back to top


    My would-be psychologist profession still gives me many interesting insights, especially in the analysis of political phenomena. It turns out that it can also provide quite a bit of knowledge when it comes to politics in its broadest dimension, namely geopolitics. Today all the major staff officers are trying to decide whether Russia will strike Ukraine and how much it can engage in the conflict. The invading forces and the potential resistance of the Ukrainians are being counted. The Kremlin’s possible losses and gains from unleashing a new war are being calculated. It all makes no sense. Moscow obviously has enough power to take all of Ukraine. Perhaps, in the guise of a Belarusian-Polish row, it has redeployed troops to take part in this war.

    The decision to start it, however, depends on something else. It would seem that in great politics the P&L account should be the deciding factor. If so, it is unclear in my opinion. Ukraine may become a second Afghanistan for Russia. Even if Russia manages to occupy it quickly and possibly without great loss, the matter will not be over in a week or a month. There will be no economic, logistical, or military advantage to be gained over the West for years from entering Kyiv. For this will arise the need to maintain a huge force and to break the economic blockade from the EU and NATO. On the other hand, occupying Ukraine gives Russia the prospect of rebuilding its empire. Not today, but in the not too distant future.


    So, is the juice worth the squeeze? It depends on who’s judging it. If the case was analyzed by a politician brought up in the conditions of Western civilization, probably war would be impossible. The losses for the Russian citizens, as a result of the war in Ukraine, will be enormous, with many casualties, a decline in living standards, isolation in many parts of the world, the risk of global war. All this would have to mean that no one who reckoned with the democratic will of the people would risk war. But Vladimir Putin has his consciousness in a very different place. It’s worth seeing who this politician is fascinated by. He’s not a communist. He has spoken ill of communism many times and I think this is sincere. Putin is a typical Russian imperialist. There are probably many historical idols:

    Ivan the Terrible, Catherine the Great and finally Joseph Stalin. They were united by the desire to build a great Russia. The desire to conquer. When Russia stopped being aggressive, it failed to deal with its inner problems. War has always been a great way to escape the awkwardness of governance. Putin appears today as the most dangerous predator. At the same time, during his time Russia lost Ukraine and is rapidly losing influence in the Asian republics. The Caucasus region is also under threat. It may well be that Putin will go away as the politician who, against all public relations, led to the demise of the empire. And this is his black dream. The only thing that can turn the tables is the occupation of Ukraine. This is a critical moment for the Great Russian thinking. Can one man’s decisions have such an impact on an entire country? One must remember that Putin is a product of a certain system. A system which, although it has its origins in criminal communism, abandoned its ideologies long ago, combining Soviet and Great-Russian imperialism. It was the people of that system who found and settled someone in the Kremlin who is the essence of that mix. So, they cannot forgive Ukraine, just as they will not eventually forgive all of Central Europe. The only thing that can stop them is the determination of the West to block aggression while it is still possible.


    More in section