A Rat, Cornered

Russia’s war machine might be breaking down.

By
129
Russian President Vladimir Putin gives a speech during the Victory Day military parade at Red Square in central Moscow on May 9, 2023. (Photo by GAVRIIL GRIGOROV/SPUTNIK/AFP via Getty Images)

Vladimir Putin once told a story about his childhood. There were many rats in his apartment building in St. Petersburg, so he passed the time as any budding psychopath might, tormenting them by chasing them around with a stick.

Once, he remembered, he chased an especially large rat down a hallway until it had nowhere to run. It was cornered. So it made the only move it had left, turning around and lunging at Putin. 

We might now be reaching the “cornered rat” phase of the war in Ukraine.

What this particular rat will do once it recognizes that it’s cornered is anyone’s guess. But we should start thinking about it now that there’s every reason to believe the best days of the war for Russia are behind it.

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Try Free ALREADY A PAID SUBSCRIBER? SIGN IN
129
By
Comments (129)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Mccumberrick

    I believe until the Russian population is affected directly this will go on indefinitely.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    I’m increasingly optimistic again. Slava Ukraini.

    Collapse
  3. Dougrhon

    It's always possible but we have to take that chance when the alternative is to allow Russia to conquer its neighbor.

    Collapse
  4. Ken Motamed

    Avoiding a nuclear catastrophe has to be the primary concern. The stalemate strategy is the one least likely to result in Russia's resorting to the unthinkable. But there has to be an endgame here. Maybe making the annexation of Crimea official would be the least bad outcome for Ukraine in exchange for Russia's acquiescence to Ukraine's joining NATO.

    Collapse
    1. Jfan

      If "avoiding a nuclear catastrophe has to be the primary concern" then nuclear-armed regimes can invade anywhere they want without consequence. Putin could invade Estonia, Poland, or Slovakia, even with a ridiculously weak army, and warn that any resistance by NATO forces would produce a nuclear response. The PRC would do the same to the ROC, and a nuclear Iran could do the same to Iraq and Syria. I am terrified of nuclear war; I am more terrified of a world enslaved by nuclear extortion.

      Collapse
    2. Hikingguy

      I'm not a Ukrainian, but I certain there is no way in hell they would agree to let Russia keep Crimea. Nor should they.

      Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Andy Napoli

    I am a big believer in the idea that you should always listen very closely to what your enemies are saying. It doesn't matter if they're delusional, or lying, or both. You can still learn a lot from them. For example: we're learning a lot about what Russians fear. And if you listen carefully, you keep hearing and seeing this theme emerging that Russia as a nation-state, might not survive a loss in this war. Not this leader (Putin) might not survive -- the country or nation might not survive.

    Westerners with little knowledge of Russian history might assume that such rhetoric is referring to the possibility of nuclear war. And some of their apocalyptic rhetoric does cover that possibility. But by and large, when Russians talk about losing their nation-state if they lose the war with Ukraine, they're not referring to nuclear war. They're referring to an unraveling of the Russian Federation in a process not unlike what has been witnessed in Yugoslavia and in the collapse of the USSR. The Russian Federation is composed of a lot of autonomous republics (many organized along ethnic lines), oblasts, and krais. The sheer vastness of Russia means that there's a lot of diversity of interests. A strong central ruler operating out of the Kremlin in Moscow has always been viewed in Russian history as necessary to keep those diverse interests from marching in different directions. If power is allowed to devolve from the center, and become dispersed among the governors of the republics and oblasts, there has been a long-standing fear within many Russian elites and the historians, that the Russian Federation could fracture into several competing factions. Some might even secede outright from the Russian Federation.

    This is not a purely academic concern. In the early 1990s, US policy makers (especially Brent Scowcroft) were worried about this process occurring inside of Russia. The phrase that captured these concerns was: "Loose Nukes." This is the reason why the US kept backing Boris Yeltsin even though he was a drunk and often incompetent. We feared that if he lost power, a vacuum might open up that got filled either by ultra-nationalists, or worse still, power would shift to the regions and the entire Russian Federation might break apart like Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union. This is also why we didn't object to Vladimir Putin succeeding Yeltsin. There were many in the US and among our NATO allies who felt (and some still do) that if the choices are between (1) accepting an anti-democratic autocrat who keeps the Russian Federation intact, vs (2) allowing the Federation to unravel and their nuclear arsenal end up in multiple hands, they'd rather choose the former than the latter.

