Francis Fukuyama writes about the weaknesses of supposedly strong totalitarian regimes in an essay for The Atlantic. The author of the book "The End of History and the Last Man" is convinced that this time it really is the end of history, and liberal democracy is still the optimal form of government. China and Russia claim that their muscular authoritarian governments are capable of delivering results, as opposed to democracies that can only argue. But Fukuyama believes that the events of the last year have exposed two types of the main shortcomings of authoritarianism: bad decisions due to the concentration of power in the hands of one leader and the shakiness of public support for the leader due to the lack of public debate. These defects are clearly manifested in Russia, because Putin makes management decisions alone. Due to his own isolation, he didnʼt know what resistance in Ukraine would meet his invasion and how weak his army really was. Popular support for his regime is very superficial, writes Fukuyama, as evidenced by the 700,000 Russians who fled the mobilization to other countries. This undermines the main basis of his regimeʼs legitimacy ― the promise of stability in exchange for political passivism. Bad decisions and low popular support have left Russia humiliated both on the international stage and on the battlefield. Fukuyama believes that Ukraine has every chance to return Crimea and inflict a complete defeat on the Russian Federation. The big question is whether Putin himself will survive it. The author also writes about the signs of the decline of the autocracies of China and Iran and about problems in the liberal democracies of the EU and the USA. Fukuyama calls taking freedom for granted the main challenge today. In fact, it is necessary to fight for democracy, which is proven by Ukraine, which understands the true value of both freedom and peopleʼs rule. Ukrainians are now fighting a battle that everyone should join, Fukuyama concludes.
Putinʼs latest desperate moves will not bring the desired results, RAND researcher Dara Massicot writes in an essay for The New York Times. She singles out four main factors that prevent Russia from changing the situation on the battlefield. This is a weak army, losses among ground, air and special forces, resilience and motivation of Ukrainians, and, finally, active support of Ukraine by Western allies. The mobilization of people without military experience and the use of rusty equipment from warehouses only testify to the impasse faced by Putin. The mobilized, of course, can support the army of the Russian Federation as auxiliary units, but they are unlikely to be able to strengthen the combat power of the troops, which are already undisciplined and exhausted. The coming cold period, difficult conditions and news of the success of the Ukrainian Armed Forces may mean that Russian troops may disperse, leaving equipment behind. In the near future, it is likely that Putin will try to fix the front line and negotiate a ceasefire. If that scenario doesnʼt work, Russia could step up mass missile strikes on Ukraineʼs critical civilian infrastructure and try to disrupt aid supplies from the West. This may, for example, include attacks on NATO satellites, the author writes. It may even come to the point of the conflict going beyond the borders of Ukraine, because for the Kremlin, this war is already a war between Russia and the West. However, everything is going badly for Putin and his opportunities are getting smaller and smaller, the researcher summarizes.
Insider writes about how Russia is trying to divert attention from its military failures. In particular, about the theory about the secret features of HIMARS, which is spreading on the Russian segment of the internet. According to this theory, the missiles of this American artillery system can change their trajectory and deceive Russian radars. Russian bloggers support this theory with videos in which the missile allegedly changes direction after launch. Representatives of the US Army say that the missile is flying on a ballistic trajectory, and experts believe that the Russian Federation cannot localize the system due to the incompetence and weak technical support of its military, according to the article. It is likely that with such "theories" Moscow is trying to somehow explain its failures, and itʼs much easier to blame the Western "secret weapon" than to admit oneʼs own mistakes.
- Every day without a day off, we look for the most interesting materials about the war and talk about them. Your support inspires us to keep doing this. Help Babel: 🔸 in hryvnia 🔸 in cryptocurrency 🔸 Patreon 🔸 PayPal: [email protected]