In the Caribbean, the US is threatening to force regime change in Cuba, something it dared not do for nearly three quarters of a century because the island was under Russian protection. If Cuba does fall under American control, it will join Syria and Venezuela on the list of close Russian allies whose overthrow Moscow has done nothing to prevent over the last three years.
As the US navy blockades Cuba – a country for which the Soviet Union once risked nuclear war with the US – Russian President Vladimir Putin was paying court to the Chinese leader, President Xi Jinping, in Beijing. China is Russia’s great and only ally, but the meeting confirmed that these days Russia is very much the junior partner in the alliance, needing China more than China needs it.
This is a huge change from five years ago when Russia aspired to regain its superpower status, which it lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This ambition vanished with Putin’s disastrous invasion of Ukraine on 24 February, 2022, which rapidly became the greatest military failure in Russian history, demoting it as a leading power in the world for all its giant nuclear arsenal.
Today, the Russian army is locked into a bloody stalemate not far from its starting line four and a half years ago, despite losing over one million soldiers (dead and wounded). Ukrainian losses are also horrific, but the stalemate works in Ukraine’s favour because Putin must win a decisive military victory to achieve his war aims, while Ukraine needs only to avoid defeat.
While making meagre advances on the ground, Russia has paid a political price for its war. It has provoked a remilitarisation of Europe and an expansion of Nato with Sweden and Finland joining the alliance. The nation has become the target of severe economic sanctions, and, whatever happens on the battlefield, has left an irreparable legacy of fear and mistrust of Russia among its European neighbours. Intended as a proof of Russian military might, the war has become a demonstration of its feebleness.
As a war leader, Putin has outdone his Tsarist and Soviet predecessors in calamitously poor judgement, persuading himself that the Russian army would win a swift victory and Ukraine would collapse under the weight of the Russian assault. In the event, the ill-prepared Russian advance on Kyiv bogged down into a giant traffic jam. Russia stopped the [Western-backed Ukrainian counter-attack in 2023](https://inews.co.uk/opinion/one-army-europe-now-only-hope-4430044?ico=in-line_link), but has since stuck to attritional warfare that wears down Ukraine – but also wears down Russia. Superior though Russia may be in population and resources, Putin was never able to mobilise these sufficiently to overwhelm the enemy.
Drone warfare means that today the defence has the upper hand over the attack, giving the advantage to dug-in Ukrainian troops over Russian advances at prohibitive cost. Hovering over and behind the front line on either side for 20 or 30 miles, drones make it impossible to evacuate the wounded by helicopter or ambulance, so injuries are untreated for hours or days, reducing the ratio of wounded to fatalities from 10 to one, to three or four to one.
Putin’s Ukraine war surpasses, as a military blunder, the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-5 and Stalin’s attack on Finland in 1939. Despite his can-do swagger and his well-publicised shows of decisiveness, Putin appears isolated from the realities of the conflict. In comparison with past European warlords, he most resembles the German Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1914 when he launched a surprise attack on France in expectation of a quick victory. He failed to win, but did manage to unite most of Europe against him.
Yet, the failure of Putin is not simply that of an individual, but that of the entire Russian kleptocratic, oligarchic elite over which he presides and which has ruled Russia since the 90s. My friend, the sociologist Boris Kagarlitsky, argued from the beginning of the Ukraine war that Russia would inevitably lose it because the wealthy oligarchs and corrupt bureaucrats who controlled the Russian state used it primarily as a money-making machine to enrich themselves.
Loyalty among them is prized over competence and all state institutions – including the army and military industries – have been hollowed out by systematic looting over decades. The spectacular greed and egotism of the few makes it difficult for Putin to appeal successfully to Russian national solidarity. Kagarlitsky was imprisoned for his anti-war stance, but his predictions have been borne out by the course of the conflict.
Symbolic of Russia’s diminished international influence is its marginal role in the Iran war crisis, though nominally an ally of Iran. Russia has seldom been mentioned in the media in relation to the Strait of Hormuz, an exception being when a Russian-owned 464ft-long superyacht, the *Nord*, owned by Russia’s richest oligarch, Alexey Mordashov, sailed through the strait with Iranian permission. A steel magnate loyal to Putin, Mordashov has assets worth $37bn according to the Russian press and is sanctioned by the EU and US.
Given [Putin’s dismal record of incompetence and wishful thinking in the Ukraine war](https://inews.co.uk/news/world/putin-pressure-end-ukraine-war-close-allies-4412611?ico=in-line_link), it is absurd that his image in the West is that of a demon king, a modern day Stalin, whose armoured columns might one day pour unstoppably into Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. This is most unlikely since Russian tanks have so far failed to advance the 20 miles from the Russian frontier to Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city.
