Russia's repeated return to diplomacy reflects not optimism or trust, but a centuries-old strategy of preserving, recovering and expanding state power under conditions of enduring geopolitical rivalry
I've never faulted Russia for negotiating, but I do fault Putin for spending so many hours with a couple of grifters under the pretense of negotiations. That sent a strong negative message about Putin's confidence and Russian strength, a message he has consistently reinforced, disastrously.
I think you pointed out that diplomacy could be conducted at the same time kinetic actions were happening, and in that connection you say that Russian diplomacy has often served to buy Russia time to recuperate. I think that might be contradictory, but in any event one should also consider whether Russia is the one losing by the passage of time, which I believe is distinctly the case as regards Ukraine. A country that has so often bought time should have recognized when that was happening to it, and it shouldn't have allowed it. It's all well and good to keep the phone lines open, but when there's a battle to be won it's stupid to dither away the opportunity.
"It's all well and good to keep the phone lines open, but when there's a battle to be won it's stupid to dither away the opportunity."
Well said. And the same could be said about the US/Israel vs Iran/Russia/China situation. Russia and China are missing an excellent opportunity to field test their weapons systems by supplying them to Iran.
There has been kinetic action going on for 4+ years, yet you write "diplomacy could be conducted at the same time kinetic actions were happening".
How did you manage to miss these facts on the ground?
Since war is supposedly continuation of policy with other means, it could be argued that it goes without saying that diplomacy and war happen simultaneously.
And yet trains still run in Ukraine, politicians still visit for photo ops, and the war drags on. I obviously wasn't speaking literally but was criticizing Putin's failure to bring the war to victory.
When I read the comments after this fine and insightful vangaurd missive of a four part series i anticipate with relish, I find myself confused by the stubborn and ongoing lack of comprehension i detect therein as to the entire point of what the writer is actually expounding and verifying through objective historical fact.
At further risk of leaving their understanding adrift in the shoals of their own frustration and confusion as to why the Russians play this longest of games, I'll employ Katilya's own words and ask that they are read more carefully:
"The answer, I suggest, lies in a misunderstanding of Russian strategic thought itself. The question assumes that Moscow approaches diplomacy primarily as a search for trust or reconciliation. Yet viewed across more than a thousand years of Russian history, diplomacy has rarely served that purpose. Rather, it has functioned as one of the principal instruments through which Russian rulers have preserved the state during periods of weakness, restored national power after strategic setbacks and shaped the geopolitical environment in which military force might eventually be employed."
Is Russia's own long-suffering and excruciatingly patient history of diplomacy and negotiation which had unequivically furnished a noble and epic 1000+ years history in the face of such extraordinary and often pernicious geopolitical, social, political and demographic challenges not in itself empirical proof of its efficacy?
Who cares if Putin chooses to meet Witkoff and take measure of him, in the fullness of time? What real matter is it that sidebar issues such as Syria and Kosovo sway to and fro on the Grand Chessboard, if Russia's core interests are preserved and even strengthened in the real politic?
And yes, you can bloviate at length about garden variety, day to day 'failures' that Russia may encounter in its fascinating struggle to fashion and maintain its own, sovereign civilization but they are small things in the context of a dazzling 1000 year odyssey and Russia will endure.
Outside of Russia's 1000+ years of proven success managing these existential issues as an indicator of how it will go, we shall just have to wait and see, won't we?
"Right now the West is playing chess against us with only one player: they raise escalation a bit, we respond. They adjust it, and we follow. We are only reacting. That is chess for one.
We need to play chess for two. Even Iran shows how. If we can’t reach decision-making centers, then let’s strike some proxy target. And not necessarily crudely — intelligently. There are many ways to inflict enormous damage on the enemy on their territory, in their waters, in their airspace, and in their social systems. Instead, we are simply running from the fire.
What are they doing? When they fully control the escalation process, they deliberately arrange things so they suffer no damage, endure no losses, while inflicting maximum painful losses on us — and then amplify it informationally. We need to do the same."
