Social Europe

politics, economy and employment & labour

  • Themes
    • Global cities
    • Strategic autonomy
    • War in Ukraine
    • European digital sphere
    • Recovery and resilience
  • Publications
    • Books
    • Dossiers
    • Occasional Papers
    • Research Essays
    • Brexit Paper Series
  • Podcast
  • Videos
  • Newsletter
  • Membership

Putin’s war will destroy Russia

Nina L Khrushcheva 2nd April 2022

By attacking another European country, Putin crossed a line drawn after World War II. But he also changed Russia.

Putin,Russia,Ukraine
Back to the USSR? Violent repression, inscrutable arbitrariness (Aleksey Dushutin / shutterstock.com)

A grim old Soviet joke probably rings far too true to Ukrainians today. A Frenchman says: ‘I take the bus to work, but when I travel around Europe, I use my Peugeot.’ A Russian replies: ‘We, too, have a wonderful system of public transport, but when we go to Europe, we use a tank.’

That joke emerged in 1956, when the then leader of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Nikita Khrushchev, ordered tanks into Budapest to crush the anti-Soviet Hungarian revolution. It reappeared in 1968, when his successor, Leonid Brezhnev, sent tanks to Czechoslovakia to crush the ‘Prague spring’. But in 1989, when the last such figure, Mikhail Gorbachev, chose not to send tanks or troops to Germany to preserve the Berlin wall, the quip seemed set to become a thing of the past. If today’s Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has shown us anything, however, it is that we cannot believe the present, and all that matters for Russia’s future is its past.

Pan-Slavic vision

For Putin, the past that matters most is the one which the dissident author and Nobel laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn exalted—the time when the Slavic peoples were united within the Orthodox Christian kingdom of Kievan Rus’. Kyiv formed its heart, making Ukraine central to Putin’s pan-Slavic vision.

But, for Putin, the Ukraine war is about preserving Russia, not just expanding it. As his foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, recently made clear, Russia’s leaders believe that their country is locked in a ‘life-and-death battle to exist on the world’s geopolitical map’. That worldview reflects Putin’s longstanding obsession with works of other Russian emigrant philosophers, such as Ivan Ilyin and Nikolai Berdyaev, who described a struggle for the Eurasian (Russian) soul against the Atlanticists (the west) who would destroy it.


Become part of our Community of Thought Leaders


Get fresh perspectives delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for our newsletter to receive thought-provoking opinion articles and expert analysis on the most pressing political, economic and social issues of our time. Join our community of engaged readers and be a part of the conversation.

Sign up here

Yet Putin and his neo-Eurasianists seem to believe that the key to victory is to create the kind of regime those anti-Bolshevik philosophers most detested, one run by the security forces. A police state would fulfill the vision of another of Putin’s heroes—the KGB chief turned Communist Party general secretary, Yuri Andropov.

In 1956 and 1968, Andropov was the main advocate of sending in the tanks. He believed that crushing opposition to Soviet rule was essential to forestall the destruction of the USSR at the hands of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United States Central Intelligence Agency. It is much the same logic that is being applied in Ukraine today—if one can call it logic. Today, the battle to ‘save Russia’ seems to be little more than the product of one man’s fervid imagination.

Conflicting explanations

There is good reason to believe that not even the highest-ranking Russian officials have had much of a say in the Ukraine war. Lavrov has put forward conflicting explanations and objectives. The head of Russia’s central bank, Elvira Nabiullina, attempted to resign shortly after the invasion, but Putin refused to allow it.

As for Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), it seems its Department for Operational Information was responsible for feeding Putin the Ukrainian narrative he wanted to hear: Russia’s Slavic brothers were ready to be liberated from the Nazi collaborators and western puppets leading their government. It probably never crossed their minds that Putin would order an invasion of Ukraine—a move clearly running counter to Russia’s interests—based on this information. But he did, and some 1,000 personnel have reportedly lost their jobs over the operation’s failure.

