Skip to main content

Putin, Ukraine, and Weapons that Don’t Go Bang

War is no longer just about bullets and bombs. There are new, more subtle, less bloody ways to wage it.

Vladimir Putin has a full arsenal of sophisticated weapons, not all of which go bang. He also has a lot of great reasons to not use them. Which doesn’t mean he won’t.

His Ukraine gambit is fraught with risk, and nobody knows where he’s going with it. He might not know himself. But in terms of the evolution of warfare, both his strengths and his vulnerabilities are remarkable.

With that in mind, let’s divide twenty-first-century weaponry into four categories — military, propaganda, cyber, and economic — and discuss amongst ourselves.

Military

Putin knows it’s harder to get out of hot wars than into them — Russia had its own Afghanistan quagmire to learn from. And hot wars are rarely popular. Recent polls show three out of four Russian citizens already detest him. Does he think soldiers coming home in body bags will improve that?

The old shock-and-awe-type war has been shown, over and over, to be needlessly destructive and prohibitively expensive. It sucks in resources and sets back economies. It pisses off the home front and spews unintended consequences all over.

Yes, Putin has been building a gleaming new high-tech military, and he might just want to take it out for a spin. This would be hugely reckless, even if it’s just a quick smash-and-grab of a few token towns in the Donbass. A swift military victory might be good for a short-term ratings boost, but the risk of economic and financial retaliation, as we’ll see, hardly seems worth it.

He also needs to consider that Ukrainians seem unwilling to go quietly. While they would surely lose any land Putin chooses to seize, there will be plenty of bang on both sides, with plenty of casualties to show for it. And every detail will be recorded on smartphones and shared on YouTube.

The military option seems like a loser in a hundred ways, though Putin may feel otherwise.

Propaganda

As Americans have learned the hard way, starting with our own election in 2016, Putin’s people are really good at using the internet and social media to launch targeted propaganda. And they get better at it all the time.

Putin has built a propaganda infrastructure, and there are untold numbers of smart young people making a good living, learning an assortment of insidious trades. Think of them as soldiers in a new kind of army.

Young Russians today get a first-rate education, especially in math and computer science, but they’re hurting for opportunity. This leaves a lot of smart but idle minds open to careers in Putin’s state-of-the-art propaganda shops. There’s a rich base of institutional knowledge to draw on and learn from, going back to the old KGB — a proud tradition of disinformation, mass disruption, false flags, psy-ops, and all those other Cold War-era dirty tricks that now scale so beautifully to the internet.

This new kind of army doesn’t kill, it manipulates. Which might be more effective in the long run, and is certainly far cheaper. But does Putin really appreciate that?

Cyber

Of course, propaganda isn’t the only field where a talented young Russian can get a good government job. There’s also cyber, and it’s the cyber aspects of this conflict — and all conflicts from now on — that are truly frightening.

In a hot war, Putin would need to carefully weigh the amount of blood he’s prepared to shed, against what his citizenry is prepared to tolerate. But how much more tempting is it to go bloodless, to wage your war in cyberspace? Why blow stuff up in Ukraine when you can mess around with infrastructure in the West?

Think of the havoc he can wreak, not just in Ukraine, but anywhere in Europe or North America. Those soft, pampered Americans will not take well to days or months without heat, electricity, internet, or all three. War takes on a whole new meaning when the tactical goal is to cut off the enemy from cable TV during the Super Bowl.

Does Putin have any idea what a week with no internet would reduce us to? Let’s hope not.

Economic

Given the geopolitical realities of the Ukraine conflict, Putin is undeniably stronger in the first three kinds of weaponry, especially with the West rightly reluctant to meet force with force. But it’s in the fourth area, economics and finance, where he’s seriously weak. And he knows it.

The West might have more to lose in a cyber war, but everyday Russians will feel real economic pain from the kinds of sanctions now on the table. Putin is up against overwhelming financial firepower that he can neither match nor afford to ignore. The biggest Russian banks could end up excluded from the international banking system, which could tank their entire economy.

Putin’s own personal wealth in the West could also be targeted, though he might not care. He lives the life of a tsar as it is, and he knows he can never leave Russia. So while he likes having access to those billions in western banks, he won’t go hungry without them.

His oligarchs are another matter. He needs to keep them happy, and they won’t like these sanctions one bit. These guys spend much of their lives in Europe, buying soccer teams, superyachts, and high-maintenance wives. They depend on western banks to launder their money, and to invest it once it’s clean. Some of them could end up stuck in Russia forever, avoiding western warrants. We can only imagine what those wives think of that idea.

