Fox is trying to explain recent Russian missile attacks that have no military value.
Further attacks took place today in Kyiv and other areas of Ukraine, with the war returning to the country’s main cities and not limited to the south and east.
Vox, in his analysis, tries to decipher Vladimir Putin’s tactics and explain why he decided to go ahead with such attacks in recent days.
Less than 48 hours after the Kerch bridge linking Crimea and Russia was damaged by a powerful explosion, recalls Fox, Putin took revenge on Ukraine. Russia launched nearly 100 missiles at several Ukrainian cities on October 10 and 11. The rockets hit several buildings, including homes and schools, killing at least 19 civilians and injuring more than 100.
Today, Russia launched new attacks on the Ukrainian capital Kyiv using “kamikaze drones”. Initial reports indicated that at least four people were killed and around 18 were injured in the drone strike.
The Military Value of The Attacks is Questionable
While last week’s attacks knocked out power and water in Ukraine’s largest city, the military value of the attacks was questionable at best. Political infrastructure was the main objective, notes Vox.
The people of Ukraine seem increasingly determined to resist Russia. Experts noted that Russia maintains a small number of precision-guided missiles and their use on such targets appears to be wasteful.
Looking ahead, the attacks may have given NATO “permission” to provide Ukraine with better air defenses. Vox also notes that there is also the issue of “flagrant violations of the laws of war”. The analysis indicates that even India and China are trying to distance themselves from Russia.
Why Did Russia Do This?
Thus, Russian missile strikes may have violated international law, alienated former partners, strengthened the resolve of Ukraine and its allies, and wasted precious ammunition without changing the situation on the battlefield. Why did Russia do this, Fox wonders?
The article emphasizes that trying to explain the current behavior of Russian foreign policy is complex. Many experts and policymakers predicted that Russia would not attack Ukraine because it would be an expensive and dangerous operation.
Indeed, Putin’s initial decision to invade Ukraine seems like an example of what not to do in international relations. However, the fact that he did so means that we need alternative explanations for Russian behavior, Vox points out.
Given that there are now consistent – often misleading – comparisons to the Cuban Missile Crisis, perhaps it is time to address the issue like Graham Allison, a highly experienced political scientist and former US government adviser, now at the Harvard Kennedy School. When he wrote the book The Essence of Decision.
The Three Levels of Analysis
Vox’s text analyzes what is happening internationally, internally and psychologically. The perception of Russian power appears to have waned since Moscow failed to implement its initial invasion plan to capture Kyiv in the first week.
Eight months after the start of the war, Ukraine went on the offensive. Its forces appear better armed, better trained and more motivated, and most military analysts expect more Ukrainian territorial gains before winter sets in. Russia’s partial mobilization looks like an accounting mess. Only four countries voted with Russia in the latest UN General Assembly vote to condemn the attempted annexation of Ukrainian territory.
An underestimated source of power in world politics is the reputation for the effective exercise of power. Fox notes that this means Russia is in serious trouble.
What was supposed to be a “beheading” of the Zelensky government turned into an expensive fight with an opponent who outnumbered the Russians on the battlefield. Even before the recent attacks on civilians, Putin was forced to admit that key partners such as China and India had started making “noise”, indicating resentment over the war.
How Do Russia’s Allies Move?
With Russia mired in Ukraine, countries like Azerbaijan appear to be taking the opportunity to advance their interests against Russian allies. Even the countries most dependent on Russia are starting to show some independence.
Kazakhstan has categorically rejected the legality of referendums on the annexation of Ukrainian territory, while Kyrgyzstan has canceled Russian-led military exercises that were scheduled to take place on its territory at the last moment. Fox notes that the attack on the Kerch Bridge was just the latest symbolic blow to Russian power.
Given this context, it is easy to understand why Russia feels the need to intensify the use of force in the most brutal way. Russia is keen to remind friends and foes that it can still demonstrate its destructive power.
While bombing civilians appears to have little military value, Russia may think it is an effective signal that reinforces its nuclear threats.
After all, logic dictates that if Russia shows its disregard for the rules and laws governing the use of conventional force, it sends the message that it is also flouting the rules and laws governing the use of nuclear weapons.
The more credible Russia’s nuclear threat, the more it will be able to rely on this tool as a form of coercive negotiation.