Those job losses extend beyond the FSB to the military, which seems also to have been kept mostly in the dark about whether, when and why an invasion would occur. The defence minister, Sergei Shoigu—the longest-serving member of the government—has largely disappeared from the public eye, prompting speculation that Putin may have planned the war with his fellow former KGB officers, rather than with the military brass.

Four endings

However it started, the war will probably end in one of four ways. Russia could seize control of part or all of Ukraine, but only briefly. The Russian military’s struggle to gain control over Ukrainian cities and to keep control over the one major city it has seized strongly suggest that it cannot sustain a long-term occupation. The disastrous Soviet war in Afghanistan, which hastened the USSR’s collapse, comes to mind.

In the second scenario, Ukraine agrees to recognise Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk as Russian territories, enabling the Kremlin’s propaganda machine to churn out stories of ‘liberated’ Ukrainians. But, even as the Putin regime claimed victory, Russia would remain a global pariah, with its economy permanently scarred by sanctions, abandoned by hundreds of global companies and increasingly devoid of young people.

In the third scenario, an increasingly frustrated Putin deploys tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. As Dmitry Medvedev, a former president who is deputy chair of Russia’s security council, recently warned, Russia is prepared to strike against an enemy which has used only conventional weapons. Kremlin propaganda would surely present this as a victory, most likely citing America’s 1945 bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as precedent for the use of nuclear weapons to end a war—and proof that any western criticism was rank hypocrisy.


Support Progressive Ideas: Become a Social Europe Member!


Support independent publishing and progressive ideas by becoming a Social Europe member for less than 5 Euro per month. You can help us create more high-quality articles, podcasts and videos that challenge conventional thinking and foster a more informed and democratic society. Join us in our mission - your support makes all the difference!

Become a Social Europe Member

In the final scenario, the US president, Joe Biden, gets his wish: Putin is removed from power. Given that Russia has no tradition of military coups, this is highly unlikely. Even if it did happen, the system Putin built would remain in place, sustained by the cohort of former KGB colleagues and other security goons (siloviki) he has been grooming for two decades. While foreign adventurism might abate, Russians would remain isolated and oppressed. After all, the FSB may not have believed the war was coming, but it has eagerly exploited Putin’s ‘special military operation’ as an opportunity to implement restrictive measures and assert full control over society.

Stalinesque dictatorship

By attacking another European country, Putin crossed a line drawn after World War II—and changed the world. But he also changed Russia, from a functioning autocracy into a Stalinesque dictatorship, a country characterised by violent repression, inscrutable arbitrariness and a massive brain drain.

While the fortunes of Ukraine, Europe and the rest of the world after the shooting stops remain to be seen, the outcome for Russia is all too obvious—a future as dark as its darkest past.

Republication forbidden—copyright Project Syndicate 2022, ‘Putin’s war will destroy Russia’

Nina L Khrushcheva
Nina L Khrushcheva

Nina L Khrushcheva is professor of international affairs at the New School in New York and co-author of In Putin’s Footsteps: Searching for the Soul of an Empire Across Russia’s Eleven Time Zones (St Martin's Press).

You are here: Home / Politics / Putin’s war will destroy Russia

Most Popular Posts

Belarus,Lithuania A tale of two countries: Belarus and LithuaniaThorvaldur Gylfason and Eduard Hochreiter
dissent,social critique,identity,politics,gender Delegitimising social critique and dissent on the leftEszter Kováts
retirement,Finland,ageing,pension,reform Late retirement: possible for many, not for allKati Kuitto
Credit Suisse,CS,UBS,regulation The failure of Credit Suisse—not just a one-offPeter Bofinger
Europe,transition,climate For a just and democratic climate transitionJulia Cagé, Lucas Chancel, Anne-Laure Delatte and 8 more