Multipolar Press
Alexander Dugin asked Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Are geopolitical chess games played by two players?” He replied, “No, by one.”
You mentioned Minsk and Minsk-2, which were obvious shams. You also could bring up the Ankara peace talks, which which Russia withdrew from territory as a goodwill gesture, the Azov prisoner release and allowing "grain exports" from Odessa. For that matter, Anchorage.
In each case, Russia gave up obvious amd concrete advantages in exchange for promises that even a kitten could tell would never been fulfilled.
In other words, there is no strategy, there is no master plan. Russia keeps on falling for the okey doke- over and over again.
Minsk Agreements could also be seen as buying time phase. Yes, they tried to sort things out peacefully, but Russians also needed time themselves. Putin himself said that Russia was not ready in 2014. Moreover, when Hollande was pranked, by Vovan and Lexus, he brought this issue up, namely Putin trying to buy time. He kind of dismissed it, but retrospectively we could argue that buying time was also in Russia's interest.
"Putin himself said that Russia was not ready in 2014."
It was not obviously ready eight years later in 2022 either. Twelve years later, and Putin still does not understand what the United States has planned for Russia.
Insightful essay .. Russia must keep diplomacy going when dealing with a malign actor such as Trump. Ignoring or insulting him won’t make him disappear, on the contrary he will just get more involved with Ukraine and upgrade weapons systems for long range hits. Smart move Russia!
I've never faulted Russia for negotiating, but I do fault Putin for spending so many hours with a couple of grifters under the pretense of negotiations. That sent a strong negative message about Putin's confidence and Russian strength, a message he has consistently reinforced, disastrously.
I think you pointed out that diplomacy could be conducted at the same time kinetic actions were happening, and in that connection you say that Russian diplomacy has often served to buy Russia time to recuperate. I think that might be contradictory, but in any event one should also consider whether Russia is the one losing by the passage of time, which I believe is distinctly the case as regards Ukraine. A country that has so often bought time should have recognized when that was happening to it, and it shouldn't have allowed it. It's all well and good to keep the phone lines open, but when there's a battle to be won it's stupid to dither away the opportunity.
"It's all well and good to keep the phone lines open, but when there's a battle to be won it's stupid to dither away the opportunity."
Well said. And the same could be said about the US/Israel vs Iran/Russia/China situation. Russia and China are missing an excellent opportunity to field test their weapons systems by supplying them to Iran.
There has been kinetic action going on for 4+ years, yet you write "diplomacy could be conducted at the same time kinetic actions were happening".
How did you manage to miss these facts on the ground?
Since war is supposedly continuation of policy with other means, it could be argued that it goes without saying that diplomacy and war happen simultaneously.
"There has been kinetic action going on for 4+ years..."
That is the problem; this war should have been won years ago.
And yet trains still run in Ukraine, politicians still visit for photo ops, and the war drags on. I obviously wasn't speaking literally but was criticizing Putin's failure to bring the war to victory.
Yes, Putin's timidity is the problem.
When I read the comments after this fine and insightful vangaurd missive of a four part series i anticipate with relish, I find myself confused by the stubborn and ongoing lack of comprehension i detect therein as to the entire point of what the writer is actually expounding and verifying through objective historical fact.
At further risk of leaving their understanding adrift in the shoals of their own frustration and confusion as to why the Russians play this longest of games, I'll employ Katilya's own words and ask that they are read more carefully:
"The answer, I suggest, lies in a misunderstanding of Russian strategic thought itself. The question assumes that Moscow approaches diplomacy primarily as a search for trust or reconciliation. Yet viewed across more than a thousand years of Russian history, diplomacy has rarely served that purpose. Rather, it has functioned as one of the principal instruments through which Russian rulers have preserved the state during periods of weakness, restored national power after strategic setbacks and shaped the geopolitical environment in which military force might eventually be employed."