The Inner Front
Contrary to popular belief, Putin does not run a one-man system. Even autocratic leaders must satisfy supporters of what political scientists call “the electorate”—the people or group that actually choose the leader of the state. In a democracy, the electorate is the electorate – in a more authoritarian system, the electorate is smaller and more obscure. Regardless of the type of system, the leader must lead a winning alliance with the electorate.
Who is in Putin’s alliance? A recent Institute for the Study of War (ISW) analysis of the Russian information space concluded that there are three main pillars of support for Putin: people with large power bases and their own powers. Putin must maintain the support of these three divisions.”
Battlefield unrest in eastern and southern Ukraine has cost Putin some support among the elite. According to the Washington Post, “a member of Vladimir Putin’s inner circle has in recent weeks expressed his disagreement directly with the Russian president over his handling of the war in Ukraine.” That is “absolutely not true,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told the paper, although he admitted: “There are disagreements on these occasions. Some believe we should act differently. But this is all part of the normal process of Business”.
General Criticism
This fits with recent public criticism of Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov and Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the Wagner Group, a Russian paramilitary group, over the way the war is being conducted. ISW reported similar discontent with nationalist and military bloggers.
As the International Press Institute writes, this discontent has the effect of setbacks undermining Putin’s prestige: he tried to present throughout his tenure.
Hitting Ukrainian civilians with missiles makes sense for Putin in this domestic context. After the attack on the bridge, there were calls from Russian nationalists to escalate the conflict. They want to take off the gloves in the fight against Ukraine and are calling for more and more violence, writes Vox characteristically.
Rocket attacks on Ukrainian cities will appease Putin’s nationalist supporters for the time being and allow his subordinates and representatives to promote on television that they are responding to the turmoil on the battlefield. And Putin’s promotion this week of General Sergei Sorovikin, known as “General Armageddon” for his brutality in Syria, will also cement his position among nationalists.
Psychological Level
While Putin may not be an unqualified dictator, he is by far Russia’s most powerful decision maker, Fox notes. US intelligence indicates that he even gives orders directly to commanders in the theater of operations. Understanding Putin’s mindset can go a long way toward explaining his recent actions in Ukraine.
Daniel Kahneman won a Nobel Prize for his research with Amos Tversky which showed that most people do not make decisions based on rational choices, but use a set of cognitive shortcuts known as probability theory.
The basic principle of probability theory is that individuals avoid risk when they win and take risks when they lose. In other words, when you experience failure from the status quo ante, you are more willing to take risks in an attempt to “gamble for the resurrection,” as this analysis points out.
This seems to describe Putin’s behavior in recent months. In late spring and summer, with Russia making gradual gains on the battlefield, Putin was persuaded to use a mix of Wagner Group mercenaries and raw recruits from Donetsk and Lugansk, the Russian-controlled eastern regions of Ukraine, to resupply. the Russian forces.
Risky Actions
However, after Ukraine began to make progress in the east and south, Putin ended up opting for more dangerous political action. He announced partial mobilization, formally announced the annexation of four Ukrainian regions and stepped up his nuclear threats.
This did nothing to stop Ukrainian forces on the ground. In the days following the annexation, Russia lost its main logistical city, Lyman, in Donetsk, and was attacked at the Kerch Bridge. In that context, the attacks on Ukrainian cities earlier this month could be seen as an attempt by Putin to make an “apocalyptic” gamble.
Probability theory applies to all individuals. And Putin’s individual psychology? According to Michael Kaufman, a Russian military analyst at the CNA, a research and analysis organization, Putin is an “expert in stalling.”
He puts off making big decisions until the last minute, so he often puts pressure on himself. Or, as Kaufman told Puck’s Julia Iofe last month, “Give up and hold off until the options change from bad to worse.”
In all likelihood, Putin did not want to spend his limited ammunition bombing Ukrainian cities. However, in the face of the deteriorating military and political situation, Putin likely felt he had no choice but to attack.
Where Could The War Lead?
What can we take away from these three different stories, asks Fox?
Interestingly, they suggest that the West should hope to explain Russia’s actions through Putin’s individual psychology. International and domestic interpretations suggest Putin will double down on aggression. Globally, Russia continues to be humiliated by the UN General Assembly vote. Domestically, Putin will need to increase brutality to maintain national support as Russia’s fortunes in Ukraine continue to deteriorate.
Only Putin’s notorious procrastination suggests a return to Russian lethargy in adapting to Ukraine’s military successes. It would be ironic indeed, concludes Fox, that Russia’s greatest gift to Ukraine was Vladimir Putin’s indolence.
