Why Did Putin Refuse to Let Ukraine Perish and the Cost of Russian Aggression

Amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, many questions loom over the Kremlin's calculus. One of the paramount questions is why Putin refused to let Ukraine remain in its current state, facing potential collapse, and instead chose to escalate the conflict. This article delves into the psychological, strategic, and political factors driving Putin's actions.

Psychological Factors: Loss of Face for Putin

The phrase "loss of face" has significant implications for Putin's actions. The Russian leader’s pride and national dignity are paramount, and the idea of retreating from Ukraine would be tantamount to capitulation. Such a move could lead to substantial humiliation, which Putin cannot afford. According to interviews and expert analysis, Putin would not survive the resulting political and public humiliation. The decision to continue the conflict is ultimately driven by a desire to maintain his image and the image of Russia as a powerful and resilient nation.

Strategic Reasons: All-In Bet and Control

Western analysts argue that the conflict in Ukraine is an "all-in bet" for Putin. Given the mentality of the Russian leadership, the idea of a strategic retreat is inconceivable. This mentality can be traced back to the Soviet era, where the notion of national pride and territorial integrity is deeply ingrained. The stubborn and impulsive nature of the Russian leadership is a significant factor in continuing the conflict.

Moreover, the Russian government is willing to bear the cost of many Russian and non-Russian lives as a price to pay for control over Ukraine. The involvement of the Russian finance minister in administering a market rate for Russian lives underlines the economic and strategic cost Putin is prepared to endure. This approach suggests that Putin sees the conflict as essential for ensuring the longevity and stability of his regime.

Historical Context: The Russian Spring of 2014

The Russian spring of 2014, marked by the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Eastern Ukraine, set the precedent for further escalation. During this period, Russian separatists in cities like Kharkov, Nikolayev, Odessa, Donetsk, and others experienced varying levels of conflict and liberation. While some areas were quickly "liberated," others endured prolonged resistance, showcasing the resilience and determination of the Ukrainian people. This historical context highlights that Ukraine was never meant to be "perished" but rather to remain under Russian control.

In 2014, Putin fantasized that he could control Ukraine within just two weeks, but the reality fell far short of his expectations. The conflict became a prolonged and attritional war, leading to significant human and economic costs. Putin's failure to achieve his initial objectives has perpetuated the conflict, fueled by the desire to maintain control and preserve national honor.

Political and Strategic Considerations: Putin's Survival and Stalemate

From a political standpoint, Putin's survival and the continuation of his rule are intrinsically tied to the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine. If Russia were to admit defeat and withdraw, Putin's political viability would be severely compromised. Analysts suggest that Putin's exit from power could be similar to a "Prigozhin moment," where Putin faces a firey and tumultuous end, leading to the country's new leadership.

Given the intensity of the conflict, it is possible that Putin's best option is not to achieve victory but to at least maintain a strategic stalemate. This would allow him to avoid a total defeat and retain some level of control over the conflict. However, the practicality of this approach is questionable, as it requires a significant level of compromise and concessions from both sides, which is currently unfeasible.

In conclusion, the ongoing conflict in Ukraine is driven by a complex interplay of psychological, strategic, and political factors. Putin's unwillingness to let Ukraine perish is a testament to the entrenched beliefs and policies of the Russian government. The outcome of the conflict will likely determine the future of both nations and the broader geopolitical landscape.