I was waiting for this post a long time because I was curious what concretely Branko meant by the many times repeated "Putin blunder".
However, framing something as a mistake imply there was a better course of action in 2022? If he let heavily armed Ukraine led by the rusophobic clique that snatched the power in 2014 through coup to crush the separatism in Donbas and if such Ukraine as a whole joined NATO, would Russia be better off than having orders of magnitude less potent Finland and Sweden in NATO and whatever is left of Ukraine when this ends (possibly a landlocked country)? I suggest different point of view: Russia is now 8 million people stronger and its economy is 30-50Billion USD stronger each year by this expansion by absorbing GDP of Donbas. Although it is relatively small against Russian GDP, it is massive for Ukraine's GDP. This part of economy will never again work against Russia (if we consider its multiplier effect to the rest of Ukrainian economy it is even more significant swing) and these people will nevwr be uses to fight against Russia. Even if the frozen assets are never to be returned that will not stop Russia or its future development although it surely will hurt.
It could be a blunder if we asume that Putin calculated that he would achieve his goals with much less political, economic and strategical price. But we do not know what he calculated so we cannot assess that, can we? For what we can see Russia was surprisingly well prepared for the long conflict and is slowly but surely dismantling mother of all proxy armies put up and financed and helped by NATO (and all its assets) against her and dispite all imaginable US/UK/EU/G7 sanctions against her.
The dreams of united and strong Europe including Russia as a significant factor of international relations along US, China nad India is probably over, but that can hardly be Putin's or Russia's mistake although he may put the last nail in that coffin...
The loss in relations between Russia and Europe is a direct result of, and due to the deliberate actions of NATO in expanding ever Eastward.
This is clearly America's goal, as it has been since 1945, to keep Europe weakened and afraid, and dependent on USA. Having driven Europe from cheap Russian gas by destroying Nordstream and perpetuating the lost-cause conflict in Ukraine, USA maintains economic and military control of Western Europe, stifling and bankrupting EU economies while threatening to invade them, itself in Canada and Greenland.
Frankly, the Ukrainians were idiots to believe US/UK promises, and Zelenskyy should have kept his election promises to enact Minsk and pursue neutrality.
Russian/Ukrainain relations have not "soured", Western Ukrainains will always hate Russians, and the Eastern oblasts and Crimea have made their choice already.
Ukraine's neo-Nazi elements have long promised to maintain guerrilla action after any ceasefire or truce, GLADIO-style, another page out of NATO's playbook.
"Consequences" for Russia? What consequences for the genocidal Zionists? What consequences for assassinating Soleimani, or invading Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Grenada, or Panama, or for staging a coup in Ukraine in 2014?
Hypocritical nonsense. Ask Stephen Miller what the new world order is, and he will tell you "might makes right", THAT is the lesson USA is preaching, so to pooh-pooh Russia for taking it to heart is childish.
Agree. This is a partial analysis. Unlike many people, I never thought that NATO is a benevolent actor & I think that it should have been dissolved after the end of the Cold War (together with the Warsaw Pact).
Some losses and then there are some benefits, which should be mentioned, to see how things might balance out, no?
Russia gains more independence and sovereignity and imposes certain lines that the US/West will lern to to cross - unfortunately the painful lesson will be mostly carried by the Ukrainians, who so wantonly want to eradicate everything Russian in their midsts, including the fact that the Soviet Union actually created a huge Ukraine just to alleviate Ukrainian nationalistic spirit. All in vain.
Russia is avoiding the US missile threat that was promised to materialize with Ukraine joining NATO. That counts for something? No. During the 10 years of Yeltsin time, Russia has lost over 2 Trillion USD worth of wealth and the caving to the US demands would have involved continuous losses. As such, the present amount imputed to Putin, which seems exagerated, is not that problematic in comparison to past losses and potential future losses if Russia caved.
EU is loosing ground by the month, politically, economically, intelectually. Europe is at a loss for loosing Russia.
Russia is strengthening its defenses, which is a gain and will preclude any serious attack against it.
all you have written is correct if observed from the AngloSaxon point, either politically or just geographically, as geography is inevitably determining your sources of cultural inspiration.
If one is a part of AngloSaxon world, one is forced to look at Russia from outside, and ends up having problems understanding Russia, as Churchill said of Soviet Russia: A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
However, things may actually be somewhat different.
First things first - the coordinates of the system
A. What was the historical role for Putin, as a leader of Russia. What is the most important task he should have done? If he were a really great leader?
Russia did the experiment with fast decommunization, accepting market economy, democracy and learned that unlike some other countries, ranging from defeated Germany, Japan to never-ending war fighting ally Israel, Russia will not get economic, financial support, from US, i.e. the West to rebuild its economy and society. Not on an honest basis. So, Russia learned that the problem was not communism, or to be more precise, even after renouncing communism, Russia was still perceived as a problem by US/West. The problem was that although Soviet system was defeated, communism was defeated, Russia was not defeated, not as a state, as a nation- Russia was an unwanted child, and had to grow up fast to be able to defend itself and survive.
(Just compare with China or Vietnam, who had a well organized communist party, that had preached the same lesson, before, during and after the clash with imperialist powers)
Putin learned the same truth, that Russia is a problem because of its independence, and will remain a problem as long as it is independent, but he was no longer a communist, just like Russian nation, and Russian elites, he has just finished discarding communism.
The stronger the Russian state, greater the problem. Putin started understanding this problem, first when his bid to enter NATO was refused, and it became clear when US kept pushing NATO eastwards.
But back to the question. What was the historical role for Putin?
In my opinion, laying foundation for truly constitutional system of government. Turning Russia from autocracy, governed by one man at the top and his team, into the democratic republic, where different options exist, and differences are resolved through democratic system.
Only such system would in the long run be able to withstand the pressure of CIA, MI6, all US organized NGOs, USAID, etc. trying to execute regime change.
Or in a more optimistic tone, would be able to give back to the Russian people, citizens what they expect and deserve, a law abiding society that respects individual rights, enterpreunership, honest hard work, but have yet to receive from their leaders.
The readiness of US and the West to escalate the attacks on Russian state and nation shows beyond doubt that Putin ended up defending independence of Russia, fighting for the principle of independence of Russian state. Putin did successfully defend against Western aggression.
Whether he will succeed in transforming Russia is the now most important question.
All else is of minor importance and will shrink to irrelevance if/when Russia wins the war.
So final conclusion, on:
1. Europe will adjust to the new reality and slowly begin to establish connections with Russia, and Russia will enjoy self confidently in determining the speed of this renewed relation.
2. NATO enlargement is irrelevant if war ends with a defeat of NATO.
3. Ukraine's hatred towards Russia is a real problem. Ukrainians had a fear that they had to ostensibly, openly, demonstrably separate themselves from Russia, if Ukrainian nation, state, is to survive. Whether this was true, is now irrelevant (Neutrality would have been better argument: Ukraine had no statesman, no political leader, no political force able to lead really independent strategy, no one like Lee Kuan Yee )
The fear of Russian space, common space, that comprises almost all of Ukraine, as it consists of all who speak Russian, reminds me of the fear many people in Croatia had of Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia was seen as a more dangerous enemy than Serbia. Yugoslavia threatened very existence of Croatian state, language, nation whole Serbia threatened only the borders. If there is a divorce, even a war, there will in the end be a border between Croatia and Serbia, there will be an independent Croatian state.
