perhaps, in reality.  He may not have a political choice to withdraw.

Without a Fight

Is the Defense Minister’s message signaling a crack in Russian leadership?  Or is it just another feint, another layer of propaganda to cover the mass destruction of the civilian population of Ukraine?  And, if it’s a valid proposition, will President Zelenskyy of Ukraine accept the loss of the Donbas and Crimea as a price for peace?

Ukraine is winning against the Russian invasion, even though the price of victory is extremely high. Perhaps they too will “double-down”, and demand that the territories “detached” in 2014 return to Ukrainian control. It’s difficult to imagine that Putin could swallow such a political humiliation, or survive it.

His “dacha”, more of a palace, is located in Novorossiysk, on the Black Sea, just a few hundred miles from the battle lines today.  But it’s hard to see that the former KGB officer would accept involuntary retirement there without a fight.

Essay on the Ukraine Crisis

Author: Marty Dahlman

I'm Marty Dahlman. After forty years of teaching and coaching track and cross country, I've finally retired!!! I've also spent a lot of time in politics, working campaigns from local school elections to Presidential campaigns.