The only thing that we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history

So said Hegel.

Today seems to provide confirmation of his truth as Putin’s regime make their first moves to annex the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, a second step in the destabilisation of the Ukrainian Government played out in much the same way as the first , his annexation of Crimea.

His justification? Try this slightly redrawn quote from a politician arguing his case for annexation;

“Ukraine must return to Russia, and not because of economic considerations of any sort. No, no: even if from the economic point of view this union were unimportant, indeed, if it were harmful, it ought nevertheless to be brought about. Common blood belongs in a common State.”

Sort of lays out the narrative of Putin's actions - yes?

So how did we get here? In advance of and in tandem to its actions in and over Ukraine Putin's Russia has, with very little coverage or consequence, exercised its physical and political presence in a number of other former USSR satellite and client States; Georgia, Kazakhstan, Armenia all bear witness on the road followed by Putin's Russia. In December 2021 and January of this year Putin re-established Russia’s predominance over Belarus and in doing so empowered the squashing by the incumbent regime of rapidly building popular dissent.

In each case Putin tested and measured the Western response and found it incoherent and muted. He is no fool. An autocrat: yes. A personality with a vision forged in the Soviet epoch: Yes. A leader seeking to rebuild Russia’s world position: Yes. A danger: Yes.

A fool - No.

He understands that Russia was, is and, will be in the future, a near region power the fact being that in a conventional conflict its forces, whilst capable of huge local distruction , would ,outside its own borders face certain defeat in anything other than a close logistical radius of Russia. That said it's huge nuclear force differentiates it's position - ensuring Russia a seat at the worlds "top table" .

Russia has in history never been expeditionary in the style of other Imperial states. It has throughout its history suffered huge loss and deprivations at the hands of others. In its living memory look at World War Two when some twenty seven million inhabitants of the then Soviet Republics lost their lives, almost all being lost on their own soil. Russia instinctively sees danger at its borders and legitimate purpose in buffering those borders as a line of defence.

Whilst one may see no direct collation between Putin’s actions and this historical history of inward invasion and loss it does provide him with a narrative that is imprinted on, and resonates with, his population. With total state control of broadcast media and a dead hand on social media the narrative that his aims and ambitions are focused on the protection of the Russian State and People can be sustained by his regime with little alternative narrative reaching the populus.

The threat so projected by Russia to the outside world , be it perceived or real, that flows from this narrative of “defensive aggression” is at one level simply a fact of geography. Russia is the largest country in the world, covering over 17,125,191 square kilometres, and encompassing one-eighth of Earth's inhabitable landmass, (nearly twice the size of each of the next 3 nations by landmass size; Canada, USA & China). It is a transcontinental country spanning from Central Europe to Northern Asia which means its “near border concerns” touch most of the Eurasian land mass. A fact that gives Putin almost unlimited scope for his objective of rebuilding the Russian sphere of influence.

Putin is not a communist. His political party, United Russia publicly holds to promote centrist and conservative ideas, the strengthening of Russia’s sovereignty, modernisation and enhancement of defence capabilities; together with the usual apple pie claims of most political organisations in most counties: advancing the patriotic education of young people, enhancing investment, introducing innovative technologies, developing democracy and civil society institutions.

Behind this façade it is clear that the centralisation of power and wealth in the personal hands of the leadership clique who have no interest in the principles of democratic governance is undoubtably a key aim and physical fact.

Against this situation there has been a long term failure of American leadership and reduction in American focus on European issues. Basically from the presidency of Obama to current date resolve and focus in American foreign policy on Europe and the Middle East has been largely absent. Every redline drawn has been crossed with minimal consequence. Both alongside the US and independently the EU has proven equally impotent and unfocused as the conflicting political and commercial interests of its member states frustrate the development of a united policy on relations with Putin's regime.

Basically, Putin has for the last several years progressively tested the resolve of the western nations and on each occasion found it lacking. The result is his empowerment to move against Ukraine and re-establish position in Belarus. Basically, the European bluff is now called and how Europe reacts, with or without the USA, will determine the future, for better or worse.

Next?

With Belarus back in the fold and Ukraine destabilised with acceptable consequences maybe a move to physically reconnect Kaliningrad? A thought that will no doubt cause much loss of sleep in Poland and Lithuania between who it is land locked. If this was attempted by the false flag methods witnessed in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk would a Clause 5 NATO intervention be triggered?

On the side-lines stands China

Unlike Putin’s Russia China remains a true super power and has in parallel built its own position using the soft power of its low cost manufacturing to seduce the transfer of production from western countries with the double win of acquiring huge hard currency reserves that it has redeployed into its Silk Road developments and economic moves into African and South American States.

Much is made of the ability of the West to inflict economic damage, and so control, on the ambitions of Russia and China but both states are rapidly moving beyond such assumed controls.

Russia controls huge natural resource. From rare elements, diamond, gold, silver to the staples of industry - iron, oil, gas, coal which whilst vilified by the developed west as it focuses on “green energy” remain critical to their power generation and industrial success

China completes the dominance of raw material and low cost production and adds huge overseas soft power investments in the developing world that are far beyond the means of Russia.

On a world scale only North America, the combination of the industrial and military might of the USA and natural resource reservoir within Canada, can compete against this control of resourse and manufacture.

In short, the Western European States are in much the same position of dither, discord and lack of focus and ideas as the then European powers were in the 1930’s.

Overall faced with a resurgent Russia and expansionist China will the West prove as weak and dislocated as it was in the 1930’s when facing the growth and ambitions of the Axis Powers of Hitler’s Germany and Japan.

If so will China see a weak response to the Ukrainian incursion a green light to reabsorb Taiwan or will the Dragon bide it’s time, standing to one side whilst voicing support and fellowship with Russia, as announced in the joint statement of Putin and Xi in Beijing, allowing the Bear to expend its energies before turning to eat it and prove the true world challenge?

Are we looking at the first steps towards Orwell’s 3 States?

By the way: The quote at the beginning of this piece, is - with a substitution of countries - from a book written in 1925, by a then future leader of a European political party and ultimately State Leader, a book by the tile of Mein Kampf.

What exactly has history taught our current leaders?