Is Russia's own long-suffering and excruciatingly patient history of diplomacy and negotiation which had unequivically furnished a noble and epic 1000+ years history in the face of such extraordinary and often pernicious geopolitical, social, political and demographic challenges not in itself empirical proof of its efficacy?
Who cares if Putin chooses to meet Witkoff and take measure of him, in the fullness of time? What real matter is it that sidebar issues such as Syria and Kosovo sway to and fro on the Grand Chessboard, if Russia's core interests are preserved and even strengthened in the real politic?
And yes, you can bloviate at length about garden variety, day to day 'failures' that Russia may encounter in its fascinating struggle to fashion and maintain its own, sovereign civilization but they are small things in the context of a dazzling 1000 year odyssey and Russia will endure.
When this ends in disaster for Russia? How smart will their strategy be?
Outside of Russia's 1000+ years of proven success managing these existential issues as an indicator of how it will go, we shall just have to wait and see, won't we?
Pharonic Egypt lasted for most of recorded history. The pharaohs and their civilization are gone and not coming back.
"Right now the West is playing chess against us with only one player: they raise escalation a bit, we respond. They adjust it, and we follow. We are only reacting. That is chess for one.
We need to play chess for two. Even Iran shows how. If we can’t reach decision-making centers, then let’s strike some proxy target. And not necessarily crudely — intelligently. There are many ways to inflict enormous damage on the enemy on their territory, in their waters, in their airspace, and in their social systems. Instead, we are simply running from the fire.
What are they doing? When they fully control the escalation process, they deliberately arrange things so they suffer no damage, endure no losses, while inflicting maximum painful losses on us — and then amplify it informationally. We need to do the same."
Multipolar Press
Alexander Dugin asked Zbigniew Brzezinski, “Are geopolitical chess games played by two players?” He replied, “No, by one.”
https://www.multipolarpress.com/p/the-splitting-of-time-and-the-end-of-anchorage
You mentioned Minsk and Minsk-2, which were obvious shams. You also could bring up the Ankara peace talks, which which Russia withdrew from territory as a goodwill gesture, the Azov prisoner release and allowing "grain exports" from Odessa. For that matter, Anchorage.
In each case, Russia gave up obvious amd concrete advantages in exchange for promises that even a kitten could tell would never been fulfilled.
In other words, there is no strategy, there is no master plan. Russia keeps on falling for the okey doke- over and over again.
"Russia keeps on falling for the okey doke- over and over again."
A kind of Mortimer Snerd approach. LOL.
Minsk Agreements could also be seen as buying time phase. Yes, they tried to sort things out peacefully, but Russians also needed time themselves. Putin himself said that Russia was not ready in 2014. Moreover, when Hollande was pranked, by Vovan and Lexus, he brought this issue up, namely Putin trying to buy time. He kind of dismissed it, but retrospectively we could argue that buying time was also in Russia's interest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SUgRq2oVWU
Like you stated in your essay - time to "rebuild national power, test the intentions of rivals and shape more favorable geopolitical conditions."
Spot on.
"Putin himself said that Russia was not ready in 2014."
It was not obviously ready eight years later in 2022 either. Twelve years later, and Putin still does not understand what the United States has planned for Russia.
Compare the Ukrainian military in 2014 to 2022.
Stop kidding yourself. Russia largely dithered. NATO did not.
Another pundit that knows better how well Russia was prepared than Russian leadership? Life is a blessed miracle.
Being prepared militarily is just one aspect of being prepared. There are many others.
You could make the same argument about NATO leadership.
The results speak for themselves. Compare for instance, the response to Georgia in 2009. Russia was decisive. The west didn't do jack.
Insightful essay .. Russia must keep diplomacy going when dealing with a malign actor such as Trump. Ignoring or insulting him won’t make him disappear, on the contrary he will just get more involved with Ukraine and upgrade weapons systems for long range hits. Smart move Russia!