Putin's War
By Christopher Ryan Maboloc, PhD
The reality of power is an enigma. Stephen Walt explains that the "Great Powers act in terrible ways." They often find justifications for their rouge behavior, for instance, the great lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction to justify the US Invasion. The reason is, however, typical of how countries with military might behave, from the earliest of known conflicts until the most recent. Hitler justified the Second World War as Germany's revenge for its humiliation in the Great War that saw its society and economy spiral, only to be rebuilt by starting to rearm itself that was also accepted by its people as a path toward both economic recovery and military might.
In Realist theory, Walt argues that when it comes to powerful countries, "the idea that others must threaten them in the future makes them worry about their security and lead them to compete for power." In the mind of Putin, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been aggressively leaning toward compromising Russia's security and national interest. Putin used this as a pretext to start his war. For obvious reasons, "moral condemnation won't help." The behavior of great powers is not founded on morality. It is rooted on how they react when a vital interest is threatened.
Both the West and Russia are to be blamed. NATO is in pursuit of expanding its influence near Russia's backyard. This is particularly the way how alliance politics reacts on a perceived common threat, notes Walt. He explains that in this case, it has become apparent that "international law is a weak barrier to global threat." It is certain that the West will accuse Putin of many war crimes, but the Russian leader won't be affected by the West's dalliances with the ideals of Western liberalism.
Sure, Putin is to be held accountable for everything, from the destruction to the deaths of thousands and the exodus of millions, but it must be noted that NATO expansionism, according to Walt, has destroyed the paradigm of "making Europe a zone of peace." But while Putin, Walt explains, "bears accountability for this war, liberals have produced the opposite results by dismissing Putin's protests." Putin prepared for this war and indeed, is ready and willing to make the ultimate sacrifice that puts to risk the whole of humanity.
Walt, as well as other analysts, notes that Putin may have miscalculated the resolve of Ukraine, especially its young and charismatic president, Voludymir Zelensky. Zelensky has vowed to stay the course and die with his soldiers to protect Ukraine. The West, indeed, bears the moral obligation to support him, but is also aware of the greater danger of starting a nuclear war against Russia. However, there is no moral justification for the invasion. In fact, Walt thinks that Putin also miscalculated the "West's hostility towards Russia."
The end to this war is not clear. Putin seeks no less than regime change to install his puppet government in Ukraine. But his biggest mistake, so far, is thinking, according to Walt, that "this war will be swift and easy." The biggest dilemma for the West is how to stop him, knowing that "the prospect of losing may force him to escalate the war effort," says Walt. Some analysts note that "it is extremely dangerous to put Putin into a corner." The economic sanctions, meanwhile, do not seem to work, while the impact around the world continues to be felt. Walt contends that "sanctions are ways of weaponizing interdependence, but they do not change the resolve of an aggressor."