Something similar happened in Ukraine, common space that encompassed almost all Ukraine where people talked Russian, as a first, or as a second language was perceived as a constant threat to Ukrainian statehood, independence. Divorce was accepted as necessary, even if it meant war... But Ukraine has already divorced Russia, it has already been an independent state, so it had to openly seek NATO membership to definitely cut relations with Russia. There is the reason why no one in Ukraine is seriously afraid of ultranationalists, Bandera supporters, or open Third Reich supporters.
Hatred will weaken, not immediately, not completely, as Ukraine is perceived as firmly independent, nonRUssian, or western, and will most probably disappear as a real phenomenon if/when Ukraine joins EU, and remain part of national political folklore, to be drummed up before the election cycle.
Caveat, and important: a great part of the shift in the psyche of Ukrainian population has been result of psychological war, aided by CIA, MI6. Will they stop instigating hatred depends on the finality of the ending of the war.
Your statement about Croatian “fear of Yugoslavia” (specifically the post–World War II version), is simply incorrect.
As long as inter-ethnic relations and the federal balance within former Yugoslavia were broadly maintained, the majority of Croats were not opposed to Yugoslavia. Croatian language, culture, and institutions were protected. There was, of course, a minority that opposed Yugoslavia, but that is hardly unusual in any multinational state. Once that balance tipped decisively to one side, the system unraveled—and then all hell broke loose.
(majority of Croats were not opposed to Yugoslavia)....until the balance tipped decisively to one side is ambiguous, and has to be ambiguous.
Ambiguity
Like in a famous Greek oracle
Ibis redibis numquam in bello peribis
a sentence that can be understood in two different ways
You will go, return never, perish in war
You will go, return, never perish in war
Diplomatic solutions frequently use this type of language, where each side can read its truth in the same text
Yugoslavia was an ambiguous arrangement, and Croatian position in Yugoslavia was the key element of stability of Yugoslavia. As long as majority of Croats felt OK, i.e. respected, treated as equal in Yugoslavia , Yugoslavia had a future.
So from a game theory position, it would have been wisest position for the Serbian elites to find a way to politically accommodate Croatians, for as long as Croatians are accepting Yugoslavia, the state of Yugoslavia, cannot be destroyed.
Refusing to find a compromise with Croatians, led to war and destruction of Yugoslavia, a state that had all the Serbs inside its borders, where Serbs were the strongest nation, where Belgrade a Serbian capital has been a state capital
The most famous global case of creative diplomatic ambiguity is Shanghai Communiqué signed on the evening of February 27, 1972 at the Jinjiang Hotel in Shanghai between China and US.
On the status and future of Taiwan: "all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China"
mainland China and the island of Taiwan will reunite
China will not use force to reunite Taiwan unless Taiwan proclaims independence
US will not use force to oppose reunion unless Taiwan unless Taiwan is attacked
This masterpiece of diplomatic balanced ambiguity survived 53 years and ten successive US presidents
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush sr, Clinton, Bush jr., Obama, Trump, Biden, Trump
once that balance tipped decisively to one side....
Yugoslavia has been a fragile ambiguous masterpiece, and it just didn't survive careless and rough handling.
As a Croat, born and raised in Yugoslavia, and someone who lived through its final decade as a politically engaged adult, I can confidently say that I understand what was happening there and why. Framing that period in terms of “game theory” or proposing “accommodation by Serbian elites” as a solution is detached from reality and does not reflect how events actually unfolded.
As usual, on internet, a real possibility and danger of misunderstanding.
A. The fact of being a Croat, born and raised in Yugoslavia makes you one of 4,5 million. It does not grant you a right of being in the right, the right of knowing the truth. I could be a Croat, too.
B. If you did read carefully my comment, and have found something that is factually incorrect, or something that you disagree with, do comment, but if possible try to give clear arguments against my position. I did not comment how events actually unfolded, and did not propose game theory solution. Just a comment in the same range of meaning as the original article by Branko Milanović who argues that Putin made a wrong strategic decision by attacking Ukraine, that has brought three main problems, bad consequences for Russia, namely cutting ties with Europe, expansion of NATO into Sweden and Finland and Ukrainian hatred.
My comment was that decision by Serbian elites to risk destroying Yugoslavia was unwise, and suggested what would be a wise path. You are free to completely disregard mentioning game theory.
The reason I mentioned game theory was the book Why Do Countries Break Up?: The Case of Yugoslavia (1994) by Yugoslav liberal thinker Vladimir Gligorov where breakup of Yugoslavia is analyzed according to game theory.
My response to your comment addressed a single point: the claim that Croats were hostile to Yugoslavia. That claim is incorrect. Croats were central to the creation of the first Yugoslav state and, notwithstanding its deficiencies, participated in and supported the second Yugoslavia until very late in its existence. Yugoslavia’s disintegration was not directly caused ( although due to their impotence they bear the responsibility) by the federal government or the Communist Party per se, but by the actions of Milošević and the political leadership associated with him.
I am afraid you misunderstood my comment, which obviously means I could have been more clear. But as I said internet communication has its advantages but also disadvantages and if one does not want to write endless sentences and turn commenting into some kind of legal exercise...there is real possibility and danger of misunderstanding.
I used example of Croatian relation to Yugoslavia as an example, to try to better portray the relation of Ukrainians towards Russia.
Maybe it was a wrong idea, significantly less people know about Croatia than about Ukraine, and even people who come from Croatia and know, or think they know about relation between Croatia and Yugoslavia obviously frequently disagree.
This is what I think.
Croats were not hostile to Yugoslavia, as long and in a measure and proportion to Yugoslavia not being hostile to Croatia. It was an ambiguous relation, between federalism and confederalism, resembling somewhat, relations between Scotland and Britain, Quebec and Canada, Catalonia and Spain...
In real history these relations sometimes lead to ambition to separate and create an independent state, and the only honest and successful way to resolve the problem is an referendum on independence.
If one wants to keep the country together, it takes nerve, and consistent good policy, ability to adjust, to communicate, finally to be able to win these referendums as governments in Britain and Canada did.
But differences and historical memory are important, and no one is certain that such a referendum in Northern Ireland, once it happens would bring the same proBritish result.
So yes, it was Serbian elites, who did all they could to redefine Yugoslavia into something antiCroatian, and led majority of Croatians into proCroatian and antiYugoslav camp.
I also think that in a way, it’s a “blessing in disguise” that Russia is finally forced to turn to Asia despite how the West historically treats Russia (as a threat). EU is progressively shrinking relatively if not also absolutely, and one day the entire European economy will be smaller than ASEAN’s economy. Europe is progressively become irrelevant, returning to the state of the world pre-Columbus. Asia gets to benefit if it embraces Russian people, their intellectuals, artists, scientists. Russian involvement will enrich Asia. Hope one day it is possible to take a track from Singapore to the lovely city of St Petersburg.
As the global economic & technological center of gravity shifts eastward, Russia has so much to gain by way of mutually beneficial, reciprocal Eurasian integrations based on sovereign equality and the principle of noninterference in internal affairs.
A whole different universe compared to what it has had to deal with its European "partners".
