Some thoughts on the Russia-Ukraine crisis

When hitler seized power in Germany in the 1930s, one of the praises he received was along the lines of "he got the trains to run on time" - or that might have been mussolini. I'm not interested enough to invest the effort in checking a detail of either despot's life. (Nnngh - I can't leave it unchecked: it was mussolini - see here. hitler built - or expanded, rather - the autobahn.)

The point is that they initially seemed to make the mundane aspects of life better. 

However, if that is all an autocrat / despot does, then over time people will begin to wonder if the loss of personal freedom is worth the price. Thus, despots eventually have to seek grander and grander "distractions": in mussolini's case, the establishment of an Italian empire that was portrayed as a "re-establishment" of the centuries past Roman empire; with hitler, it was about German nationalism / patriotism and undoing the perceived harshness of the Versailles Treaty - a harshness perceived by not only Germans, but a harshness predicated on the harshness of the treaty to end the Franco-Prussian  war of 1870-71, and the savagery of World War (part) One. 

(Side note: I've just watched a video which refers to the Russo-Japanese  war of 1905 as "World War Zero". The history periodical my adoptive parents bought me when I was young showed some disturbing photos from that war and the (Second) Boer  War, and it was then that I started realising the savagery that some humans were capable of. Later, a documentary on the Indian  Rebellion left me with nightmares, as it further emphasised that deplorable capability.) 

If despots cannot find an external conflict (a "diversionary  war") to focus on, as Argentina did by invading what they term the Malvinas (see here, here, here, and here), leading to the United Kingdom's ultimately successful Falklands  War, as the USSR did - to some extent (it was also an ideologically driven contest / conflict) - with the Cold War, and King Henry V of England did in 1415 with an attempted invasion of France, then they will have to implement increased repression. 

As a variation on that, Xi Jinping of the CCP has directed what is described as a campaign against corruption (also suspected of being partly a cover for purges which have created a succession crisis and left Xi vulnerable if he leaves power, but corruption has also been genuinely a problem in need of constructive attention), although tensions with the USA (particularly over the South China Seas - and China's claims there pre-date the communists rise to power) help.

Tensions with the USA also help the despot kim ⅓ in North Korea - and the bombastic displays of missile launches are probably as much for domestic consumption as external.

kim ⅓ faces succession problems as well, problems that also plagued stalin, amin, hussein, mugabe, and other despots.

Russian President Putin appears to have also been considering, if not succession, at least what could happen after he leaves power - for instance, laws have been passed granting him life-long absolution (my term).

Putin has also been very focused on his image - largely successfully, within Russia. Elections within Russia are often criticised for not being fair (with considerable validity, in my opinion - see here, for instance), but they are of some significance, and Putin has to put effort into winning them (perhaps one way or another?). And recent polls show a decline in Putin's approval ratings. 

Given that, is the current escalation of the war between Russia and Ukraine in eastern  Ukraine at least partly a political ploy to distract internal (Russian) dissatisfaction? 

Maybe. 

If true, does this reduce the risk of war? No. 

In any case, enforcing one's will over others in any way is wrong - doing so through violence, at the expense of others, is UTTERLY unacceptable. Putin's threat - no matter why it is there - exists, and must be dealt with . . . effectively.

It is worth noting that: 

• Ukraine's borders have changed over time, with Crimea only having been incorporated in 1954 (and grabbed back, possibly in part at least, as a diversionary war); 
• the USSR had a tradition, under stalin, of creating borders that cross ethnic boundaries - thus the legacy of fighting over Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan; 
• ethnically, eastern Ukraine is more Russian than Ukrainian; 
• most Ukrainians seem to want democracy - and western Ukrainians seem to want closer ties to "the West"; 
• all modern nation-states want to preserve their territorial integrity as a fundamental part of their existence;
• would eastern Ukraine want to secede from Ukraine to join Russia if a fair and fee referendum was held? Had there been discrimination against Russians in eastern Ukraine before this conflict? (A referendum now would be meaningless - there has been too much blood spilt);
  
• Russia appears have interfered in Ukraine's internal politics; 
• there are persistent  concerns that NATO's expansion eastwards is contrary to an agreement made at the the USSR was dissolved, although NATO says that agreement was limited to the context of the former soviet satellite state East Germany.
  

This is unquestionably a complex situation. For more on this, I suggest the following videos from the Caspian Report: 

• "Legitimacy of Ukraine's new government" (2014); 
• "Ukraine's crisis and strategic importance" (2014); 
  
• "Russia's leverages on Ukraine" (2014); 
• "Russia-Ukraine standoff in Kerch Strait" (2018); 
• "Ukraine and Russia preparing for a new war" (April, 2021);
  
  
• "Why Russia wants to restore the Soviet borders" (July, 2021); and
  
  
• "Finland and Sweden consider NATO membership" (January, 2022).