Most Recent Posts

Barcelona,feminist,feminism Barcelona: a feminist municipalism now at riskLaura Pérez Castaño
Spain,elections,Sánchez Is Spain on the right track?Bettina Luise Rürup
CBI,Confederation of British Industry,harassment Crisis at Britain’s CBI holds lessons for othersMarianna Fotaki
central and eastern Europe,CEE,renewable Central and eastern Europe: a renewable-energy win-winPaweł Czyżak
Cape Town,inequality Tackling inequality in the city—Cape TownWarren Smit

Other Social Europe Publications

Bildschirmfoto 2023 05 08 um 21.36.25 scaled 1 RE No. 13: Failed Market Approaches to Long-Term Care
front cover Towards a social-democratic century?
Cover e1655225066994 National recovery and resilience plans
Untitled design The transatlantic relationship
Women Corona e1631700896969 500 Women and the coronavirus crisis

ETUI advertisement

The four transitions and the missing one

Europe is at a crossroads, painfully navigating four transitions (green, digital, economic and geopolitical) at once but missing the transformative and ambitious social transition it needs. In other words, if the EU is to withstand the storm, we do not have the luxury of abstaining from reflecting on its social foundations, of which intermittent democratic discontent is only one expression. It is against this background that the ETUI/ETUC publishes its annual flagship publication Benchmarking Working Europe 2023, with the support of more than 70 graphs and a special contribution from two guest editors, Professors Kalypso Nikolaidïs and Albena Azmanova.


DOWNLOAD HERE

Eurofound advertisement

Unaffordable and inadequate housing in Europe

Unaffordable housing is a matter of great concern in the European Union. It leads to homelessness, housing insecurity, financial strain and inadequate housing. It also prevents young people from leaving their family home. These problems affect people’s health and wellbeing, embody unequal living conditions and opportunities, and result in healthcare costs, reduced productivity and environmental damage.

This new report maps housing problems in the EU and the policies that address them, drawing on Eurofound’s Living, working and Covid-19 e-survey, EU Statistics on Income and Living Conditions and input from the Network of Eurofound Correspondents.


DOWNLOAD HERE

Foundation for European Progressive Studies Advertisement

The spring issue of the Progressive Post magazine from FEPS is out!

The Special Coverage of this new edition is dedicated to Feminist Foreign Policy, to try to gauge its potential but also the risk that it could be perceived as another attempt by the west to impose its vision on the global south.

In this issue, we also look at the human cost of the war in Ukraine, analyse the increasing connection between the centre right and the far right, and explore the difficulties, particularly for women, of finding a good work-life balance and living good working lives.


DOWNLOAD HERE

Hans Böckler Stiftung Advertisement

The macroeconomic effects of re-applying the EU fiscal rules

Against the background of the European Commission's reform plans for the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), this policy brief uses the macroeconometric multi-country model NiGEM to simulate the macroeconomic implications of the most relevant reform options from 2024 onwards. Next to a return to the existing and unreformed rules, the most prominent options include an expenditure rule linked to a debt anchor.

Our results for the euro area and its four biggest economies—France, Italy, Germany and Spain—indicate that returning to the rules of the SGP would lead to severe cuts in public spending, particularly if the SGP rules were interpreted as in the past. A more flexible interpretation would only somewhat ease the fiscal-adjustment burden. An expenditure rule along the lines of the European Fiscal Board would, however, not necessarily alleviate that burden in and of itself.

Our simulations show great care must be taken to specify the expenditure rule, such that fiscal consolidation is achieved in a growth-friendly way. Raising the debt ceiling to 90 per cent of gross domestic product and applying less demanding fiscal adjustments, as proposed by the IMK, would go a long way.


DOWNLOAD HERE

About Social Europe

Our Mission

Article Submission

Membership

Advertisements

Legal Disclosure

Privacy Policy

Copyright

Social Europe ISSN 2628-7641

Social Europe Archives

Search Social Europe

Themes Archive

Politics Archive

Economy Archive

Society Archive

Ecology Archive

Follow us

RSS Feed

Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on LinkedIn

Follow us on YouTube