Agree with that. As I mentioned in my piece, the forced turn away from Europe is not as great economic loss as it seemed at first. Asia is becoming central to world economy. However, the current distribution of Russian human and capital resources is centered towards Europe That will not be easy to change.
And... in all that very balanced rational analysis, you wouldn't mention that Putin will be prosecuted as a war criminal (if left alive by his own people).
Also missing... a 4th point (but NOT a loss) – the disappearance of hateful Russian propaganda from global media. When I say hateful, I mean their uncanny ability to identify any and all potential internal (to other nations) tensions in all possible dimensions (no coherent ideology)... and amplify them into open conflicts... with the only nihilistic goal of weakening the "West". Russia was and is a global source of moral nihilism. Let's hope the end of Putin's Russia becomes a turn towards something better – for the Russian people too.
Putin, prosecuted? While USA gets away with kidnapping world leaders and attacking seven nations, and "israel" conducts genocide while attacking even more?
Your premise and conclusion that "Putin inflicted three geopolitical losses" rests on framing choices that narrow the lens in ways that deserve pushback.
My points regarding this article:
1) It over-personalizes agency. You write as if this was essentially Putin’s move. But a four-year war effort at this scale is not executed by one person. It requires durable alignment across the security apparatus, bureaucracy, industry - and continued societal acquiescence. Polling and observable public discourse suggest that, whatever the quality of the information environment, a large portion of the population still supports the operation years later. You can assign ultimate responsibility to the head of state, but analytically you can’t skip the institutional coalition and consent dynamics that made the decision executable and sustainable.
2) Miscalculation is asserted, not reconstructed. A decision can be morally wrong and still be rational under a specific objective function. Your article doesn’t seriously reconstruct the trade-offs and threat perceptions at the time. Early warnings were visible for years: Munich 2007 as a clear signal of Russian red lines; Mearsheimer’s long pre-war warnings that NATO expansion/Ukraine alignment could trigger war; and Sachs’ argument (in recent long interviews, including the Belgrade one and his conversation with Glenn Diesen) that Western policy repeatedly treated Russian security concerns as irrelevant. Add the Minsk-track credibility problem (including Western admissions about Minsk being used to buy time), and it becomes hard to present the war as "unpredictable" or as a purely irrational lunge. That doesn’t justify it - but it does change how you should analyze decision-making: what options did the Kremlin think were closing, what risks/trade-off did it prioritize, and why?
3) Regarding $600bn - freezing ≠ confiscation; and the strategic effect is understated.
You treat the ~$600bn as effectively gone without clarifying composition (sovereign vs private), jurisdictions, and the legal/technical path from freezing to transfer. The possibility is ignored that the freeze itself is a structural shock to the perceived safety of Western reserve assets and instruments (SWIFT, treasuries, custodians). It accelerates global de-risking and diversification. Even if Russia loses liquidity short-term, the West also burns a chunk of its financial neutrality or quasi credibility - potentially weakening a major coercive lever over time.
4) NATO "border loss" might be real now, but you assume NATO’s permanence.
You treat NATO on Russia’s borders as a stable, long-term fact. That’s a strong assumption given U.S. domestic volatility. If a U.S. administration signals that Greenland/Arctic utility outweighs alliance sentiment - and if Europeans openly discuss NATO’s fragility or even reducing/expelling U.S. forces - then NATO on the border can shift from a permanent structural constraint to a contingent, possibly reversible posture. The claim that this is a durable multi-decade loss requires arguing NATO’s cohesion and U.S. commitment will hold, not simply presuming it.
Belgian prime minister gave a very good analysis of the real life scenarios regarding possible confiscation of Russian assets.
In short, assets are lost only if Russia loses the war. All else means negotiations. The more obvious the Russian victory, the less of the assets lost.
Also, I believe that I read recently that Russia is taking legal action re the frozen funds. If there is a pro-Russian judgement in an internationally recognised court then confiscation of goods world wide from the fund-holding countries would become legal, unless the money is returned, probably plus interest. A pro-Russian judgement is almost guaranteed, as there is/was no legal justification for freezing Russian funds.
1. Europe today is hardly a cultural Center it was 100 years ago. Learning from Europe today might be not a good idea. America is much more important of course. And cultural impact of Asia is increasing as well. Spengler wrote that Russian culture is “poisoned” by Europe. Maybe cutting ties is just a healthy reaction?
2. Security “deterioration” means what? That Russia is now likelier to use nukes? Yes. But isn’t it also a problem for European security? Russia historically becomes more aggressive and focused under pressure. We probably should expect the same here. Give it 10-20 years.
3. More relevant example for Russia is Chechnya. It was bombed for many years, yet supports Putin today.
In summary, Putin ruled as a “lazy” leader, just letting trends develop, all his actions are in fact reactions and halfhearted at best . But Russia is not going anywhere. It has the resources to destroy the West in its entirety, or any parts thereof. No rush.
Thanks for a comprehensive and far/reaching analysis. Allow me few remarks:
- among the geo-strategic losses one should probably count not only having turned the Baltic into a NATO lake but also being cut off from the Southern Caucasus through the planned Armenia Azerbaijan corridor and further south the overthrow of the traditional client regime in Siria (and tomorrow the overthrow of the friendly Iranian regime?);
- in terms of long-term trade losses, although it is true that the economy of Europe is in relative decline and those of Asia are ascending, I would stress that ‘gravity (in the sense of the trade models) matters’, implying that Russia, whose economic, as opposed to geographical, mass is overwhelmingly in Europe, is less well-positioned to gain from trade with Asia than from trade with Europe;
- not sure where the figure of 600 bn of seized assets comes from. The figures I am familiar with, at least concerning official (central bank) assets are closer to 300 bn. I agree that it is unlikely that the assets will be restituted in the near future (although outright confiscation is equally unlikely) I would not say it is impossible, at least partially, in the longer term.
All in all, the piece makes a convincing and damning verdict on the consequences of Mr Putin.
Russia is a problem as long and as much as it is independent
Navalny would have had same problems with the West
US strategy of "extending Russia", with the goal of causing internal collapse and regime change is still in action
proxy war is still being fought
economy is secondary,
except, that in the US, West generally a generation of leaders is in power today
who do sincerely look at war as the solution for their economic problems that they do not know how to solve
Branko definitely understands the main problem here
The problem is not that China has risen
The problem is that China has risen by respecting and using the rules based order
the rules that have been designed by US/West
US/West is destroying the rules based order to spite China
Why there is a war in Ukraine?
A real reason. It was too costly for the West to bid against Russia for the Ukrainian future
Yanukovitch had offer from EU, and offer from Russia.
When EU offered all it could, Russia simply said
We'll give you all they are giving and more...
The West decided it is cheaper to use billions to regime change Ukraine, than to keep bidding against Russia for Ukraine's favors.
In any peaceful disentanglement of Ukrainian geopolitical situation, any sane Ukrainian government would use the position between EU and Russia to seek the best possible offer.
Except the government that has been brought into power by a regime change operation.
Not so much. The USA is held up only by the world wide use of the dollar, and this is fading significantly. US manufacturing has gone down a long and slippery tube, and will never come back. Really, only weapons are manufactured, but solely for profit, not effectiveness, and it shows in their price and poor performance! As for US culture, that comes down to Disney and Hollywood, and the world won't miss them when they disappear. Only jazz remains, and that was invented and spread by African citizens of the US.
