I don’t think he expected the U.S. and Europe, particularly Germany, to be able to put aside recent differences and act in a fairly united fashion as they’ve done; but now that he’s committed to the action he’s going to see it through, no matter the cost. And at this point there’s not much left for him to lose.
His motivation was that he thought it would work. He thought he had a great army, he thought the West was weak and divided, he thought Zelenskyy would flee the country. Now his motivation is the sunk cost fallacy.
I don’t know if I would say it’s the sunk cost fallacy.
If he pulls out now having not achieved anything except destroying the Russian economy then his government is surely doomed. It seems likely that he would eventually be killed or at least imprisoned for life after such an event also.
Therefore his only option is to carry on in the hopes of getting to the point where he can claim some kind of victory, however likely or unlikely that may be.
> Therefore his only option is to carry on in the hopes of getting to the point where he can claim some kind of victory
Just to add, he already moved his demands from "Surrender all of Ukraine" to "Surrender those two territories". The one horrible thing here is that there is no demand that he can "win" without harming a lot of innocent people, so he will keep pushing it, no matter how bad things get.
He wasn't far off. It's American stratotankers with British Eurofighters and F35 circling above Poland along the border with Ukraine... the response and sanctions without these two would limp behind if we counted only on continental EU countries, then Nordics only care about their own backyard.
You can ask the same question to other failed dictators - at some point they get overconfident and make a grave mistake. Now the world would like to give him a golden bridge, but there's hardly any.
Have you seen their demands? If Ukraine agrees, they get what they want - more land, won't get pounded by more fighting, etc. Seems like a crazy calculation but tit might be what they wanted. If Ukraine agrees, it also has the side effect of making Russia appear "reasonable" if they actually stop fighting.
I think his motivation is purely personal one, don't try to find any rationality there. Think about a small child that wants to get something or an ex-boyfriend wants his girlfriend back.
The mind boggling thing is that he could have had a legacy. He steered Russia through a period of pretty consistent growth after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He could have been that guy, the guy who helped Russia's economy recover and made lots of Russian billionaires very happy. He's not a good man, and his legacy would always be colored by his treatment of his neighboring nations and his political opponents, but he'd definitely make it into the history books.
Going down as an aggressor and turning his entire country into a geopolitical pariah seems bizarre.
> Going down as an aggressor and turning his entire country into a geopolitical pariah seems bizarre.
I watched this Guardian interview last week where a historian described Putin as a relic of the 19th century: a time where might made right. And I'm tempted to agree. He doesn't see the world with nuance; and doesn't give any credence to the concept of "soft power"—he's a realpolitik hardliner stuck in the Cold War.
He misses the USSR. He misses the Cold War. He misses the restrictive cultural atmosphere of totalitarianism. And he wishes he could have fought the Nazis.
Now, at the age of 69, he gets to relive his youth.
Patriarch Kirill who leads the orthodox church in Russia and is very close to Putin recently said that the war started because people in east Ukraine, in those separatists areas can't allow LGBT parades on their streets. He really said that.
The nationalist Orthodox Church leaders are quasi-government employees. An intelligent officer is attached to their office and write their sensitive speeches for them. Kinda of open secret among the Orthodox faithful (who, at least in America) ignore these kinda of things.
Interesting. I heard from some older, conservative East EU folks that they approve of Putin because Ukraine is full of "drug addicts and immoral behavior." So maybe there is a religious conservative thread backing this conflict. This kind of thinking is not that unusual in the US either...
>> This kind of thinking is not that unusual in the US either...
Right! They just passed the "Stop the woke" bill in Florida that has anti-LGBT parts all over it. I guess it's also based on religious beliefs of whose who support right-wing lunatics in the USA.
And don't forget about the Texas governor trying to place himself between children, parents, and doctors because his base doesn't like the choices they make. This is the same crowd that screamed about the ACA allegedly creating death panels that replace doctors and patients as decision makers. Kids are going to die because they don't get the care they need or are forced into homes that affirm the governor's worldview.
There could be a number of reasons why you can’t figure out Putin’s motivation but no one knows who you are so there is no way of knowing what the actual reasons are.
Annexing Crimea went relatively easily for Putin. It makes sense, given that past success, that he expected little resistance from Ukraine or the rest of the world.
What gets me is I still can't figure out what Putin's motivation is. Is this really better than having left things alone?