PUTIN: Man of all seasons or man for all seasons?
On a very lull day, a call comes through. It is a foreign number. The country code, bit unfamiliar. I hesitate to pick, thinking it is 419 scammers. But the number calls again.
The moment I pick, the caller, excitedly shouts, “Amigo!” I immediately knew who it is. A good old friend! I too, call him ‘ Amigo.’ Amigo and I had fallen into each other in our traverse of the intelligence archipelago.
He had, at one point in his wisdom, thought I am anything worth being part of a ‘ select few’ working to counter violent extremism in East Africa, in particular, Somalia’s battle- hardened Al Shabab.
Upon my return from the escapade, I put it forthright to Amigo that their intelligence picture on Al Shabaab was dangerously off tangent, and grossly underestimating the group. Shortly thereafter, Al Shabaab struck Westgate Mall in Nairobi, Kenya. It is perhaps from that forewarning or lack thereof, that Amigo called to ask, “Amigo, do you think Putin will attack Ukraine?” I answered, “That’s certain, Amigo. Instead, focus resources on how he intends to do it.” The rest of the conversation remains classified.
It is indicative that, by the time Vladimir Putin went on television to announce “special operation” to “protect people of the Donbas” and “demilitarise and de- Nazify Ukraine,” the Russian forces were almost in the outskirts of Kiev. And most likely, the fearsome Spetsnaz, ( Russia Special Operations Forces) were already operating in major cities of Ukraine, neutralising key military installations; rendering Ukraine’s retaliatory capability obsolete.
This is likely the reason Putin in his speech, urged Ukraine forces not to dare fight. The war was a foregone conclusion. It was won even before it could start. Once again, Putin had caught western intelligence agencies flat- footed.
While the general intelligence estimate was that Putin was likely to attack Ukraine by ‘ conventional brute force’ from the Belarussian flank, Putin had other ideas. Like the legendary
Carthaginian General, Hannibal; he did the unthinkable. While western intelligence agencies were focusing on troop movement in the Belarussian flank, Putin quickly announced formal recognition of Ukraine’s secessionist areas of ‘ Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic,’ generally referred to as the Donbas, as sovereign states.
Further to that, he announced that Russia would be deploying troops in the Donbas for “peacekeeping” mission. Essentially, this meant, Russia would be ‘ walking’ almost halfway into Ukraine without any military resistance.
Therefore, saving weapons, manpower, time and increasing both operational and tactical envelope of its land forces from the reduced distance. Had the western intelligence picked it up, the least expectation would have been to activate asymmetrical mechanisms, to at least delay high velocity advance of Russian land forces. By giving the Dombas republics sovereign status, Putin signalled the end to the Minsk Agreement. In fact, since its signing in 2015, the peace- deal brokered by France and Germany, aimed at ending hostilities between Ukraine and the Donbas region has been very sickly. Ukraine stalled to implement terms of the agreement, which required it to accord the Donbas region autonomy.
Ukraine argued that implementation of the deal would lead to secession of other regions and subsequent disintegration of Ukrainian state.
BUT WHAT DOES PUTIN WANT?
Putin wants to deter, and where possible, neutralise, what he perceives as strategic existential threat to Russia. In a nutshell, Putin wants strategic security guarantees. And why is Ukraine a strategic variable in this geopolitical equation?
Location… location… location! Ukraine sits at East- West crossroads. In November 2013, President, Viktor Yanukovych’s announced delaying signing of the European Union Association Agreement. This agreement would serve as the basis for accession of Ukraine into the EU and subsequently NATO. This delay was largely blamed on Moscow. Following this, mass protests allegedly sponsored by the United States and EU, broke out in Kiev, and led to deposing of President Yanukovych. The political and security developments thereafter, saw Ukraine descend into Hobbesian gangland of corrupt oligarchs and Neo- Nazi paramilitary groups.
The strategic deduction is therefore that the geo- location of Ukraine makes it a pawn in the geopolitics of two strategic adversaries, one being the trans- Atlantic military alliance, NATO and the other being Russia.
NATO wants Ukraine in for the very same reasons Russia wants it out; proximity. NATO wants Ukraine because its proximity to Russia would append the strategic balance to its favour. Russia is opposed to the move because it poses an imminent existential threat to them. Putin described Ukraine’s ambitions to join NATO as like, “having knife on our necks.” The strategic reality is that, Ukraine provides a critical buffer zone between two nihilistic adversaries. If this critical buffer collapses by Ukraine joining NATO, it would mean a border face- off between two nuclear- armed adversaries.
Imagine a situation where NATO deploys tomahawk missiles, ballistic missiles and other offensive weapons in Ukraine, it would significantly reduce Moscow’s response time and possibly render its defensive capability obsolete.
Alternatively, let us imagine a scenario where Russia or China signs Status of Force Agreement with Mexico, it would pose a strategic threat to the United States, and it would have to respond to neutralise the threat.
Therefore, contrary to popular sentiments, Russia’s attack on Ukraine is a strategic necessity, rather than choice. It is rational behaviour, aimed at selfpreservation. How about Ukraine’s sovereignty, you may ask? Sovereignty is a function of power. The more power the state has, the more sovereignty. If sovereignty indeed matters, Saddam Hussein and Colonel Muammar alQaddafi could still be alive.