Seems like attributing the loss to Putin and not to the West is a case of fundamental attribution bias. Whatever.
Europe’s loss is Asia’s gain. We now get to play with Russian chess grandmasters. And more trade between Russia and Asia. Welcome Russia, I hope you feel more at home (and safer!) as part of Asia than as part of the West. I look forward to more interaction between Russians and Asians.
Blindness of author and endless hate against Russia don't allow him to see very simple reality and truth. This reality and truth are of course, totally opposite of lies presented in this text. Firstly, Russia didn't start the war, on the contrary it was attacked and war was final solution before West directly cut the Russia on several smaller pieces and directly attacked by NATO. Ukraine had already been AntiRussia before and especially after direct violent change of president and government in 2014. which author intentionally "forgot". But after this war it will not be AntiRussia anymore. Author misses that important fact. Of course he likes to take russian assets and this likes this scenario but it will not be a case. Western countries will take back every cent of mentioned 600 billion. The biggest shame for author is his serbian origin, but he is not only one whose hate is bigger than ration. SHAME.
Here is a bit harsher take from someone who may claim to understand Russia:
"Putin is still in power, the only failure he is ever concerned about. Russia ceased to exist as a real nation over a decade ago, and is now just a mafia front gas station and propaganda factory with nukes. This humiliating disaster would have collapsed any real government."
My point was the rather striking difference between his radically negative take on Russia – which you seem to agree with judging from your reply – and your calm analysis of Putin's Russia as a legitimate player in global affairs. I believe we have to at least indicate our moral positioning in relation to main global powers. It's not about good and bad in absolute terms (no such thing)... but in pragmatic, context-bound terms... as in who is doing less bad things to the world at any given moment... who would I join / work with against whom if it comes to that. I left my native Bulgaria almost 4 decades ago because I got tired of conversations with people from the then (under communism) intelligentsia of the country always getting into nihilistic relativism (mistaken for intelligence) – as in "do you really believe the West is that different?"... which I did and still do.
The west is certainly very different - it is an aggressive, profit oriented, lawless wilderness, which has sucked the blood of poorer and less fortunate nations for the last 500 years. Fortunately, that won't last much longer, as China, Russia and India will put an end to its freedom of rapine.
Compare that to the MILLIONS of people killed by USA/UK/NATO in the 25 years Putin has held power, from Iraq, to Libya, to Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine. What does Gary say about that, do you suppose?
Well, as Emil says, he really believes that West is that different.
And yes, it is significantly better for intelligent, hard working individuals who possess skills and knowledge that West can use. They get a solid compensation. Less than they deserve, but that is called lack of negotiating skills.
Not for the children of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Palestine
Kasparov is very intensive man, an honest man. But he does understand that Russia never was a democracy-
Russia is so great, giant, that few people understand that Russian historical fate is the fate of a bullied person.
The main historical memory is endless aggressions from the east, Central Asia, South, West, North.
Russia exists because it has been able to produce a center that has been able to organize army and defend Russian people.
Army had to be large, as enemies were numerous , center had to be powerful...
And voila Russian state is here.
Not so good in peace time but excellent under pressure, when attacked.
Just as Britain as a nation, as a state, and British history is determined by Britain being an island, being conquered by foreign military just two times in the last 2000 years,
Russian fate is determined by the enormousness of its territory and the number, energy and strength of its enemies.
In order to survive, Russia has to be stronger that its enemies.
If I were western strategist I would try to end the war as soon as possible, the longer the war goes on the stronger will Russia become.
I agree that Russia tends to be organized better in war than in peace. Although it is not always the case (1914-17). But it works under pressure. And yes, it is obviously true that England had never experienced a real invasion in 1,000 years. Very diff. from any European nation.
if I remember correctly what Solzhenitsyn wrote on Russian approach to First World War that led to defeat of the tsarist Russian army, and finally Bolshevik revolution:
- Russia entered war too early, before mobilization was completed, i.e. not prepared
- Russia fought major battles on de facto foreign territory, closer to enemy center of power, far from Russian center of power
Still, Russia was not decisively defeated, in 1914-1917, Russia imploded, damage came from inside.
Putin is well aware of the mistakes in the First World War.
But also of the mistakes that led to German army reaching Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad.
Putin waited from 2014 till 2022, for possible Ukrainian/Western change of heart, and preparing the state, army for possible fight.
The fact that he did leave so many assets in the Western banks, is indication that he expected that problems will finally be solved through negotiations.
In an interview, Putin himself acknowledged as his personal mistake, having waited too long before making the decision to attack.
In my opinion, Putin, values lives of Russian soldiers more than money lost to western banks.
What about the effect on Russia's population? Birth rates in Russia have been below the population replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman in her childbearing ages (15 to 49). Russia was already losing population before the war with Ukraine. Since the start of the war, many dead Russian soldiers have been returned from Ukraine in body bags. Many other young Russian men escaped Russia to avoid the war. People are a country's most valuable resource. Even back in 2010 Russian students in my graduate classes told me that they did not intend to return to work in Russia. Russia is suffering a brain drain because of "Putin's plunder." Putting more and more people in prison for opposing Putin is not helping Russia. Russia is a very large country geographically with fewer and fewer people.
By that time, Russia had already captured and consolidated Crimea. The war attrition through proxy elements in Ukraine was ongoing. Russia's prestige among BRICS and SCO was also secure. Syria was the first theater where Russia directly participated in conflict and achieved its goals.
2026 Russia can forget about being a superpower, it will even struggle to be a regional power.
It's not well recognized that Russia was an invisible backbone of axis of resistance (Assad - Iran - Hezbollah - their proxies) in middle east. As Russia's losses mounted in Ukraine, it quietly withdrew from middle east. Without Russian backing axis of resistance fell apart and Russia lost its long standing middle east allies/assets. Even Iran now appears to be on verge of collapse.
Now Russian economy is in terrible condition, demographics ruined due to war losses, rampant institutional corruption & decay, Russia's future looks bleak.
Leonid Ivashov prophecies on Ukraine disaster have come true. BTW there's a youtube channel which gives analysis of Russia. Unfortunately, it's only in Russian.
"Now Russian economy is in terrible condition, demographics ruined due to war losses, rampant institutional corruption & decay, Russia's future looks bleak."
Nonsense. Russia has last year overtaken Germany to become the 4th largest economy in the world by GDP PPP. The CIA and World Bank recognise this. You can even look it up in 'Wikipedia.
I was waiting for this post a long time because I was curious what concretely Branko meant by the many times repeated "Putin blunder".
However, framing something as a mistake imply there was a better course of action in 2022? If he let heavily armed Ukraine led by the rusophobic clique that snatched the power in 2014 through coup to crush the separatism in Donbas and if such Ukraine as a whole joined NATO, would Russia be better off than having orders of magnitude less potent Finland and Sweden in NATO and whatever is left of Ukraine when this ends (possibly a landlocked country)? I suggest different point of view: Russia is now 8 million people stronger and its economy is 30-50Billion USD stronger each year by this expansion by absorbing GDP of Donbas. Although it is relatively small against Russian GDP, it is massive for Ukraine's GDP. This part of economy will never again work against Russia (if we consider its multiplier effect to the rest of Ukrainian economy it is even more significant swing) and these people will nevwr be uses to fight against Russia. Even if the frozen assets are never to be returned that will not stop Russia or its future development although it surely will hurt.