With all the evidence that Putin is a military nincompoop, why is he portrayed as a mortal threat to the West? I believe that this is because of pervasive Russophobia and beleaguered governments, such as in the UK, want to wrap the national flag around them while armies and intelligence services furiously demand an astronomic increase in their budgets.
An inflated, but sincere, belief in the Russian threat affects much of Europe with toxic consequences. It means unnecessary reliance on an unstable US President for military protection. It means no serious European effort to end the war so far, though tentative talks with Russia are in the pipeline, because this might be misinterpreted as appeasement of the devilish Putin. It means putting peace negotiations into the hands of Trump and his weird minions, whose sporadic and amateur negotiations produce unnecessary panic in European capitals who fear the US will do some dirty deal with the Kremlin, though Trump is too erratic and unrealistic to do any such thing.
Russia’s spectacular failure in Ukraine should long have been obvious, though anybody suggesting a peace deal is denounced as horribly blind to the Russian menace. Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever was predictably criticised in March when he said “we must end the [Ukraine] conflict in Europe’s interest…we must normalize relations with Russia and regain access to cheap energy. In private European leaders tell me I am right, but no one dares say it out loud.”
#
Old_Moose_8198 on
Very well written, and persuasive. Makes me wonder if Russia will essentially become Chinas proxy in coming decades.
yoshiK on
Well, the Ukraine is loosing articles were a bit premature over the last years, and while the war is obviously a disaster for Russia’s geostrategic position, it is a bit premature to declare Russia as the looser of the special military operation.
airmantharp on
Mission failed successfully!
Hungry_Horace on
Interesting analysis but strange conclusions.
The idea that Europe is suffering from Russophobia is odd when Russian troops are actively engaged in a war in the continent. The Royal Navy is playing tag with the Russian Navy almost every week. Russian intelligence interferes regularly with elections and finances political extremists from Poland to the UK.
Russia is held in check in Ukraine only at vast cost to Ukraine (in both money and troops) and to Europe generally as they’ve taken on the full burden of financial support following the US’ withdrawal from international cooperation.
Russia’s reputation may be in tatters but its ability to wage war (both hot and cold) hasn’t vanished, and it has little left to lose. I think Europe’s stance is correct – fool me once…
NeighborhoodFit3847 on
Russia is either overrated or underrated. This article seems to me to be the latter. Russia still has 20% of Ukraine‘s territory and with respect to Iran it seems that they have provided Iran with data and coordinates about US troops and with the current trajectory the Iran war will be debacle for the US of epic proportions which may well lead to the end of American hegemony. Also it’s nice that NATO has expanded but seriously, with the current policy of the US there is not much NATO left at the moment. Psychologically, I get how people like to read how dismal the war is going for Russia. But I don’t think this is yet over. We may well see France voting for Le!Pen and German voting for AfD and suddenly things may look very different again. Also even if the war between Russia and Ukraine came to an end soon, it’s possible that Ukraine may have „won“ but then again not really. The war has been catastrophic for the demographics of Ukraine and there is still no clear path to EU membership. So unless we will see some actual unrest or even revolt in Russia (which may or may not happen) with beneficial effects for Ukraine, then from a Ukrainian and European perspective, I think the article creates an unjustified feeling of optimism. Ceterum censeo Russia esse delendam.
DaySecure7642 on
The only sort of “winning” situation for Russia is all of Ukraine got quickly absorbed, which could add in enough resources and population to compensate for the casualty and the equipment loss.
Once the surprise invasion failed, the most rational move should be making some excuses to stop the war immediately, rather than dragging it on for four years that is risking Russia future. That four eastern regions of Ukraine are just not worth it. It is not just morally wrong but also not wise strategically. Losing face is far less worse than losing Russia future.
Infamous-Salad-2223 on
I’ll believe it when the Russian Armed Forces partially collapse and AFU reconquers the occupied lands.
Kuroten_OG on
This is a giant stretch of the imagination. The aims of the special military project have mostly been achieved. The aim wasn’t really to just bog down Ukraine, it was to unsettle the western financial system, and it worked, stunningly well.
9 Comments
In the Caribbean, the US is threatening to force regime change in Cuba, something it dared not do for nearly three quarters of a century because the island was under Russian protection. If Cuba does fall under American control, it will join Syria and Venezuela on the list of close Russian allies whose overthrow Moscow has done nothing to prevent over the last three years.
