After reading a biography of the Russian Marshal of the Soviet Union, Georgy Zhukov, it becomes apparent that there are parallels between Soviet tactics in WWII and those used in the Putin-Ukraine conflict. Beyond the deployment of similarly vintaged tanks and weaponry, General Zhukov was notorious for committing his forces to battle with little regard for casualties. Similarly, Putin’s military has been characterized by the use of inadequately trained and equipped conscripts. Additionally, it has been reported that Putin’s forces have positioned troops behind the front lines to prevent or even target any deserting or retreating frontline soldiers. Zhukov’s approach often involved rapidly advancing battalions and armor to the front with minimal planning, depending on the attrition of Nazi forces. This tactic was typically executed under Stalin’s direct orders, though sometimes initiated by Zhukov independently.

The conflict between Putin and Ukraine has evolved into a war of attrition. Initially, Putin thought he could swiftly deploy tanks and troops as he did in southern Ukraine in 2014, seizing territory through sheer intimidation. However, he miscalculated the armaments, determination and tenacity of the Ukrainian forces. Since 2014, tens of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers have received training from Western nations. By February 2022, they were significantly better prepared and less intimidated by Putin’s military. In conventional warfare, the Russian military turned out to be a paper tiger, at least with its conventional non-nuclear forces, that is. The Putin-Ukraine war is still unfolding but Russia will come out of it severely stunted win or lose and possibly with new leadership. Whatever the outcome, the winner will have a great deal of de-mining to do. The conflict continues to unfold, but regardless of the outcome, Russia is likely to emerge greatly weakened, potentially with a change in leadership.

Putin is a smart guy. Certainly he knows the consequences of releasing as much as a single low yield tactical nuclear weapon, even if it’s limited to a demonstration. Pandora’s box would swing wide open and out would slink an ever-expanding series of repeats of above ground nuclear blasts until a city would be hit. Then all out nuclear war could happen in the old eye-for-an-eye fashion. Dark days would follow indeed.

Putin surely realizes the dangerous situation his county is in with mounting military losses, the brain-drain of skilled workers leaving the country and a crumbling oil and minerals-based economy. Yet he wears the neutral expression of the Sphinx in public because he must. He has painted himself and his nation into a corner. He even resorted to making nice with the plump North Korean dictator which must have been a nauseating demotion for him.

A bit of history

The Magna Carta was an agreement signed in England on June 10th, 1215, at Runnymede along the River Thames. This agreement had the unique provision of the enforcement of limitations on the sovereign. Rather than a simple recitation of grievances by the barons, the Magna Carta contained ‘security clause 61’ which provided for the barons the authority to seize the castles and lands of King John and hold them until such time as he held to his responsibilities as agreed upon in the signed document.

The Magna Carta was not just a contract between wealthy barons and King John, rather it was a step change towards political reform that provided for enforcement on the King. From Wikipedia–

“First drafted by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Stephen Langton, to make peace between the unpopular king and a group of rebel barons, it promised the protection of church rights, protection for the barons from illegal imprisonment, access to swift and impartial justice, and limitations on feudal payments to the Crown, to be implemented through a council of 25 barons.”

Unfortunately, the distrust between the barons and the Crown, compounded by the annulment from Pope Innocent III, led to its swift failure. Just a few months after the agreement fell apart, the First Baron’s War erupted. However, this was not the final chapter. The document was reissued in successive versions, with the more radical language removed, in 1217, 1225, and finally in 1297, when its remaining elements were incorporated into England’s statute law. It was not unique in its attempt to limit the power of the Crown; similar efforts were seen elsewhere. Over time, the Parliament of England enacted laws that overshadowed the original document, diminishing its significance.

Back to Russia

The point of highlighting the Magna Carta, despite its failure, is that nothing of this type of significance happened in the history of Russia, at least until the Bolshevik Revolution. Perhaps this comparison is too facile, causing real historians to choke on their Starbuck’s latte. But allow me to finish. The Magna Carta was not entirely unique for its era. However, it was notable for including a provision that enforced the good faith by the King. It represented a collective bargaining effort by the 25 barons with King John to alleviate some of the monarchy’s oppression and, in doing so, progress the political atmosphere for a short time with fits and starts. As kings often do, King John protested to the Pope, who then exerted his authority in a manner only a Pope could. The Pope excommunicated the Barons and nullified the agreement, having been persuaded by King John that it undermined the Church’s authority.

Russia seems not to have a tradition of producing successful popular uprisings to the power of the Tsar. of course, the Bolshevik revolution is the shining counterexample. Not in the sense of overthrow so much, but as an enforceable agreement to relieve a measure of oppression by the monarchy at all levels. In contradiction to this sweeping generalization is the case of Tsars Alexander I and II. Alexander I introduced minor social reforms but he was a strict Russian nationalist and Slavophile. Many of the reforms he instituted early in his career were retracted later.

Tsar Alexander II , however, instituted many liberal reforms but is possibly most revered for his Emancipation of the Serfs in 1861. In the US, he is remembered as the Tsar who sold us Alaska. He was a supporter of the Union in the American Civil War and even sent ships to New York Harbor and San Francisco Bay to deter Confederate warships. Eventually he was assassinated in Saint Petersburg on March 13, 1881. The first assassin’s bomb thrown under his armored carriage left him dazed but uninjured. The second assassin’s bomb thrown shortly thereafter delivered the fatal injuries as he stepped out to investigate. The third assassin’s bomb was unused.

Zooming forward to the present, what actions can the Russian populace take regarding Tsar Putin? After centuries of political oppression aided by new thinking, modern technology, and nuclear weapons the current Tsar has built a deep and wide moat around himself and his allies within the Kremlin establishment. Beyond this moat stands a population conditioned to obedience by fear, a legacy of decades of Soviet rule. I believe that national pride will deter them from emulating Western forms of civil society and governance. And why can’t they develop an authentically Russian something-something ‘democracy’, or whatever? Russia has deep foundation of cultural, artistic and scientific achievements to take pride in, despite its history of authoritarian governance. Whatever Russia eventually does, it will be heavily Slavic and Eastern Orthodox.

Russians are just as pleasant and smart as everyone else in the world, obviously. Russian hospitality is first rate as I have personally experienced. They just have the heavy blanket of oppressive leadership over them that continues to drag through the generations. Even if Putin falls out of power, there is a line of replacements cut from the same cloth. Perhaps a leader of a reform movement could rebuild Russia? It could happen but just as likely it could revert into a system that is better at prosecuting a war of aggression and suppression of the population. The replacement of Putin could be good for the world, or it could go sour. The world has to wait it out and see. In the meantime, it is critical to keep Putin out of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states.

The Putin government is like a toxic gas- it will expand into all of the space available. After the decades-long stand down in tension since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the problem of an aggressive Russia arises again. The West must remain the sturdy counter example to the authoritarian culture of Putin’s Russia. We in the USA, especially, need to do a better job as the shining city on the hill. Lately the shine is wearing off.