It could be a blunder if we asume that Putin calculated that he would achieve his goals with much less political, economic and strategical price. But we do not know what he calculated so we cannot assess that, can we? For what we can see Russia was surprisingly well prepared for the long conflict and is slowly but surely dismantling mother of all proxy armies put up and financed and helped by NATO (and all its assets) against her and dispite all imaginable US/UK/EU/G7 sanctions against her.
The dreams of united and strong Europe including Russia as a significant factor of international relations along US, China nad India is probably over, but that can hardly be Putin's or Russia's mistake although he may put the last nail in that coffin...
Nice exercise of self delusion.
burko
if you judge current Ukrainina administration not on what they say, but on what they do, and especially on what are the consequences of their actions
there is almost 100 % continuation with post 2014 administrations
It is exactly like it would have been if Poroshenko had won
Thanks for sending. I loved this deep look at long term consequences.
Thank you, Carol! All the best in 2026!
The loss in relations between Russia and Europe is a direct result of, and due to the deliberate actions of NATO in expanding ever Eastward.
This is clearly America's goal, as it has been since 1945, to keep Europe weakened and afraid, and dependent on USA. Having driven Europe from cheap Russian gas by destroying Nordstream and perpetuating the lost-cause conflict in Ukraine, USA maintains economic and military control of Western Europe, stifling and bankrupting EU economies while threatening to invade them, itself in Canada and Greenland.
Frankly, the Ukrainians were idiots to believe US/UK promises, and Zelenskyy should have kept his election promises to enact Minsk and pursue neutrality.
Russian/Ukrainain relations have not "soured", Western Ukrainains will always hate Russians, and the Eastern oblasts and Crimea have made their choice already.
Ukraine's neo-Nazi elements have long promised to maintain guerrilla action after any ceasefire or truce, GLADIO-style, another page out of NATO's playbook.
"Consequences" for Russia? What consequences for the genocidal Zionists? What consequences for assassinating Soleimani, or invading Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Grenada, or Panama, or for staging a coup in Ukraine in 2014?
Hypocritical nonsense. Ask Stephen Miller what the new world order is, and he will tell you "might makes right", THAT is the lesson USA is preaching, so to pooh-pooh Russia for taking it to heart is childish.
Dear Branko,
all the best. I appreciate your analysis, but do think the scope should be broadened.
Agree. This is a partial analysis. Unlike many people, I never thought that NATO is a benevolent actor & I think that it should have been dissolved after the end of the Cold War (together with the Warsaw Pact).
Some losses and then there are some benefits, which should be mentioned, to see how things might balance out, no?
Russia gains more independence and sovereignity and imposes certain lines that the US/West will lern to to cross - unfortunately the painful lesson will be mostly carried by the Ukrainians, who so wantonly want to eradicate everything Russian in their midsts, including the fact that the Soviet Union actually created a huge Ukraine just to alleviate Ukrainian nationalistic spirit. All in vain.
Russia is avoiding the US missile threat that was promised to materialize with Ukraine joining NATO. That counts for something? No. During the 10 years of Yeltsin time, Russia has lost over 2 Trillion USD worth of wealth and the caving to the US demands would have involved continuous losses. As such, the present amount imputed to Putin, which seems exagerated, is not that problematic in comparison to past losses and potential future losses if Russia caved.
EU is loosing ground by the month, politically, economically, intelectually. Europe is at a loss for loosing Russia.
Russia is strengthening its defenses, which is a gain and will preclude any serious attack against it.
Branko,
all you have written is correct if observed from the AngloSaxon point, either politically or just geographically, as geography is inevitably determining your sources of cultural inspiration.
If one is a part of AngloSaxon world, one is forced to look at Russia from outside, and ends up having problems understanding Russia, as Churchill said of Soviet Russia: A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.
However, things may actually be somewhat different.
First things first - the coordinates of the system
A. What was the historical role for Putin, as a leader of Russia. What is the most important task he should have done? If he were a really great leader?
Russia did the experiment with fast decommunization, accepting market economy, democracy and learned that unlike some other countries, ranging from defeated Germany, Japan to never-ending war fighting ally Israel, Russia will not get economic, financial support, from US, i.e. the West to rebuild its economy and society. Not on an honest basis. So, Russia learned that the problem was not communism, or to be more precise, even after renouncing communism, Russia was still perceived as a problem by US/West. The problem was that although Soviet system was defeated, communism was defeated, Russia was not defeated, not as a state, as a nation- Russia was an unwanted child, and had to grow up fast to be able to defend itself and survive.
(Just compare with China or Vietnam, who had a well organized communist party, that had preached the same lesson, before, during and after the clash with imperialist powers)
Putin learned the same truth, that Russia is a problem because of its independence, and will remain a problem as long as it is independent, but he was no longer a communist, just like Russian nation, and Russian elites, he has just finished discarding communism.
The stronger the Russian state, greater the problem. Putin started understanding this problem, first when his bid to enter NATO was refused, and it became clear when US kept pushing NATO eastwards.
But back to the question. What was the historical role for Putin?
In my opinion, laying foundation for truly constitutional system of government. Turning Russia from autocracy, governed by one man at the top and his team, into the democratic republic, where different options exist, and differences are resolved through democratic system.
Only such system would in the long run be able to withstand the pressure of CIA, MI6, all US organized NGOs, USAID, etc. trying to execute regime change.
Or in a more optimistic tone, would be able to give back to the Russian people, citizens what they expect and deserve, a law abiding society that respects individual rights, enterpreunership, honest hard work, but have yet to receive from their leaders.
The readiness of US and the West to escalate the attacks on Russian state and nation shows beyond doubt that Putin ended up defending independence of Russia, fighting for the principle of independence of Russian state. Putin did successfully defend against Western aggression.
Whether he will succeed in transforming Russia is the now most important question.
All else is of minor importance and will shrink to irrelevance if/when Russia wins the war.
So final conclusion, on:
1. Europe will adjust to the new reality and slowly begin to establish connections with Russia, and Russia will enjoy self confidently in determining the speed of this renewed relation.
2. NATO enlargement is irrelevant if war ends with a defeat of NATO.
3. Ukraine's hatred towards Russia is a real problem. Ukrainians had a fear that they had to ostensibly, openly, demonstrably separate themselves from Russia, if Ukrainian nation, state, is to survive. Whether this was true, is now irrelevant (Neutrality would have been better argument: Ukraine had no statesman, no political leader, no political force able to lead really independent strategy, no one like Lee Kuan Yee )
The fear of Russian space, common space, that comprises almost all of Ukraine, as it consists of all who speak Russian, reminds me of the fear many people in Croatia had of Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia was seen as a more dangerous enemy than Serbia. Yugoslavia threatened very existence of Croatian state, language, nation whole Serbia threatened only the borders. If there is a divorce, even a war, there will in the end be a border between Croatia and Serbia, there will be an independent Croatian state.
