Pierre Atlas: War has been a geopolitical disaster for Putin

Russia’s unprovoked invasion of its sovereign, democratic neighbor has entered a second year. Vladimir Putin expected the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, to fall within three days and believed Russian troops would be welcomed as liberators. Needless to say, this scenario hasn’t played out.

In my IBJ column published two weeks before the invasion (“Putin isn’t bluffing on Ukraine,” Feb. 11, 2022), I wrote that, “Putin wants Ukraine for Russia—regardless of what the Ukrainians themselves want.” No one could have imagined just how much the Ukrainians did not want to become part of Russia.

Ukrainians have literally put their lives on the line to maintain their freedom and independence. Zelenskyy claims Ukraine has lost about 15,000 soldiers, but that number could be low. There are no reliable figures as to the thousands of Ukrainian civilians killed by Russia to date. Eight million Ukrainians have become refugees, and an additional 5 million are internally displaced.

It is widely believed that the Russian miliary has suffered about 200,000 casualties in the past year, including about 60,000 killed in action. That’s about four times the number of troops killed during the eight-year Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Add to this the thousands of Wagner Group mercenaries who have also died in Ukraine. Because Putin has thus far been unable to win on the battlefield, he has deliberately attacked civilians and civilian infrastructure, acts that constitute war crimes.

The invasion has been a geopolitical disaster for Putin. One of his longtime goals has been to divide and weaken NATO and separate the United States from Europe. Ironically, his war on Ukraine has had the opposite effect: The transatlantic alliance is stronger and more unified than ever.

In response to Russia’s aggression, NATO will soon have two new members: Sweden, which is abandoning 150 years of formal neutrality; and Finland, which shares an 832-mile border with Russia. Both countries have first-class militaries. Their membership will enhance NATO strategically as well as politically.

President Biden has surprised everyone—perhaps Putin most of all—with his resolve and his global leadership in this crisis. The democratic world has rallied to support Ukraine with billions of dollars in military and humanitarian aid, in addition to imposing unprecedented economic sanctions on Russia. Forty-five countries have provided military support of some kind, from Cambodian and Colombian demining engineers to top-of-the-line NATO anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons. Poland has just begun delivering Leopard II tanks to the Ukrainian army.

As Russia depletes its stockpiles, it has reached out to a rogue’s gallery of dictatorships for help, including Belarus, North Korea, Iran and China. Iran is providing suicide drones that Russia has used to attack civilians.

As for China, its political and military leaders must be in shock from the turn of events. They are witnessing the intensity of a people fighting to repel invaders along with the failure of Russian tactics and equipment, which are similar to China’s. Pondering its own possible invasion of Taiwan, China might be on the verge of providing Russia with lethal military assistance.

Today we are witnessing an intersectionality of authoritarianism. Dictatorships are supporting Russia not because they care about Putin’s imperial ambitions, but because they all benefit from the defeat of democracy anywhere.

We need to stand with Ukraine for the Ukrainians, but also for ourselves. If Russia is allowed to win this war, where will it go next? Whom will its victory inspire? The future of a democratic Europe—and democracy beyond Europe—could be at stake.•

__________

Atlas, a political scientist, is a senior lecturer at the Paul H. O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs at IUPUI. His opinions do not necessarily reflect those of Indiana University. Send comments to ibjedit@ibj.com.

Click here for more Forefront columns.