Russians so confident they’d seize Kyiv, they had packed their parade uniforms
Mark R. Beissinger, politics professor at Princeton, comments on the recent developments in the Ukraine war, potential scenarios for peace
“Peter the Great talked about a Russian window on Europe. Putin just smashed that window,” says Mark Beissinger, Henry W. Putnam Professor in the Department of Politics at Princeton University and an expert in social movements and post-communist politics, who addressed an audience of academics and students at the Princeton Athens Center on May 29.
In this interview he comments on the recent developments in the Ukraine war, potential scenarios for peace, and the impact of the war on the international order.
When the drums of war started beating in Ukraine well over a year ago, nobody expected that the overwhelming Russian attack would have been met with the degree of Ukrainian persistence and organization we have been witnessing.
“The Russians were so confident that they could invade and seize Kyiv in three days that victory parades in the streets of the Ukrainian capital had been already organized,” says the professor of political science at Princeton. “They had even packed their parade uniforms with them.”
The Ukrainian counteroffensive in the southeast, launched last week, was supposed to usher in a new phase of the conflict. But it got off to a rocky start. The destruction of the Nova Kakhovka Dam on Tuesday, which Beissinger is convinced was orchestrated by the Kremlin, will thwart the growing counteroffensive. “The water and subsequent flooding are preventing the Ukrainian forces from crossing the Dnipro River, making their advance to the Kherson region more onerous,” he says. The professor also warned of major humanitarian, environmental and nuclear repercussions. “Besides resulting in an enormous loss of human life, the incident creates an extremely volatile and dangerous situation at the neighboring Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant.” Citing reports that estimate a rapid collapse of the reservoir, Beissinger warned of a potentially catastrophic nuclear meltdown as the facility’s cooling water reserves are depleted.
Although the counteroffensive is facing turbulence, and Ukraine remains at a de facto numerical disadvantage – outnumbered five to one by Russia – Beissinger asked us to not neglect the aces up President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s sleeve. “Thanks to the support of the US and Europe, Ukraine has achieved a clear advantage in technology, with modern anti-missile defense systems shielding civilians, German-made Leopard tanks piercing through Russian lines, and satellite-controlled high-precision missiles targeting the enemy’s supply lines.” Most importantly, though, “Ukrainian troops are determined, and know what they are fighting for, while the average Russian is confused and demoralized.” The plummeting Russian morale is also a result of the poor treatment of Russian soldiers, who, according to Beissinger, are treated as cannon fodder. The professor called for reserved optimism, though, as Ukrainian air capabilities, largely dependent on outdated Soviet-era planes, are still inferior to Russia’s modern fleet.
When asked about developments that could tip the scale in favor of Ukraine, Beissinger referenced paramilitary Russian groups fighting on Zelenskyy’s side who have conducted small-scale drone operations within Russia. “This war has produced uneven effects on the two sides, with millions of Ukrainians forcibly fleeing their homes and entire cities being erased from the map, and Russia remaining grossly unaffected,” he said. The objective of those groups is to “cause psychological discomfort and make the war felt in Russia, too.” Despite their symbolic nature, Beissinger emphasized that Ukraine should be careful with welcoming too many of these incursions, in fear of Russian retaliation or emergent criticisms of aggression from allies.
On the topic of Russian defiance, we asked Beissinger to comment on recent statements made by the head of the Wagner Group, Yevgeny Prigozhin, which predicted the outbreak of “a new revolution” in Russia unless the war effort yields significant results soon. “There are definitely cracks in the Putin regime, and a lot of bickering is already under way between potential successors,” the Princeton professor responded, citing Prigozhin’s inflammatory rhetoric against Sergei Shoigu, Russia’s defense minister, as additional evidence of intense factionalism in the highest ranks. However, he also clarified that Western hopes of a Putin departure are unfounded. “He is the factor that holds the state machinery together; if he were to be ousted, a war of all against all would ensue within the elite, a scenario that nobody is presently prepared for.”