Something similar happened in Ukraine, common space that encompassed almost all Ukraine where people talked Russian, as a first, or as a second language was perceived as a constant threat to Ukrainian statehood, independence. Divorce was accepted as necessary, even if it meant war... But Ukraine has already divorced Russia, it has already been an independent state, so it had to openly seek NATO membership to definitely cut relations with Russia. There is the reason why no one in Ukraine is seriously afraid of ultranationalists, Bandera supporters, or open Third Reich supporters.
Hatred will weaken, not immediately, not completely, as Ukraine is perceived as firmly independent, nonRUssian, or western, and will most probably disappear as a real phenomenon if/when Ukraine joins EU, and remain part of national political folklore, to be drummed up before the election cycle.
Caveat, and important: a great part of the shift in the psyche of Ukrainian population has been result of psychological war, aided by CIA, MI6. Will they stop instigating hatred depends on the finality of the ending of the war.
Your statement about Croatian “fear of Yugoslavia” (specifically the post–World War II version), is simply incorrect.
As long as inter-ethnic relations and the federal balance within former Yugoslavia were broadly maintained, the majority of Croats were not opposed to Yugoslavia. Croatian language, culture, and institutions were protected. There was, of course, a minority that opposed Yugoslavia, but that is hardly unusual in any multinational state. Once that balance tipped decisively to one side, the system unraveled—and then all hell broke loose.
vedran
the key sentence
(majority of Croats were not opposed to Yugoslavia)....until the balance tipped decisively to one side is ambiguous, and has to be ambiguous.
Ambiguity
Like in a famous Greek oracle
Ibis redibis numquam in bello peribis
a sentence that can be understood in two different ways
You will go, return never, perish in war
You will go, return, never perish in war
Diplomatic solutions frequently use this type of language, where each side can read its truth in the same text
Yugoslavia was an ambiguous arrangement, and Croatian position in Yugoslavia was the key element of stability of Yugoslavia. As long as majority of Croats felt OK, i.e. respected, treated as equal in Yugoslavia , Yugoslavia had a future.
So from a game theory position, it would have been wisest position for the Serbian elites to find a way to politically accommodate Croatians, for as long as Croatians are accepting Yugoslavia, the state of Yugoslavia, cannot be destroyed.
Refusing to find a compromise with Croatians, led to war and destruction of Yugoslavia, a state that had all the Serbs inside its borders, where Serbs were the strongest nation, where Belgrade a Serbian capital has been a state capital
The most famous global case of creative diplomatic ambiguity is Shanghai Communiqué signed on the evening of February 27, 1972 at the Jinjiang Hotel in Shanghai between China and US.
On the status and future of Taiwan: "all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China"
mainland China and the island of Taiwan will reunite
China will not use force to reunite Taiwan unless Taiwan proclaims independence
US will not use force to oppose reunion unless Taiwan unless Taiwan is attacked
This masterpiece of diplomatic balanced ambiguity survived 53 years and ten successive US presidents
Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush sr, Clinton, Bush jr., Obama, Trump, Biden, Trump
once that balance tipped decisively to one side....
Yugoslavia has been a fragile ambiguous masterpiece, and it just didn't survive careless and rough handling.
Like Ukraine.
As a Croat, born and raised in Yugoslavia, and someone who lived through its final decade as a politically engaged adult, I can confidently say that I understand what was happening there and why. Framing that period in terms of “game theory” or proposing “accommodation by Serbian elites” as a solution is detached from reality and does not reflect how events actually unfolded.
As usual, on internet, a real possibility and danger of misunderstanding.
A. The fact of being a Croat, born and raised in Yugoslavia makes you one of 4,5 million. It does not grant you a right of being in the right, the right of knowing the truth. I could be a Croat, too.
B. If you did read carefully my comment, and have found something that is factually incorrect, or something that you disagree with, do comment, but if possible try to give clear arguments against my position. I did not comment how events actually unfolded, and did not propose game theory solution. Just a comment in the same range of meaning as the original article by Branko Milanović who argues that Putin made a wrong strategic decision by attacking Ukraine, that has brought three main problems, bad consequences for Russia, namely cutting ties with Europe, expansion of NATO into Sweden and Finland and Ukrainian hatred.
My comment was that decision by Serbian elites to risk destroying Yugoslavia was unwise, and suggested what would be a wise path. You are free to completely disregard mentioning game theory.
The reason I mentioned game theory was the book Why Do Countries Break Up?: The Case of Yugoslavia (1994) by Yugoslav liberal thinker Vladimir Gligorov where breakup of Yugoslavia is analyzed according to game theory.
My response to your comment addressed a single point: the claim that Croats were hostile to Yugoslavia. That claim is incorrect. Croats were central to the creation of the first Yugoslav state and, notwithstanding its deficiencies, participated in and supported the second Yugoslavia until very late in its existence. Yugoslavia’s disintegration was not directly caused ( although due to their impotence they bear the responsibility) by the federal government or the Communist Party per se, but by the actions of Milošević and the political leadership associated with him.
vedran
I am afraid you misunderstood my comment, which obviously means I could have been more clear. But as I said internet communication has its advantages but also disadvantages and if one does not want to write endless sentences and turn commenting into some kind of legal exercise...there is real possibility and danger of misunderstanding.
I used example of Croatian relation to Yugoslavia as an example, to try to better portray the relation of Ukrainians towards Russia.
Maybe it was a wrong idea, significantly less people know about Croatia than about Ukraine, and even people who come from Croatia and know, or think they know about relation between Croatia and Yugoslavia obviously frequently disagree.
This is what I think.
Croats were not hostile to Yugoslavia, as long and in a measure and proportion to Yugoslavia not being hostile to Croatia. It was an ambiguous relation, between federalism and confederalism, resembling somewhat, relations between Scotland and Britain, Quebec and Canada, Catalonia and Spain...
In real history these relations sometimes lead to ambition to separate and create an independent state, and the only honest and successful way to resolve the problem is an referendum on independence.
If one wants to keep the country together, it takes nerve, and consistent good policy, ability to adjust, to communicate, finally to be able to win these referendums as governments in Britain and Canada did.
But differences and historical memory are important, and no one is certain that such a referendum in Northern Ireland, once it happens would bring the same proBritish result.
So yes, it was Serbian elites, who did all they could to redefine Yugoslavia into something antiCroatian, and led majority of Croatians into proCroatian and antiYugoslav camp.
I also think that in a way, it’s a “blessing in disguise” that Russia is finally forced to turn to Asia despite how the West historically treats Russia (as a threat). EU is progressively shrinking relatively if not also absolutely, and one day the entire European economy will be smaller than ASEAN’s economy. Europe is progressively become irrelevant, returning to the state of the world pre-Columbus. Asia gets to benefit if it embraces Russian people, their intellectuals, artists, scientists. Russian involvement will enrich Asia. Hope one day it is possible to take a track from Singapore to the lovely city of St Petersburg.
That's the perfect description IMO.
As the global economic & technological center of gravity shifts eastward, Russia has so much to gain by way of mutually beneficial, reciprocal Eurasian integrations based on sovereign equality and the principle of noninterference in internal affairs.
A whole different universe compared to what it has had to deal with its European "partners".
Agree with that. As I mentioned in my piece, the forced turn away from Europe is not as great economic loss as it seemed at first. Asia is becoming central to world economy. However, the current distribution of Russian human and capital resources is centered towards Europe That will not be easy to change.
