THE stark old realities of international political manoeuvring and gameplay are on full display in the Ukrainian high intensity conflict.
This fallout signals the official return to state-led traditional threats with the interests of state superseding all other considerations.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has long been earmarked as the aggressor and symbolic face of the autocratic front and assertive nature of global politics, in the same league as China President Xi Jinping and others, with the nucleus of global politics once again being shaped by the return to state competition for power and purpose.
The US and West have been singled out as the prime instigators in this conflict, goading the Kremlin to the all-out affront and upping the ante in securing hidden interests and purposes.
In navigating through the different debates and perspectives on the justifications for both sides in their actions in Ukraine, the one thing that never changes is the drive of states in securing their own interests and purposes, with future assurances of the protection of these core interests at stake.
Putin has been playing a long and calculated strategic plan in reviving and securing these interests, deemed by himself as non-negotiable.
Timing and window of opportunities remain one of the prime strategic chessboard manoeuvrings.
In the decisive path leading towards the full steam incursion, various parameters will need to be assessed by Putin and his elite advisers.
Previous moves in Georgia and Crimea were executed where the US presidencies in those periods were deemed incapable of mounting a serious enough response that could upset the balance of reward and returns.
This latest saga is not entirely reckless in nature by Putin, having seized the right opportune moment where he sees the cracks in Nato and the disunity of the Western front in responding decisively and effectively.
He is further emboldened by the perceived American weakness and decline, underscored by the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan and the weakness of Biden in coming up with solid deterrence measures.
Quarters have also highlighted the revival of American strength under Trump where his peace through strength mantra has been flagged as the forceful deterrence against furthering Putin’s intentions.
The timing now is apt, with years of strategic patience since the Crimean annexation and in analysing the reactions and policies of the West and US in the aftermath of the Minsk Agreement whether the continuous eastward push by Nato and the arming of Ukraine will be continued.
Not only does it not abate, the moves against Moscow were seen as gaining further intensity and momentum, with the push for Nato membership and the hidden hands in the internal politics of Kyiv in entrapping Ukraine under Western control justify urgent moves by the Kremlin, further supported by other external parameters.
Rapid measures need to be taken now to prevent the swift fall of Kyiv to Western spheres and in sensing that the openings and returns still outweigh the fallout and risks of unpredictable responses.
The depth of energy dependency on Moscow, especially by Europe and the US, has not been any more significant, so is the rest of the other global players both in energy and critical defence support.
Putin realises that any tit for tat measures against Moscow will be confined to selective sanctions at most, with the West not being able to tolerate the high risks and chain impact on their internal economic damage with the already escalating inflationary squeeze.
Additional confidence settings include perceived resilient internal capacity with high international reserves and the subsequent free flow of energy export with higher prices in funding military operations.
Hopes are pinned on big powers, that hugely depend on Moscow’s military and security support, to not be swayed by Western-led international condemnation, isolation and sanctions to avoid total global solidarity in making Russia a pariah state as a result of this action.
Not all goes according to Putin’s plan however, with the slower than anticipated onslaught and inroads gained after almost a week of invasion laying bare the weak and poorly coordinated offensive capacities and capabilities of Moscow in a full-scale high intensity operation.
The most recent involvement of the Russians in similar war settings was the Syrian debacle almost a decade ago, being confined largely to air power projection and the utilisation of special forces unlike the massive logistical and sustaining planning needed for the Ukraine invasion.
Ukraine, being the second largest state in Europe, certainly defies expectations of the Kremlin in putting up higher resistance in the early days and in forcing Putin to up the ante, and getting the cards and the chips in the negotiations with Kyiv with his recent call to bolster his nuclear force readiness.
This also sends a message to the US and West that Moscow will not bow to the hypocritical and assertive push by the US and in reminding them that for all the focus on China’s ascension for the past decades, Russia remains the ever capable and dominant leader of the resistant front to Western dominance.
Lagging in global solidarity and Western unity in their response to Kremlin in the early days, now the momentum has slightly shifted to the West in the effectiveness and intensity of their punitive measures, with even Switzerland broking conventional policy of neutrality and joining the ranks in exerting sanctions, joining further stronger and targeted sanctions and isolations imposed in various spectrums imaginable.
The fear of further military escalation and rapid deterioration of risks prevented more severe punishment measures that target the full embargo on the energy sector and full sanctions on Russian financial architecture, as well as the reluctance to go all out in defending Ukraine.
The hard reality reflects the scenario of the play-out of geopolitical considerations, where sovereignty, national interests and territorial integrity with domestic considerations spanning out to the future remaining the impenetrable priority.
The current negotiations are deemed as doomed to fail, with the reluctance of the West in getting entangled further other than superficial moves in increasing the volume of direct military support, void of a full intervention.
Putin certainly realises this and has all these planned out in advance, with his readiness to absorb the short and medium-term damage, and impact on Moscow’s international legitimacy and soft power standing.
He knows he can still count on his bankable allies, although they are not officially in tandem and in agreement with his war against Kyiv, knowing well that his grip on their economic and security lifelines has not been stronger.
Although he will eventually win the stakes at play in Kyiv with his forces’ eventual takeover, the domino fall-out will not be in his realm of calculations and he will soon face the same dilemma the Americans faced in Iraq and Afghanistan in winning the hearts and minds of the locals and capturing the staying power and relevance in securing the long-term interests in the targeted state.
For Ukraine, it is easier said than done that the people will fully accept the push to be engulfed in either Moscow’s or Washington’s or Brussel’s sphere of dominance and influence, whether through the installation of a puppet regime or a downright annexation.
The game might still largely be determined by the volume of missiles and mortars fired and the number of tanks in action, but the eventual long-term stability and trust will only be won by a clear and open communication of purpose and sanctity of values and reasons, with respect and adherence to basic established norms and ethics.
For in lacking these fundamental foundation traits for the future, it risks becoming another Chechnya or a deja-vu return to the nerve-wracking high-risk stakes of the Cuban Missile Crisis that could threaten irreversible damage.
The slim hope for de-escalation still persists, albeit only possible with greater willingness to shed some conventional pride and norms and in increasing readiness to shoulder higher responsibilities and sacrifices.
Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
