Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Putin looks like he will continue to ride the tide he has set into motion for the time being. But amidst his tactical successes the signs of a looming strategic defeat can be already seen.
Putin’s current conciliatory tone and his support of the Ukrainian “dialogue” should be interpreted not as a change of his doctrine but a change of tactics.
Putin not only seeks to revisit the results of the end of the Cold War, he also wants a final say in establishing the new world order and Western consent to his interpretation of the rules of the game.
There are many Ukrainians, even in the southeast, who have grown accustomed to Ukrainian independence and would resist efforts to fragment Ukraine and force the annexation or creation of quasi-independent republics.
The south and even the east of Ukraine do not express massive support for separatism. The violent clashes in Odessa may signal a turning point—indicating that Ukrainian society itself is trying to stop the country’s fragmentation.
Putin’s rhetorical shift toward calm and congeniality shows that now Putin is presenting himself as a victor who has formulated and applied the new rules of the game.
Western explanations for Putin’s behavior in Ukraine too often have a self-justifying ring to them.
After the Russian annexation of Crimea, the Belarusian President Lukashenko starts creating a “besieged fortress” and mobilizing the Belarusians to defend their country from potential Russian aggression. Moreover, Kazakhstan’s President Nazarbayev may follow Lukashenko’s example. It is clear that the future Eurasian Union cannot be strong.
Today’s world is again facing the civilizational choice which was recently expressed in the speeches of Putin and Obama representing two civilizations with starkly different norms.
Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan has said that he supports the Crimean referendum, but it is hard to say whether Armenia’s authorities could have expressed another view.
