“Putin wants to turn military defeat into political victory” Somalia: At least 49 Al-Shabaab militants killed

Vladimir Putin and Sergei Lavrov recently compared the war in Ukraine to World War II. As then, Russia played the role of a bulwark against National Socialism. So is Moscow trying to give the conflict the dimension of a world war?
Bertrand Badi: This way of attributing the conflict to World War II shows us two symptoms of defeat. Those who are defeated militarily, especially when they least expected it, first react with deterrence through escalation. They threaten with increasingly extensive and decisive means. But above all, and this is the second symptom, I believe that Putin’s game right now is to turn military defeat into diplomatic victory. In a sense, he succeeds. Therefore, he is encouraged to continue.

How does this path come about?
It must be made clear to third parties belonging to the non-Western world that they are victims of Western hegemony, which wants to fight Putin’s stronghold. In anti-Western rhetoric he searches for legitimacy for his (internationally critically viewed) war. But above all, he is trying to instill fear, especially among the emerging powers, that they could soon become the West’s next target.

Suppose Putin sends hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Ukraine in the coming months. Wouldn’t the latter, more on the defensive than ever, ask for massive military support from the West, which would then be drawn even deeper into the conflict?
First of all, a careful strategic analysis must be carried out by the Russian side. Is it at all possible to change the course of the war on a grand scale by sending hundreds of thousands of men into war with questionable military training and competence? We are no longer in the era of the great invasions that we experienced in the Middle Ages.

I am not sure if Ukraine believes that a second Russian mobilization would radically change the character of the war.

Is the West ready for more involvement?
Exactly, it’s hard for me to imagine that the Western powers would simply flip their doctrine and go from non-belligerent to belligerent.

You have to keep your blood calm here: when I see that Putin doesn’t even get 100 kilometers away in Ukraine, I can’t imagine how he could endure a ‘third world war’.

What do you think of Zelenskyy’s recent statement on the WEF that he wants to retake Crimea? Is that his way of saying to Putin, “We’re not afraid”?
Undoubtedly there is something behind it. But I think there is more, something deeper in these statements. The idea of ​​negotiations, compromises and deals comes to mind. Such a deal could very well include a ceasefire, perhaps with some concessions from Donbass, but without evacuating Crimea.”

So Ukraine absolutely does not want Crimea to be used as a medium of exchange?
Yes. In my opinion, Ukraine is trying to keep the Crimea issue out of the discussion. For the Ukrainian public, a compromise on Crimea is out of the question. This means that, as things stand, there are no negotiations. And that is what Selenskyj wants to say over and over again.

If Ukraine persists in Crimea and perhaps plans a new offensive, won’t there be an escalation that the West cannot help but join in?
The mistake they are making here is to think again in terms of a third world war. That means they assume something like what happened 80 or even 110 years ago will happen. But the context is just not the same. I completely reject the idea of ​​a ‘third world war’. I prefer to speak of a ‘first globalized’ war.

Simplifying the war in Ukraine into a general war in Europe cannot take into account all the parameters of international interaction, the logic of interdependence and changes in the balance of power at the military level. Therefore, in my opinion, such a generalization cannot be taken seriously.

So what’s the point?
The most important thing now is that Western diplomats and companies stay on track. Will the West be inclined to compromise in Crimea against the will of Ukraine? Would tensions then arise between Ukraine and its allies? And if Western companies falter, would they pressure their governments to ease sanctions and cut military aid?

You could see it: Western discourse has changed in the last 48 hours. Germany does not want to deliver its Leopards and the US does not (yet) send Abrams tanks.

This is the beginning of something I can’t really name yet. Is this just a gesture or the start of a new strategy? We will have to wait for an answer to this question.

If Putin were still in power after the end of the war, would he like to appear as the “leader of the non-Western world” as you said?
Yes, I would say that if he can’t beat the West, Putin might present himself as the representative of all those who challenge “Western hegemony.” It is imperative to put this term in quotes, as the concept of “Western hegemony” is controversial. Putin is probably targeting the BRICS countries in the first place [Brasilien, Russland, Indien, China und Südafrika] to which his country belongs. He has also made notable diplomatic trips to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran and Israel.

I argue that Putin’s diplomatic counterattack is more successful than his military offensive.

What about the Wagner Group, which is active in Ukraine, among other places? Can these be interpreted as the “armed arm” of this counterattack, especially in Africa?
It’s not that simple, because the Wagner Group is a private company. It is known to be controlled by Yevgeny Prigozhin, who mainly plays for himself by showing Putin that he is more militarily successful than Putin’s military chief, Sergei Shoigu. Right now, that’s good for Putin because it may bring him some success, but it could hinder him in the long run. Prigozhin helps him today, but could be a potential rival tomorrow. (cpf)