In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal Michael O’Hanlon responds to those in the media who assert confidently that Russian President Putin is crazy:
Has Vladimir Putin lost his mind? Almost certainly not. He appears to have miscalculated badly in his invasion of Ukraine. But history is laden with aggressors who thought wars would be much easier than they turned out to be. It’s a natural human tendency, especially in dictatorships or juntas. Think of the kaiser and World War I, the Tojo regime leading into World War II, Kim Il Sung in Korea, the Soviets in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein against Iran and Kuwait.
The U.S. has done it too. Before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, some officials predicted that two-thirds of our invading forces would be home by fall and that the war would cost no more than $100 billion. We wound up deploying 130,000 to 170,000 U.S. troops for roughly seven more years. The war ultimately cost well over $1 trillion and the lives of 4,500 brave Americans.
Mr. Putin appears to have looked at the numbers in Ukraine and sensed an easy win. He expected to enter the country from multiple directions, execute a form of “shock and awe†against its political and military leadership, establish battlefield dominance over a weaker and smaller foe, and bring new technologies to the fight that would add unexpected dimensions to his attack plan.
He should have known better. He had long mocked the U.S. for its quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan. He himself experienced the Chechen wars that Russia fought on its own land in the 1990s. But then again, after Vietnam, in some ways the U.S. should have known better, too.
I think we’re being inundated by an enormous amount of propaganda, some disinformation from Russia to be sure but a lot from our own media as well. Let me, as they say on Jeopardy put some things “in the form of a question”:
- Is Putin crazy?
- Is Russia losing in Ukraine?
- Have the Ukrainians put up strong resistance?
- Are the Russians committing war crimes and atrocities?
- Are the economic sanctions hurting Russia?
- Will the Russians defeat the Ukrainian military?
- Will the Russians remove the present Ukrainian military?
- Will the Russians annex Ukraine?
to which my answers are 1. almost certainly not; 2. No; 3. almost certainly yes; 4. I don’t know—likely yes; 5. I don’t know—likely not; 6. Unless a negotiated settlement is reached before that happens yes; 7. Unless a negotiated settlement is reached before that happens yes; 8. not if they’re smart. I think that lots of Americans think the opposite on many of those questions.
I’ll conclude by quoting Sun Tzu: he who knows neither his enemy nor himself will be defeated in every battle.
In other news:
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Beloved feminist icon and 2024 presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton has announced she will be joining efforts to halt Russian aggression. Starting this week, she has promised to stop importing dossiers from Russia.
“For a long time, I have relied on Russian intelligence as a prime source for phony dirt on my political opponents,” said Clinton. “Starting today, I will refuse to import my disinformation or even my hitmen from Russian sources—that is, unless it’s absolutely necessary.”
Sources in Russia say this will cost the Russian economy over 3,000 jobs, which were previously filled with people working full-time writing phony dossiers for Hillary Clinton. In a statement, President Putin said he was sad to see his close, longtime relationship with Clinton going south. “I thought that big red reset button meant something to you!” he said.
For the time being, the Clintons have committed to buying their disinformation only from domestic sources like The Washington Post.
Bill Clinton also joined the fight, promising to stop importing underage women from Russia.
Historically, the Cossacks have been fierce fighters, and while their strength has waxed and waned, they have been the backbone of the defense from southern incursions. They are a large reason for the end of the “raiding season” into southern Russia.
They were what originally drew me into learning about Russian history. I do not think it is possible to understand Russians without knowing their history. It is mostly tragic, and they are not ten-foot tall monsters.
That’s the message I have been trying to convey.
I think it is hard for many people because they do not know history, generally. Borderwise, Western Europe was mostly stable after the Westphalian Treaties, but Eastern Europe was fluid until almost the Soviet Union.
Sweden, Finland, Russia, Denmark, and occasionally the Ottomans fought over the territory between Germany and Russia for several hundred years, and the countries of today (Poland, etc.) were only autonomous when the ruler was strong enough to secure their borders.
(I remember that @Icepick knew a lot about the history of that area.)
Even English baffles most people. Try explaining how Henry Bolingbroke became King Henry IV.