Makes the mistakes of his American counterpart, Bush Jr

Putin makes Ukraine his Iraq

• Putin was euphoric about his successful invasion of eastern Ukraine.

  Reuters

• Security forces inspect the remains of a shell that fell on Kiev following the Russian attack on Ukraine.

  AFP

picture

Pentagon spokesman John Kirby recently criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin and warned him that an invasion of Ukraine would be the start of a "bloody war of his own choosing" that the Russians could not win.

I am sure that Putin answered, "Yes, just as you did in Iraq."

Although most Western countries would scoff at this comment as immoral, it is imperative that American leaders begin to understand the old adage that "what is right for you is right for others."

Let us remember that during the war on Iraq, Putin and his government were opposed to the "war of choice" against Iraq and its leader Saddam Hussein.

President George W. Bush did not care and did not listen to his Russian counterpart.

The drumbeat of war in Washington was much stronger than in Russia.

The neoconservative theorists surrounding Bush Jr. were fully convinced that the war in Iraq would reassert what they believed to be America's strength during the Cold War, and restore America's credibility in a region of the world where the United States did not have much credibility.

change of forces

America was at the height of its military power in the period between 2002 and 2003.

In the aftermath of 9/11, its leaders and people were motivated to wage war on any enemy they thought they could face.

The Bush administration would have gone to war, regardless of the opinions of the international community or international standards.

The power and influence of Russia, angry at the time, was at its lowest point.

Moscow tried to impede the American war, but in the end it was unable to do anything to stop the invasion of Iraq.

But 20 years later, we are now at a different point in time.

These days, Americans are at breaking point, humiliated after 20 years of failed wars and a volatile economic situation.

But the Russians have been at the height of their power since the end of the Cold War.

Russia has benefited from the high oil prices in the global market, and has become a superpower in energy production, as Europe needs 40% of its energy from Russia, and therefore it feels unstoppable in the face of the intransigence of the Americans, or in the face of the opposition of the hesitant Europeans, and the Putin regime carry out his rapid conquest of a smaller country than him.

Western leaders will not be able to stop the Russian advance, just as Moscow was unable to stop the war chosen by Bush Jr. in Iraq, which is related to brute force and will.

Russians are so special in these areas these days, just as Americans did in 2003.

The desire to shed blood

Just as the Iraq War opened in 2003, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is going well so far.

The initial invasion of Russia was limited to Russian-speaking regions such as Luhansk and Donetsk.

But as the days progress, it is likely that Putin will feel the weakness of his Western rivals in the face of his rush into Ukraine, and will demand more.

And if Putin deployed his forces far beyond eastern Ukraine, which he is likely to do, the Russians would face Western-backed Ukrainians.

It is unlikely that the Ukrainians would be able to resist Russia in a direct attack, but it is unlikely that Kiev would consider confronting the Russians, army against army.

Instead, Ukraine will deploy its forces, numbering 200,000, across the country to wage a guerrilla war against Russia, and will add to them citizens willing to fight the Russians, just as Al-Qaeda and the Mahdi Army did in Iraq against the forces led by the United States. In the period from 2003 to 2006. Therefore, the Ukrainians intend to drag the Russians to their lands, with the aim of depleting them for as long as possible so that they are forced to leave their lands irreversibly.

This strategy could work well for Ukraine.

Putin, like Bush Jr. in 2003, has surrounded himself with war-obsessed theorists who believe that every problem facing Russia is an external threat, and that all of these problems are like nails to be hammered by brutal Russian power.

Meanwhile, in the euphoria that Putin feels after his successful invasion of eastern Ukraine, Putin may feel compelled to continue the invasion as far as Kiev.

He can quickly take Kiev, just as Bush Jr. captured Baghdad, but what will he do next?

Putin should learn from contemporary history, since invading a country smaller and weaker than you is easy to achieve.

But controlling such a state indefinitely is a different matter entirely, especially when the people of this country revolt against your existence, your legitimacy in your country is called into question.

How long will Putin remain Russia's largest political force, if he wages a bloody (unpopular) war in Ukraine?

And he has to pose this question to himself.

It seems that Putin is repeating the same wrong choices made by US President Bush Jr., and the results will be horribly similar.

Those who advise Putin should tell him that his conquest and easy victory should be confined to eastern Ukraine and leave the country alone.

Once again, tyrants do not listen to logic, which is why they often start horrific wars.

Which is likely to happen if Putin goes to Kiev.

• Western leaders will not be able to stop the Russian advance, just as Moscow was unable to stop the war chosen by Bush Jr. in Iraq, which is related to brute force and will.

• Russia has benefited from the rise in oil prices in the global market, and has become a great power in energy production, as Europe needs 40% of its energy from Russia, and therefore it feels that it cannot be stopped in the face of the intransigence of the Americans, or the opposition of the hesitant Europeans, and the Putin regime carry out his rapid conquest of a smaller country than him.

• The neo-conservative theorists surrounding Bush Jr. were fully convinced that the war in Iraq would reassert what they believed to be America's strength during the Cold War, and restore America's credibility in a region of the world where the United States did not have much credibility.

Brandon Weichert ■ American researcher

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news