And... in all that very balanced rational analysis, you wouldn't mention that Putin will be prosecuted as a war criminal (if left alive by his own people).
Also missing... a 4th point (but NOT a loss) – the disappearance of hateful Russian propaganda from global media. When I say hateful, I mean their uncanny ability to identify any and all potential internal (to other nations) tensions in all possible dimensions (no coherent ideology)... and amplify them into open conflicts... with the only nihilistic goal of weakening the "West". Russia was and is a global source of moral nihilism. Let's hope the end of Putin's Russia becomes a turn towards something better – for the Russian people too.
My name is Emil Sotirov.
Putin, prosecuted? While USA gets away with kidnapping world leaders and attacking seven nations, and "israel" conducts genocide while attacking even more?
Get real.
You're mentally ill.
Poor guy
Your premise and conclusion that "Putin inflicted three geopolitical losses" rests on framing choices that narrow the lens in ways that deserve pushback.
My points regarding this article:
1) It over-personalizes agency. You write as if this was essentially Putin’s move. But a four-year war effort at this scale is not executed by one person. It requires durable alignment across the security apparatus, bureaucracy, industry - and continued societal acquiescence. Polling and observable public discourse suggest that, whatever the quality of the information environment, a large portion of the population still supports the operation years later. You can assign ultimate responsibility to the head of state, but analytically you can’t skip the institutional coalition and consent dynamics that made the decision executable and sustainable.
2) Miscalculation is asserted, not reconstructed. A decision can be morally wrong and still be rational under a specific objective function. Your article doesn’t seriously reconstruct the trade-offs and threat perceptions at the time. Early warnings were visible for years: Munich 2007 as a clear signal of Russian red lines; Mearsheimer’s long pre-war warnings that NATO expansion/Ukraine alignment could trigger war; and Sachs’ argument (in recent long interviews, including the Belgrade one and his conversation with Glenn Diesen) that Western policy repeatedly treated Russian security concerns as irrelevant. Add the Minsk-track credibility problem (including Western admissions about Minsk being used to buy time), and it becomes hard to present the war as "unpredictable" or as a purely irrational lunge. That doesn’t justify it - but it does change how you should analyze decision-making: what options did the Kremlin think were closing, what risks/trade-off did it prioritize, and why?
3) Regarding $600bn - freezing ≠ confiscation; and the strategic effect is understated.
You treat the ~$600bn as effectively gone without clarifying composition (sovereign vs private), jurisdictions, and the legal/technical path from freezing to transfer. The possibility is ignored that the freeze itself is a structural shock to the perceived safety of Western reserve assets and instruments (SWIFT, treasuries, custodians). It accelerates global de-risking and diversification. Even if Russia loses liquidity short-term, the West also burns a chunk of its financial neutrality or quasi credibility - potentially weakening a major coercive lever over time.
4) NATO "border loss" might be real now, but you assume NATO’s permanence.
You treat NATO on Russia’s borders as a stable, long-term fact. That’s a strong assumption given U.S. domestic volatility. If a U.S. administration signals that Greenland/Arctic utility outweighs alliance sentiment - and if Europeans openly discuss NATO’s fragility or even reducing/expelling U.S. forces - then NATO on the border can shift from a permanent structural constraint to a contingent, possibly reversible posture. The claim that this is a durable multi-decade loss requires arguing NATO’s cohesion and U.S. commitment will hold, not simply presuming it.
Bojan,
Belgian prime minister gave a very good analysis of the real life scenarios regarding possible confiscation of Russian assets.
In short, assets are lost only if Russia loses the war. All else means negotiations. The more obvious the Russian victory, the less of the assets lost.
Also, I believe that I read recently that Russia is taking legal action re the frozen funds. If there is a pro-Russian judgement in an internationally recognised court then confiscation of goods world wide from the fund-holding countries would become legal, unless the money is returned, probably plus interest. A pro-Russian judgement is almost guaranteed, as there is/was no legal justification for freezing Russian funds.
1. Europe today is hardly a cultural Center it was 100 years ago. Learning from Europe today might be not a good idea. America is much more important of course. And cultural impact of Asia is increasing as well. Spengler wrote that Russian culture is “poisoned” by Europe. Maybe cutting ties is just a healthy reaction?
2. Security “deterioration” means what? That Russia is now likelier to use nukes? Yes. But isn’t it also a problem for European security? Russia historically becomes more aggressive and focused under pressure. We probably should expect the same here. Give it 10-20 years.
3. More relevant example for Russia is Chechnya. It was bombed for many years, yet supports Putin today.
In summary, Putin ruled as a “lazy” leader, just letting trends develop, all his actions are in fact reactions and halfhearted at best . But Russia is not going anywhere. It has the resources to destroy the West in its entirety, or any parts thereof. No rush.
Thanks for a comprehensive and far/reaching analysis. Allow me few remarks:
- among the geo-strategic losses one should probably count not only having turned the Baltic into a NATO lake but also being cut off from the Southern Caucasus through the planned Armenia Azerbaijan corridor and further south the overthrow of the traditional client regime in Siria (and tomorrow the overthrow of the friendly Iranian regime?);
- in terms of long-term trade losses, although it is true that the economy of Europe is in relative decline and those of Asia are ascending, I would stress that ‘gravity (in the sense of the trade models) matters’, implying that Russia, whose economic, as opposed to geographical, mass is overwhelmingly in Europe, is less well-positioned to gain from trade with Asia than from trade with Europe;
- not sure where the figure of 600 bn of seized assets comes from. The figures I am familiar with, at least concerning official (central bank) assets are closer to 300 bn. I agree that it is unlikely that the assets will be restituted in the near future (although outright confiscation is equally unlikely) I would not say it is impossible, at least partially, in the longer term.
All in all, the piece makes a convincing and damning verdict on the consequences of Mr Putin.
Philalethes,
main forces at play here are geopolitical,
Russia is a problem as long and as much as it is independent
Navalny would have had same problems with the West
US strategy of "extending Russia", with the goal of causing internal collapse and regime change is still in action
proxy war is still being fought
economy is secondary,
except, that in the US, West generally a generation of leaders is in power today
who do sincerely look at war as the solution for their economic problems that they do not know how to solve
Branko definitely understands the main problem here
The problem is not that China has risen
The problem is that China has risen by respecting and using the rules based order
the rules that have been designed by US/West
US/West is destroying the rules based order to spite China
Why there is a war in Ukraine?
A real reason. It was too costly for the West to bid against Russia for the Ukrainian future
Yanukovitch had offer from EU, and offer from Russia.
When EU offered all it could, Russia simply said
We'll give you all they are giving and more...
The West decided it is cheaper to use billions to regime change Ukraine, than to keep bidding against Russia for Ukraine's favors.
In any peaceful disentanglement of Ukrainian geopolitical situation, any sane Ukrainian government would use the position between EU and Russia to seek the best possible offer.
Except the government that has been brought into power by a regime change operation.
"America [sic] is much more important of course."
Not so much. The USA is held up only by the world wide use of the dollar, and this is fading significantly. US manufacturing has gone down a long and slippery tube, and will never come back. Really, only weapons are manufactured, but solely for profit, not effectiveness, and it shows in their price and poor performance! As for US culture, that comes down to Disney and Hollywood, and the world won't miss them when they disappear. Only jazz remains, and that was invented and spread by African citizens of the US.