Remember, sanctions were the big reason Putin supported Trump in 2016. That whole Manafort-Deripaska plot was about getting the 2014 sanctions lifted, so the oligarchs could again have full access to the world banking system. Sanctions have been a major headache for the oligarchs ever since, and now Putin is on track to make them worse.

Not that Putin would be shooting blanks in the economic war. He has threatened to shut off natural gas supplies to Europe, which he can — and just might — do. But since the revenue from that gas props up his entire kleptocracy, he’s probably just teasing about that.

He teases a lot, which is perhaps the point. Putin may yet roll tanks all the way to Kyiv, but to what end? His goals are fuzzy, and he seems surprised that the fractious West might actually get it together to put up a credible fight.

There are dozens of moving parts here, and a lot can go wrong. Sanctions can backfire. Minor incidents can spin out of control. Any miscalculation could escalate into a global showdown that leaves Russians broke and Americans freezing.

Yes, Putin is the world’s most dangerous man, but he seems to be playing a weak hand. For all his power — for all his prodigious weaponry in this new type of war — his brinkmanship looks, more and more, like an elaborate bluff.

I may have to eat my words, but I’m watching for signs of him trying to save face.

 

 

Comments

  1. Labeling Putin "the world's most dangerous man" is quite a claim. Measured by what metric of "dangerous?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I used a certified dangerometer which detects active atrocities within a specified radius of the atrociter in question, then compares with other atrociters in real time. $19.95 on Amazon.

      Delete
  2. Putin IS scary, but, I don't know, Kim Jong Un is a pretty loose cannon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. George Bush and Barak Obama — if we can "blame" them for all the deaths in the middle east and Afghanstan by US forces under their watch — are responsible for many more murders of innocent people than Putin. Probably Trump as the figure-head leader of US Armed Forces can be included in the list.

    Thanks Bush and Obama, for making the world a less safe place with many more orphans!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The GOP's Weaknesses are More Apparent than its Strengths

  Anyone who’s paying attention now understands that this election is a whole lot scarier than it ever should have been. It’s a shame — and an indictment of our constitutional system — that it comes down to an election at all. Surely, the Trump problem should have been settled by now, with no further elections required to get him out of our lives. His crimes were such that the real crime was letting him remain at large. All those checks and balances we were taught to revere should have somehow found a way to rid us of this monster. But the Supreme Court seems to have Trump’s back, though it’s not clear what that gains them. If anything, it makes one wonder what Trump is holding over them, and what might happen to their families if they don’t keep him out of prison. So it will come down to the election, and the lines couldn’t be drawn more indelibly. I prefer to think this can work out well — that these scorched-earth hacks can be overwhelmed at the ballot box

The New York Times has Gone Over to the Dark Side

  A week or so ago, Trump took a break from the courtroom and held a rally in a picturesque corner of New Jersey, a state he has no hope of winning. His speech at this rally was even more unhinged than usual, featuring his now-famous tributes to Al Capone and Hannibal Lecter — the latter being as fictional as Trump’s medical records, but seemingly real in his mind. These speeches are growing worse over time, and they seem to betray a worsening cognitive condition. Unfortunately, the New York Times doesn’t see it that way. Their reporting of the event was basically a puff piece . To them, this rally was Trump’s well-deserved break from the rigors and indignities of his criminal trial. They marvel that, “after a long and tense week,” he could now head to the Jersey Shore for some much-needed rest and adulation: Against the backdrop of classic Americana, Mr. Trump repeated his typical criticism that Mr. Biden’s economic policies were hurting the middle class.

Trump and Pecker Sittin’ in a Tree

  Before there was Fox News, before there was Rush Limbaugh, before there was the sprawling rightwing ecosystem of fake news and vicious smears we so enjoy today, there was the National Enquirer . For most of our lives, the Enquirer stared up at us from the checkout aisle of our local supermarket. Somehow, we never made the connection that its readers would one day fit the stereotype of the Trump voter — under-educated, gullible, malleable, easy targets for disinformation. The Enquirer nurtured those targets over many decades, got them to believe virtually anything, and helped lay the groundwork for the sort of know-nothing insurgency that brought Trump into all our lives. Decades ahead of its time, the Enquirer was peddling fake news long before it was fashionable. It appealed unapologetically to humanity’s baser instincts, the ones most of us try to rise above. It was always flamboyantly sleazy, and always there in plain sight, something we could dependably