The driving force behind Vladimir Putin’s actions is a historic event that the Russian president describes as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century”. Now it’s time to recapture, is Putin’s motto. The task of the “turning point” is now to show Putin that he was wrong about us.
President Putin has publicly mourned the loss of the dissolved Soviet empire from the start of his tenure more than twenty years ago. In 2004 he described the end of the Soviet Union as a “national tragedy of enormous proportions”. Even better known is his characterization that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century,” as he put it in 2005.
This development was analyzed not only in China – where the political leadership studied the end of the Soviet Union intensively in order to prevent something like this in their own country – but also in Russia, here with the purpose of reversing it. From Putin’s point of view, this catastrophe should not last. The fact that he now equates himself with Tsar Peter the Great rounds off the picture: now it’s being reconquered!
The reasons for the fall of the Soviet Union were manifold. The ethnic and religious identities in the various states of the USSR, which are becoming stronger than the Union ideology, the economic decline and ecological blindness are just as much a part of this as the undermining of the central political authority of the Communist Party. General Secretary Gorbachev did not achieve economic and political reforms at the same time. Then the leaders of the three largest republics – Russia, Ukraine and Belarus – took power out of his hands.
Now save articles for later in “Pocket”.
The Soviet Union had come to an end, and the successor states entered international life. Russia saw itself as “the” successor state that claimed the seat on the UN Security Council and the nuclear weapons for itself.
In addition to these causes of disintegration, all of which were significant, there was another cause, because the Soviet Union had previously endured phases characterized by considerably more intense internal and external struggles. The fact that the allies, who in the Soviet interpretation were “forever” bound to the Soviet Union (Brezhnev Doctrine), were suddenly able to decide independently about their political orientation, must have unsettled KGB officer Putin, who was stationed in Dresden.
After all, the Soviet Union fell without serious resistance – and looking at Russian history, Putin may have come to the conclusion that the lack of will to use superior force was the real reason for the collapse of the empire. In any case, shortly before the Ukraine war in February 2022, when asked by a journalist whether good things could also come from violence, he asked: When did good things come about without violence?
In this perspective, the lesson of recent Russian-Soviet history is that revolution, civil war and upheaval were victorious by those who used the most ruthless and brutal force, and that those who shied away from the use of force lost empires.
In all satellite states of the Soviet Union, Soviet and allied forces could have crushed demonstrations; in the Soviet Union purges and fighting internal enemies could have preserved the empire. The price at which this would have happened played no role in this assessment. Because the preservation of the empire justifies every sacrifice to other people, goods and nations. Does this logic also apply to the current attempt to rebuild the Russian empire?
This is supported by the fact that President Putin has used ruthless violence against internal enemies from the very first day of his term in office. The brutality of the second Chechen war, legitimized by (alleged) acts of terrorism against Russian citizens, should show everyone that there is no mercy. This also applies to the murders of Russian citizens in Moscow or abroad – in Great Britain and Germany – which did not happen covertly, but clearly communicated that it is better not to mess with Russia’s leadership.
Prof. Dr. Thomas Jäger has held the Chair for International Politics and Foreign Policy at the University of Cologne since 1999. His research focuses on international relations and American and German foreign policy.
Follow our expert on Twitter too!
Willingness to use violence was openly communicated. Likewise in Syria, where Russia focused on bombing from a distance. And now in Ukraine. The annexation of Crimea falls outside this pattern because it was carried out as a covert attack. In Donbass, on the other hand, violence has been supported since 2014.
For three months now, Russian forces have been razing Ukrainian cities to rubble, driving out millions of people living there and deliberately killing civilians. Military gains are limited (and territory is the last thing Russia needs). The political message is clear: Putin is ready to escalate violence – and more ruthlessly than any opponent.
The fact that Russia cannot keep this up for a long time speaks against it. Internal repression protects the regime, but it drives forward-looking and creative Russians out of the country. The economic damage that the Russian economy has already experienced, which will intensify in the coming months and which will cause exports to collapse drastically in a few years, because Russia has lost its reputation as a reliable supplier of energy not only in Europe restrict the means of power at the disposal of the Russian leadership.
The country will fall behind technologically, identify enemies at home to fight, and secure the regime externally with nuclear deterrence. This deterrent is already effective today, because Russia is not even attacked by Ukraine, which is wreaking havoc on it. Nuclear weapons are the only means of power left to Russia. Conventionally, the armed forces are at a level that does not meet the country’s aspirations. It will continue to lag behind economically and technologically. This will further limit his ability to exert influence.
The End of the American Age: Germany and the New World Order
Does this mean that the use of nuclear weapons, which has often been threatened, must be expected if the conventional capabilities of the Russian military are not sufficient to achieve the war aims?
No, because for three months the war aims have been adapted to the capabilities. And that means the goals are taken back. The blitzkrieg to take Ukraine has meanwhile evolved into a special military operation in the Donbass. Although President Putin was always ready for the ruthless use of force, it was always aimed at a goal that could be reached. It was – and I don’t mean this cynically – rational in that it was intended to evoke certain reactions. For example, frightening, intimidating, demoralizing the opponent, convincing them of the hopelessness of their situation.
The ruthless operations against the villages, towns and civilians in Ukraine are also pursuing these goals. From Grozny in Chechnya, Aleppo in Syria, and Mariupol in Ukraine, the same message is coming: if necessary, all life will be bombed. The damage associated with the use of nuclear weapons would not only have completely different dimensions – which are not in Russia’s interest the closer the use is geographically – but also sent a different message: Russia has reached the end of the escalation ladder . More is not possible.
If you want to be able to escalate, you strive to prevent this moment. And since Russia’s security is never seriously endangered, there is no politically or militarily comprehensible reason for the use of nuclear weapons.
The use of force requires both the ability and the will to do so. One alone is not enough. Russia’s government will muster the will as long as it is governed by the current ruling group. They won’t lose their skills in the long run, but they will lose them gradually.
The societies threatened by Russia, on the other hand, will increase their ability to ward off violence if they are willing to look at the situation realistically and if the governments look after the interests of the respective states. Precisely this, President Putin insinuates, they cannot do for selfish reasons. So far, he has been confirmed in this assessment. It is the task of the “Zeitenwende” to change this.