In a sign of President Donald Trump’s confidence that he can crush a sovereign nation, the US has indicted Cuba’s 94-year-old former president, Raul Castro, and is gathering military forces in the Caribbean. [Trump boasts that US presidents had considered intervening](http://google.com/search?q=Cuba+inews.co.uk&sca_esv=cfa98b4e37d39014&rlz=1C1GCPF_enGB1183GB1183&sxsrf=ANbL-n7sf2Ud7pr380jccV66PXmfXNjvQg%3A1779463614702&ei=vnUQauvLKpe1hbIPzpDBuQU&biw=2133&bih=1171&ved=0ahUKEwjropTFms2UAxWXWkEAHU5IMFcQ4dUDCBA&uact=5&oq=Cuba+inews.co.uk&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiEEN1YmEgaW5ld3MuY28udWsyBxAhGAoYoAEyBxAhGAoYoAFIqAlQ1QNYiAhwAXgBkAEAmAF0oAG3BKoBAzMuM7gBA8gBAPgBAZgCBqAC0ATCAgcQABiABBgNwgIGEAAYHhgNwgIGEAAYFhgewgIIEAAYFhgeGArCAgsQABiABBiKBRiGA5gDAOIDBRIBMSBAiAYBkgcDMy4zoAf-HbIHAzMuM7gH0ATCBwUwLjMuM8gHD4AIAQ&sclient=gws-wiz-serp) in Cuba for decades, but it looks like he will be “the one that does it”.
As the US navy blockades Cuba – a country for which the Soviet Union once risked nuclear war with the US – Russian President Vladimir Putin was paying court to the Chinese leader, President Xi Jinping, in Beijing. China is Russia’s great and only ally, but the meeting confirmed that these days Russia is very much the junior partner in the alliance, needing China more than China needs it.
This is a huge change from five years ago when Russia aspired to regain its superpower status, which it lost with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This ambition vanished with Putin’s disastrous invasion of Ukraine on 24 February, 2022, which rapidly became the greatest military failure in Russian history, demoting it as a leading power in the world for all its giant nuclear arsenal.
Today, the Russian army is locked into a bloody stalemate not far from its starting line four and a half years ago, despite losing over one million soldiers (dead and wounded). Ukrainian losses are also horrific, but the stalemate works in Ukraine’s favour because Putin must win a decisive military victory to achieve his war aims, while Ukraine needs only to avoid defeat.
While making meagre advances on the ground, Russia has paid a political price for its war. It has provoked a remilitarisation of Europe and an expansion of Nato with Sweden and Finland joining the alliance. The nation has become the target of severe economic sanctions, and, whatever happens on the battlefield, has left an irreparable legacy of fear and mistrust of Russia among its European neighbours. Intended as a proof of Russian military might, the war has become a demonstration of its feebleness.
As a war leader, Putin has outdone his Tsarist and Soviet predecessors in calamitously poor judgement, persuading himself that the Russian army would win a swift victory and Ukraine would collapse under the weight of the Russian assault. In the event, the ill-prepared Russian advance on Kyiv bogged down into a giant traffic jam. Russia stopped the [Western-backed Ukrainian counter-attack in 2023](https://inews.co.uk/opinion/one-army-europe-now-only-hope-4430044?ico=in-line_link), but has since stuck to attritional warfare that wears down Ukraine – but also wears down Russia. Superior though Russia may be in population and resources, Putin was never able to mobilise these sufficiently to overwhelm the enemy.
Drone warfare means that today the defence has the upper hand over the attack, giving the advantage to dug-in Ukrainian troops over Russian advances at prohibitive cost. Hovering over and behind the front line on either side for 20 or 30 miles, drones make it impossible to evacuate the wounded by helicopter or ambulance, so injuries are untreated for hours or days, reducing the ratio of wounded to fatalities from 10 to one, to three or four to one.
Putin’s Ukraine war surpasses, as a military blunder, the Russo-Japanese war in 1904-5 and Stalin’s attack on Finland in 1939. Despite his can-do swagger and his well-publicised shows of decisiveness, Putin appears isolated from the realities of the conflict. In comparison with past European warlords, he most resembles the German Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1914 when he launched a surprise attack on France in expectation of a quick victory. He failed to win, but did manage to unite most of Europe against him.
Yet, the failure of Putin is not simply that of an individual, but that of the entire Russian kleptocratic, oligarchic elite over which he presides and which has ruled Russia since the 90s. My friend, the sociologist Boris Kagarlitsky, argued from the beginning of the Ukraine war that Russia would inevitably lose it because the wealthy oligarchs and corrupt bureaucrats who controlled the Russian state used it primarily as a money-making machine to enrich themselves.
Loyalty among them is prized over competence and all state institutions – including the army and military industries – have been hollowed out by systematic looting over decades. The spectacular greed and egotism of the few makes it difficult for Putin to appeal successfully to Russian national solidarity. Kagarlitsky was imprisoned for his anti-war stance, but his predictions have been borne out by the course of the conflict.
