President of Finland, Alexander Stubb, suggested recently that peace between Ukraine and Russia could be achieved in less than six months. This is because Russia’s economy is currently in a rather dire situation.
The situation in Russia is not helped by the fact that Donald Trump, the newly elected President of the United States, aims to lower global oil prices. This would further diminish the revenue available to Putin’s dictatorship. Most importantly, it would lower the standard of living for people living in Russia, potentially increasing their opposition to the war and even leading to rapid radicalization.
One can look to Russia’s own history for parallels in this matter—specifically the February and October Revolutions.
In the former case, the public’s dissatisfaction with Russia’s losses in war (during World War I) led to power being transferred from the Tsar to the Mensheviks. However, the Mensheviks continued the war, which prolonged the burdens it inflicted on the population. Additionally, the government’s actions caused rapid inflation, making it unprofitable for peasants to sell grain to the cities.
As a result, food supply in urban areas worsened continuously, while living costs rose rapidly, and unemployment began to increase. Ultimately, the Bolsheviks launched another revolution, taking control by promising work and bread—and an end to the war that was devastating the population.
* * *
All of this is undoubtedly known to both Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. This is why the former has good reasons to carefully listen to what the newly elected U.S. president offers him.
It is also worth noting that if a significant portion of the Russian population turns against the war, the situation will become untenable for Putin, much like what happened to the Germans at the end of World War I. At that time, a revolution began in the navy and quickly spread among the people.
In Germany, too, the rebellion was fueled by war fatigue and economic difficulties. The difference compared to Russia was in the outcome—Germany avoided the yoke of socialism, and the deposed Kaiser survived, unlike in Russia.
The question remains whether President Stubb is correct—can Donald Trump push Putin into a corner from which there is no way out other than agreeing to peace? It will also be interesting to see what terms are set for peace.
In this regard, the Russian revolutions of 1917 and the German revolution of 1918 provide fascinating points of comparison. Following the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia’s territory was significantly reduced as several states—including Finland—gained independence. Similarly, Germany lost territory as a result of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I.
* * *
It remains to be seen, however, whether Trump is willing to push Putin’s Russia into a position as desperate as that of the Tsarist Empire in 1917, forcing it to withdraw entirely from Ukraine. Or will he ultimately offer Putin an opportunity to retain at least part of the territory he seized in and after 2014?
If it is true, as Trump has claimed, that Ukraine is ready to “make a deal,” the terms are unlikely to be favorable for Putin. And they will certainly not improve if Russian public support for the war vanishes.
And what about Putin’s own position? If and when he is forced to negotiate a peace that is a loss for Russia, will he suffer the same fate as the Russian Tsar or the German Kaiser in the revolutions of just over a century ago? Or will he somehow manage to retain his grip on power?
If there would be a "peace" no matter with what terms, Russia would immediatelly begin preparing for the next attack. Russia is not a normal state.
ReplyDeleteThis is, of course, possible, and a peace favorable to Russia would certainly not diminish Putin's enthusiasm for embarking on a new military campaign. That is why the content of the peace agreement is of utmost importance.
ReplyDelete