At the same time, Professor Beissinger diffused hopes of a popular uprising against the regime, and even in the case of defeat, he does not consider a “revolution within Russia as imminent.” Drawing on his expertise in social movement theory, he verified that lost wars can be “a political opportunity” for the opposition to organize and challenge the already weakened, and delegitimized regime. But he said that Russia will most probably stick to the alternative explanation of post-war increased coercion. “I think we should expect Putin to follow the blueprint of Saddam Hussein, who violently suppressed sprouting revolts among Kurdish and Arab populations after his defeat in the war against Iran, and managed to survive in power.”
And while it seems that the post-war reality of Russia will be one of stasis, the day after looks quite different for Ukraine. “There will need to be a major rebuilding effort. There is so much destruction already, and with Putin waving the nuclear wand around it remains unclear what Ukraine will ultimately be up against.” For Beissinger, though, the most worrisome aftereffect will be societal fractionalization. “Unfortunately, the enhanced cohesion that we are observing will fade as the Russian threat subsides. Given also that any peace settlement will require Ukraine to make concessions, I expect further controversies to further divide society, and complicate the post-war reality.”
In light of the critical NATO summit in July, whether or not Ukraine is admitted into the Alliance remains a “hot topic” for many, including international relations veteran and former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, who supports NATO membership for Ukraine, provided that the country gives up Crimea. Beissinger agrees that such a trade is necessary to end the war. “NATO membership has to most definitely be part of any peace plan. In Kissinger’s scenario, Putin would justify the war to domestic audiences, and Ukraine would receive tangible security guarantees, effectively shielding it from future attack. Other security guarantees will not work. The US had already supposedly guaranteed the security of Ukraine in the Donbas memorandum after 2014, but that obviously did not deter Russia.” In terms of Ukraine abandoning its claim to Crimea, Beissinger says that “Crimea is a special region. Both countries’ historical claim to Crimea are weak. Historically the area was home to the Crimean Tatars, but due to genocide carried out by the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, they have become a minority in their own lands. The trade-off suggested by Kissinger is then reasonable.”
In terms of the timing of Ukraine’s accession to NATO, Beissinger rejects the Baltic and Eastern states’ calls for immediate admission. “The Alliance has to remain committed to punishing Russian adventurism and not rewarding imperialism. If it fails to do so, then Russia will not be deterred from pursuing similar projects elsewhere. Still, you can’t admit a country into NATO in the midst of a war. That would practically commit the entire Alliance to putting boots on the ground, and that is just not acceptable.”
With Ukraine joining a series of European states, like Finland and Sweden, in NATO, we asked Beissinger what the post-war geopolitical landscape will look like. “It is unfortunate, but Russia has turned away from Europe. And it is also unfortunate that it will not be looking towards it any time soon. Its energy blackmail has failed, as the EU is successfully and rapidly adjusting away from Russian energy markets. Peter the Great talked about a window on Europe. Putin just smashed that window.” In terms of Russia’s rapprochement with China, Professor Beissinger notes that this partnership would be imbalanced, with Russia treated as a junior partner by the Chinese, who have now realized just how internally weak Russia really is.
Analysts have agreed that a potential Russian victory would decisively kill hopes for a globalized rules-based status quo, but then a Ukrainian victory would not automatically proliferate the Western model.
We concluded the interview by asking Professor Beissinger to predict the future of the liberal international order. He claimed that the liberal model is actually under threat from within. “Even if Russia loses, we will not observe the rise of a hegemonic United States, or a Western-dominated order. We live in a multi-centric world order. This is not a moment for the West to flex its muscles. If anything, it is a Western preserving moment. This war is connected to domestic political trends to some extent. Many of the European democracies are on the edge – certainly the US has been. Populist and far-right challenges are eroding democratic norms, and it is those that we must first seek to rectify after Putin’s adventurism in Ukraine is punished.”