Symbolic of Russia’s diminished international influence is its marginal role in the Iran war crisis, though nominally an ally of Iran. Russia has seldom been mentioned in the media in relation to the Strait of Hormuz, an exception being when a Russian-owned 464ft-long superyacht, the *Nord*, owned by Russia’s richest oligarch, Alexey Mordashov, sailed through the strait with Iranian permission. A steel magnate loyal to Putin, Mordashov has assets worth $37bn according to the Russian press and is sanctioned by the EU and US.
Given [Putin’s dismal record of incompetence and wishful thinking in the Ukraine war](https://inews.co.uk/news/world/putin-pressure-end-ukraine-war-close-allies-4412611?ico=in-line_link), it is absurd that his image in the West is that of a demon king, a modern day Stalin, whose armoured columns might one day pour unstoppably into Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. This is most unlikely since Russian tanks have so far failed to advance the 20 miles from the Russian frontier to Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second largest city.
With all the evidence that Putin is a military nincompoop, why is he portrayed as a mortal threat to the West? I believe that this is because of pervasive Russophobia and beleaguered governments, such as in the UK, want to wrap the national flag around them while armies and intelligence services furiously demand an astronomic increase in their budgets.
An inflated, but sincere, belief in the Russian threat affects much of Europe with toxic consequences. It means unnecessary reliance on an unstable US President for military protection. It means no serious European effort to end the war so far, though tentative talks with Russia are in the pipeline, because this might be misinterpreted as appeasement of the devilish Putin. It means putting peace negotiations into the hands of Trump and his weird minions, whose sporadic and amateur negotiations produce unnecessary panic in European capitals who fear the US will do some dirty deal with the Kremlin, though Trump is too erratic and unrealistic to do any such thing.
Russia’s spectacular failure in Ukraine should long have been obvious, though anybody suggesting a peace deal is denounced as horribly blind to the Russian menace. Belgian Prime Minister Bart de Wever was predictably criticised in March when he said “we must end the [Ukraine] conflict in Europe’s interest…we must normalize relations with Russia and regain access to cheap energy. In private European leaders tell me I am right, but no one dares say it out loud.”
#
Very well written, and persuasive. Makes me wonder if Russia will essentially become Chinas proxy in coming decades.
Well, the Ukraine is loosing articles were a bit premature over the last years, and while the war is obviously a disaster for Russia’s geostrategic position, it is a bit premature to declare Russia as the looser of the special military operation.
Mission failed successfully!
Interesting analysis but strange conclusions.
The idea that Europe is suffering from Russophobia is odd when Russian troops are actively engaged in a war in the continent. The Royal Navy is playing tag with the Russian Navy almost every week. Russian intelligence interferes regularly with elections and finances political extremists from Poland to the UK.
Russia is held in check in Ukraine only at vast cost to Ukraine (in both money and troops) and to Europe generally as they’ve taken on the full burden of financial support following the US’ withdrawal from international cooperation.
Russia’s reputation may be in tatters but its ability to wage war (both hot and cold) hasn’t vanished, and it has little left to lose. I think Europe’s stance is correct – fool me once…
Russia is either overrated or underrated. This article seems to me to be the latter. Russia still has 20% of Ukraine‘s territory and with respect to Iran it seems that they have provided Iran with data and coordinates about US troops and with the current trajectory the Iran war will be debacle for the US of epic proportions which may well lead to the end of American hegemony. Also it’s nice that NATO has expanded but seriously, with the current policy of the US there is not much NATO left at the moment. Psychologically, I get how people like to read how dismal the war is going for Russia. But I don’t think this is yet over. We may well see France voting for Le!Pen and German voting for AfD and suddenly things may look very different again. Also even if the war between Russia and Ukraine came to an end soon, it’s possible that Ukraine may have „won“ but then again not really. The war has been catastrophic for the demographics of Ukraine and there is still no clear path to EU membership. So unless we will see some actual unrest or even revolt in Russia (which may or may not happen) with beneficial effects for Ukraine, then from a Ukrainian and European perspective, I think the article creates an unjustified feeling of optimism. Ceterum censeo Russia esse delendam.
The only sort of “winning” situation for Russia is all of Ukraine got quickly absorbed, which could add in enough resources and population to compensate for the casualty and the equipment loss.
Once the surprise invasion failed, the most rational move should be making some excuses to stop the war immediately, rather than dragging it on for four years that is risking Russia future. That four eastern regions of Ukraine are just not worth it. It is not just morally wrong but also not wise strategically. Losing face is far less worse than losing Russia future.
I’ll believe it when the Russian Armed Forces partially collapse and AFU reconquers the occupied lands.
This is a giant stretch of the imagination. The aims of the special military project have mostly been achieved. The aim wasn’t really to just bog down Ukraine, it was to unsettle the western financial system, and it worked, stunningly well.