Seems like attributing the loss to Putin and not to the West is a case of fundamental attribution bias. Whatever.
Europe’s loss is Asia’s gain. We now get to play with Russian chess grandmasters. And more trade between Russia and Asia. Welcome Russia, I hope you feel more at home (and safer!) as part of Asia than as part of the West. I look forward to more interaction between Russians and Asians.
Blindness of author and endless hate against Russia don't allow him to see very simple reality and truth. This reality and truth are of course, totally opposite of lies presented in this text. Firstly, Russia didn't start the war, on the contrary it was attacked and war was final solution before West directly cut the Russia on several smaller pieces and directly attacked by NATO. Ukraine had already been AntiRussia before and especially after direct violent change of president and government in 2014. which author intentionally "forgot". But after this war it will not be AntiRussia anymore. Author misses that important fact. Of course he likes to take russian assets and this likes this scenario but it will not be a case. Western countries will take back every cent of mentioned 600 billion. The biggest shame for author is his serbian origin, but he is not only one whose hate is bigger than ration. SHAME.
Here is a bit harsher take from someone who may claim to understand Russia:
"Putin is still in power, the only failure he is ever concerned about. Russia ceased to exist as a real nation over a decade ago, and is now just a mafia front gas station and propaganda factory with nukes. This humiliating disaster would have collapsed any real government."
--- Garry Kasparov
https://x.com/Kasparov63/status/2010406233560264826
Sure, but that description fits as well the Yeltsin govt of which the said Kasparov was very supportive..
My point was the rather striking difference between his radically negative take on Russia – which you seem to agree with judging from your reply – and your calm analysis of Putin's Russia as a legitimate player in global affairs. I believe we have to at least indicate our moral positioning in relation to main global powers. It's not about good and bad in absolute terms (no such thing)... but in pragmatic, context-bound terms... as in who is doing less bad things to the world at any given moment... who would I join / work with against whom if it comes to that. I left my native Bulgaria almost 4 decades ago because I got tired of conversations with people from the then (under communism) intelligentsia of the country always getting into nihilistic relativism (mistaken for intelligence) – as in "do you really believe the West is that different?"... which I did and still do.
Emil,
do you really believe West is that different?
The west is certainly very different - it is an aggressive, profit oriented, lawless wilderness, which has sucked the blood of poorer and less fortunate nations for the last 500 years. Fortunately, that won't last much longer, as China, Russia and India will put an end to its freedom of rapine.
Compare that to the MILLIONS of people killed by USA/UK/NATO in the 25 years Putin has held power, from Iraq, to Libya, to Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine. What does Gary say about that, do you suppose?
Well, as Emil says, he really believes that West is that different.
And yes, it is significantly better for intelligent, hard working individuals who possess skills and knowledge that West can use. They get a solid compensation. Less than they deserve, but that is called lack of negotiating skills.
Not for the children of Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Palestine
Kasparov is very intensive man, an honest man. But he does understand that Russia never was a democracy-
Russia is so great, giant, that few people understand that Russian historical fate is the fate of a bullied person.
The main historical memory is endless aggressions from the east, Central Asia, South, West, North.
Russia exists because it has been able to produce a center that has been able to organize army and defend Russian people.
Army had to be large, as enemies were numerous , center had to be powerful...
And voila Russian state is here.
Not so good in peace time but excellent under pressure, when attacked.
Just as Britain as a nation, as a state, and British history is determined by Britain being an island, being conquered by foreign military just two times in the last 2000 years,
Russian fate is determined by the enormousness of its territory and the number, energy and strength of its enemies.
In order to survive, Russia has to be stronger that its enemies.
If I were western strategist I would try to end the war as soon as possible, the longer the war goes on the stronger will Russia become.
I agree that Russia tends to be organized better in war than in peace. Although it is not always the case (1914-17). But it works under pressure. And yes, it is obviously true that England had never experienced a real invasion in 1,000 years. Very diff. from any European nation.
Branko,
if I remember correctly what Solzhenitsyn wrote on Russian approach to First World War that led to defeat of the tsarist Russian army, and finally Bolshevik revolution:
- Russia entered war too early, before mobilization was completed, i.e. not prepared
- Russia fought major battles on de facto foreign territory, closer to enemy center of power, far from Russian center of power
Still, Russia was not decisively defeated, in 1914-1917, Russia imploded, damage came from inside.
Putin is well aware of the mistakes in the First World War.
But also of the mistakes that led to German army reaching Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad.
Putin waited from 2014 till 2022, for possible Ukrainian/Western change of heart, and preparing the state, army for possible fight.
The fact that he did leave so many assets in the Western banks, is indication that he expected that problems will finally be solved through negotiations.
In an interview, Putin himself acknowledged as his personal mistake, having waited too long before making the decision to attack.
In my opinion, Putin, values lives of Russian soldiers more than money lost to western banks.
This is a fair & balanced article with rightful reasoning to all points. I don't know why some people got upset.
What about the effect on Russia's population? Birth rates in Russia have been below the population replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman in her childbearing ages (15 to 49). Russia was already losing population before the war with Ukraine. Since the start of the war, many dead Russian soldiers have been returned from Ukraine in body bags. Many other young Russian men escaped Russia to avoid the war. People are a country's most valuable resource. Even back in 2010 Russian students in my graduate classes told me that they did not intend to return to work in Russia. Russia is suffering a brain drain because of "Putin's plunder." Putting more and more people in prison for opposing Putin is not helping Russia. Russia is a very large country geographically with fewer and fewer people.
Slanted view. Demographic problems are world wide, except perhaps in Africa and some of Asia. Russia is not the most badly affected by a long way.
Prof Branko, whatever happens with Ukraine's future, Russia will emerge as a diminished power.
2017 was the peak of post Soviet Russia's geopolitical influence. Putin declared victory in Syrian conflict.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42330551
By that time, Russia had already captured and consolidated Crimea. The war attrition through proxy elements in Ukraine was ongoing. Russia's prestige among BRICS and SCO was also secure. Syria was the first theater where Russia directly participated in conflict and achieved its goals.
2026 Russia can forget about being a superpower, it will even struggle to be a regional power.
https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/zavety-obamy-lukyanov/
It's not well recognized that Russia was an invisible backbone of axis of resistance (Assad - Iran - Hezbollah - their proxies) in middle east. As Russia's losses mounted in Ukraine, it quietly withdrew from middle east. Without Russian backing axis of resistance fell apart and Russia lost its long standing middle east allies/assets. Even Iran now appears to be on verge of collapse.
https://takeindiaforward.blogspot.com/2024/12/bidens-last-acts-in-foreign-policy.html
Now Russian economy is in terrible condition, demographics ruined due to war losses, rampant institutional corruption & decay, Russia's future looks bleak.
Leonid Ivashov prophecies on Ukraine disaster have come true. BTW there's a youtube channel which gives analysis of Russia. Unfortunately, it's only in Russian.
https://www.youtube.com/@geoanaliz
"Now Russian economy is in terrible condition, demographics ruined due to war losses, rampant institutional corruption & decay, Russia's future looks bleak."
Nonsense. Russia has last year overtaken Germany to become the 4th largest economy in the world by GDP PPP. The CIA and World Bank recognise this. You can even look it up in 'Wikipedia.