Russian Full-scale War Engine: A Pathological look

Ata Hoodashtian _ Feb 27th 2022

A Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman has threatened Finland and Sweden over the “military consequences” of the two countries’ possible accession to NATO. This indicates that Russia is still making miscalculations. Russia’s pursuit of an attack on Ukraine happens to unite European countries, and Finland and Sweden may join NATO even sooner. [1

In this regard, one of the most important events after the Russian invasion of Ukraine is the rearmament of Germany. The German government has now decided to spend € 100 billion to rebuild its military. In the military sphere, this decision should be considered the most important action of this country after the Second World War. Will this be a sign of possible erosion of the war? [2

However, this plan is not far from what President Emanuel Macron has declared in Paris, means the creation of a European Army, when Donald Trump visited France, in November 2018 [3

Russia did not anticipate two things well in invading Ukraine: 1) the heroic resistance of all members of the government and the entire Ukrainian nation. Young people are seen returning to Ukraine from abroad for the “defence of the homeland”! This is how Volodymyr Zelensky engraves his name in history alongside Salvador Allende. 2) Invading Ukraine mobilizes almost all the nations and countries of the world in support of Ukraine. This process definitely defeated Donald Trump’s plan to separate Europe and the United States, which was, of course, Putin’s plan from the beginning.

It is now possible to predict that the Russian financial oligarchy, on which the Western world has closed Swift for trade and finance, will be criticizing the Kremlin a little later and express its dissatisfaction with Putin’s decision to enter a war that will weaken the economy or perhaps lead to their bankruptcy.

The history of Russia in the 19th and 20th centuries was full of conquest, defeat and victory. Throughout the 196 years of Russian rule in the 18th and 19th centuries, Russian Empire occupied almost all of Central Asia and the Caucasus and much of Eastern Europe until 1880. Ukraine and even Finland (until 1917) were under Russian rule. With the advent of Lenin and the Revolution of 1917 and the reign of Stalin following World War II, the same trend continued with tides, and almost all the territories occupied by the Tsarist Empire were regained under Stalin. This trend, after three centuries, was only interrupted by the fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 and the liberation of the occupied countries.

The Kremlinian nationalism now seeks to re-establish Tsarist and Stalinist credentials. While the intervention of Tsarist Russia in World War I led to the economic crisis, the spread of mass discontent and finally the communist revolution of 1917 and the overthrow of Nicholas II, can one expect a full-blown dissatisfaction of Russian citizens with the economic blows to the Russian oligarchy and the economic crisis directed against the Putin government? Such protests, nonetheless, are already mobilized by the citizens.

Russian Apparatus of Power

Russia today is not in a suitable position to spread the war in Europe and become a full-scale war engine for two reasons. To become a large-scale war engine requires two central nuclei: a strong war economy and strong war-ready partners.

If we look closely, we find that in 1939, six years after Hitler came to power, Germany embraced these two central nuclei as the engine of a full-scale war to start World War II. It also had this opportunity in World War I. Germany had considerable economic power in both wars, in 1914, 1933 and 1941. Between 1933 and 1939, Hitler was able to fuel his country’s war economy and significantly reduce the unemployment. In World War II, Hitler’s 2-million German army was considered the largest army in the world. Russia today, conversely, with a weakened economy like that of Spain, is facing big economic giants like the United States and Germany.

Secondly, in both wars, Germany had reliable war partners with whom it fought to the end. Its first ally in 1933 was Japan, Asia’s largest military force, which had invaded Australia and dominated all of the Southeast Asian territories, having occupied the Manchurian region of China. Hitler’s second partner was a powerful Italian, Mussolini. During World War I, Germany, with the support of the Ottoman Empire, Austria and some other countries, was almost in the same situation.

Even the Russian government under Stalin and during the conquest of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus was in a much more stable position than Russia today. Both the Soviet economy was strong and the global support for the Soviet Union was widespread, even among pervasive left and civic groups in Europe and around the world. When Stalin began his conquest of Eastern Europe, most of Europe’s socialist and communist parties were still pro-Soviet. In France, the Communist Party received more than 40 percent of the popular vote in the election after the end of World War II and had the majority of influence among the workers and intellectuals. Putin has no such position today and is almost isolated. After the invasion of Ukraine, he lost even that tiny global popularity.

Russia today has no serious partner in the world except for the bankrupt Bashar al-Assad and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the regime that is stuck in an economic crisis. China’s abstention in the Security Council on February 25^th, coincidentally indicates that China will probably leave Russia alone in the swamp exacerbated by Putin. Literally and practically, Russia is alone in the Ukraine war.

It should be noted that if the two outcomes of the new historical era are considered “populism” and “democracy” [4, today, in the wake of Russia’s extravagance and isolation, the demand for democracy in the world is growing more gradually. Countries and people of the world increasingly condemn the invasion of an independent state and refer to democracy.

This is while, the Islamic Republic of Iran is practically defending Russia’s military invasion of Ukraine, in spite of Russia having usurped parts of the Iranian territory, breached most of treaties and committed betrayals to Iran throughout history. Ironically, Putin’s invasion of an independent country and Russia’s discredit on the world stage, will cast doubt even on some of the Islamic regime’s views on Russia’s bona fide and influence in support of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Iranian opposition, thus, must insist on the world stage that “regime change” in Iran is a viable idea since the main supporter of the repressive regime in Tehran, namely Russia, is stripped of its credibility and power, and Russia’s provocation is not credible. It has made the country vulnerable, and Islamic oppressors can be overthrown by relying on the people and political opposition.

Ata Hoodashtian-Feb 27, 2022