    I myself fell in the camp of the former back then. But over time, and especially since the invasion of Ukraine, I am now of the view that Russia's dysfunction is so profound that we should be openly seeking a total Russian defeat, even if it means Russia begins to unravel in its aftermath. I'd rather see the Kremlin permanently weakened and the republics/oblasts permanently strengthened. If that means Chechnya and Tatarstan successfully secede, and Sakha (Siberia) moves into the Chinese orbit -- so be it. I'd rather us work with post-Putin Russian leaders to maintain controls over their nuclear arsenal, and let the chips fall where they may.

    Because what this war has proven, in my view, is that Russia is probably going to collapse or change from its current polity no matter what. Putin's brand of nationalism and aggression in "the Near Abroad" should always have been seen as an attempt to prevent the very unraveling process that we're seeing being accelerated by the war in Ukraine.

    Collapse
    1. Jfan

      It dawned on me some time ago that Putin has no conception of freedom or peaceful coexistence; that is why he equates NATO expansion with American imperialism. He appears to believe that all powerful countries automatically control their less-powerful neighbors. He appears to believe that the United States rules Canada, and the major NATO powers rule the Central European NATO countries. Ukraine and Britain forming a voluntary relationship is outside his comprehension; any relationship between them must be one of British dominance. I attributed this to Chekist psychopathy, but after this post I wonder if this is the logical consequence of seeing Russia -- perhaps correctly -- as an empire which can only be held together by autocratic control by the Great Russians.

      Collapse
  6. Belisarius.Aves

    Still the best way to stop a bully, punch it in the mouth. Give Ukraine the fist (or to end the analogy, jets).

    Collapse
  7. Deanjens

    One of the things that temperamentally suits me about your columns is your ability to make even seemingly optimistic theses pessimistic.

    Collapse
  8. Dougrhon

    All the concerns about cornering Russia and how Putin will react are valid to at least think about. And to worry about. But there is no way that giving Ukraine just enough to prevent defeat while allowing the war to continue can be justified. At this point I agree with the sentiment that the West needs to give Ukraine the means to remove Russia entirely from it's territory and we have to hope for the best in terms of Putin not being crazy enough to use nukes. The Ukrainians want to fight until they win and seem willing to risk further escalation whatever that looks like. We should give the means to do so as quickly as possible.

    Collapse
    1. Ken Motamed

      Further escalation can go far beyond Ukraine's borders.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kizedek

        It already has. By waging an illegal war on Ukraine, committing war crimes, and reducing Ukraine to rubble, Russia has cost the rest of the world plenty. And many in the Middle East and Africa will starve until wheat production is restored.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Markdavis918

    wacking the rat is fine, but who follows.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Vlad.Nicolaescu

      Doesn't really matter. Whoever takes over from Putin will have a much weaker position internally and at least for a few years will have to focus on that. There is also the possibility that they might be better. Fearing the removal of Putin is I think a misguided way to look at the situation. Putin has already invade his Neighbors thrice. And has ordered so many war crimes negotiations with him seem laughable. At least a new Russian leader even if they are no better than Putin are in a better spot to deal with.

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Paul Montagu

    I would say that Putin is becoming cornered politically or strategically, but not physically. After all, what fits into Russia.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXqKkYYALMU
    I think we should provide Ukraine what it wants, including F-16s, and ignore Putin's nuclear threats which, IMO, serve to dissuade countries from supplying weapons and such. Putin gains no tactical or strategic advantage from dropping nukes, and it'll only make him more of a pariah if he does so.
    The best thing that can happen is for Ukraine to destroy Kerch bridge and reclaim Crimea and shut down their Sevastopol naval base. It would be a devastating and deserving loss for Putin. Smack the bully.

    Collapse
Load More