Royal lesson lost on Putin

LAST week, behind the pomp and ceremony that captivated four billion people around the world, we witnessed the traditions and systems that have provided a stable and largely democratic and prosperous society for the United Kingdom and beyond.

A society that its citizens have elected to maintain, despite varying challenges, for almost a thousand years.

I’ve often contemplated hereditary monarchies and their survival in the face of revolutions, civil wars, unrest and other threats.

In the past week one reason for their appeal has emerged and been confirmed time and time again by much informed, and not so informed, commentary – to use her Majesty’s words, it is a life of service and the legitimacy of succession.

A peaceful and orderly transfer of power reflects categorically and emphatically the desire of human beings for stability.

It fosters an orderly society and it provides the best opportunity for all citizens to be safe, healthy and prosperous. War and conflict works against that in every possible way.

This is part of the explanation for the importance of the past week.

There was a dimension of glamour, theatre and pageantry undoubtedly but underpinning that was something far more substantial.

A force that brought an entire country to its collective knees and weeping for a woman most had never met.

Why billions of people around the world not just watched but devoured the Queen’s funeral.

All societies need stability. While some dictatorships may have provided periods of it, it always has come with an expiry date.

History reveals monarchies have been one of the most common and most democratic ways of achieving a functioning and stable society. In fact, the majority of the top 10 most successful democracies in the world are monarchies.

Now while stability is always the end goal, there’s no denying we’re in one of the most globally uncertain periods the world has seen since the end of World War 2.

In the worldwide search for certainty and stability, the war in Europe is an abject lesson in what good government and strong leadership can provide its people.

Institutions which are a reflection of their people and their people’s wishes deliver a much safer version of stability than that which Russian President Vladimir Putin is delivering his people, his region and our world at the moment.

In a national televised address this week, he accused the West of trying to “destroy” Russia, threatened the use of nuclear weapons and announced the mobilisation of reservists, essentially conscription.

It was intended to be a show of power and strength, instead it came across as weak and desperate.

I recently interviewed General Frank McKenzie, who led the US withdrawal out of Afghanistan, and asked him about the state of the American military.

He told me about the soldiers who fought for their country. How he, as a general, would never have to check whether his troops were carrying out orders.

They all were because they were fighting for their freedom, their democracy, their country and their families.

Many Russian generals have died since the Ukraine invasion – their heavy casualties reflect a disproportionate number of senior officers.

The American general says it’s because they’re having to go to the front-line and enforce orders. The troops they command are looting, running away or hiding.

The Russian soldiers aren’t invested in this war. They don’t believe in it.

They know, deep down, they aren’t fighting for their freedoms, democracies, country or family.

They are fighting for a president, a weak and now desperate individual with purely personal grievances. Putin doesn’t care how many of his own people lose their lives or the extent of collateral damage.

We are hearing more and more murmurs of dissent within Russia. The people are slowly but surely waking up to this hoax.

Propaganda and censorship was never sustainable in this day and age of the internet, social media and encrypted messaging apps.

The greatest threat to Putin’s war is the realisation among his own people that this was never legitimate, never about their own preservation and certainly not in defence of any provocation by Ukraine. A leader without the support of the people is powerless.

Anyone who expected any less of a reaction in the United Kingdom to the Queen’s death grossly underestimated the value of the British Monarchy to its people.

Other leaders can draw a crowd but it’s a rare few who could bring them to genuine tears. The sorrow on the faces of those hundreds of thousands who lined up to farewell their Queen was authentic. There was an integrity in their grief.

A quality that I suspect will be missing from the emotional response when the current era of Russian leadership comes to an end.