The French magazine "Le Point" (Le Point) said that the Americans, with their immediate release of intelligence related to Russian preparations to invade Ukraine, might have hoped to dissuade the Russians from launching an operation from which they do not benefit much, but the disclosure of Russian President Vladimir Putin's intentions has backfired and encouraged him to show His ability to carry out a large-scale operation, to prove that he can win where democracies have failed despite the warnings of Western powers, and then must deal seriously with his nuclear threats.
In an interview with Jean Gisnel for the magazine, Jean-Vincent Hollander, professor of political science at the University of Paris and scientific director of the Institute for Strategic Research at the French Military School, analyzes the use of intelligence as a strategic weapon in the war on Ukraine and the use of deception by both Washington and Moscow.
The French strategist pointed out that the approach taken by the Americans since the beginning of the year by publicly publishing some available information about Russian preparations to invade Ukraine, while regularly revealing its analyzes of Putin's intentions, may be partly due to their intelligence failure on September 11, 2001, when they failed to analyze available information. Partly within the intelligence community at the time of the attack, so the immediate disclosure of information that Putin was about to invade Ukraine and the date of the attack was a kind of protection for Americans from such failure.
Hollander explained that the disclosure of information, even if the attack did not occur, its consequences are less dangerous for the United States than not anticipating the event as happened in 2001, and it is an important element in psychological warfare because it reduces the effect of the desired surprise by the Russian side.
distorted perception
Hollander said that Putin's arrogance is due to his distorted perception of the situation, in addition to a feeling of absolute power. He has underestimated Ukraine's resilience and overestimated the power of his forces, relying on his successes in Syria, especially that many observers expected the collapse of the Ukrainian army, and the American warnings encouraged him in a way. Indirectly when she referred to him by saying "You can't do that".
Hollander believes that both sides have fallen into a game of misperceptions, believing that Putin was the victim of a lack of information on the part of his own services, in exchange for good information from the Americans, and this may have had an impact on the Russian option to engage in the confrontation.
He added that the Americans in 2003 deceived the world with false accusations of the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein of manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, and in 2022 Putin blamed the Ukrainians for committing acts of Nazi genocide, and they are two lies to justify the war that are similar in everything, as the Americans deceived the world for the purposes of the alleged strategic That there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and today Russia lies by saying that Ukraine is controlled by the Nazis or that NATO is about to attack it, both accounts based on a perception of threats that are not necessarily a priority.
Here, Hollander adds, "It must be admitted first that Putin's lie about Ukraine is based on the perception of a real threat to Russia, and that it justifies a large-scale intervention, not only on the basis of the desire to invade, but on the basis of the desire for self-defense." - As Hollander says - the nuclear threat must be taken seriously, knowing that there are tactical and strategic purposes in Putin's deception when he regularly mentions the use of nuclear weapons, perhaps to push the Westerners back or to frighten them, but the result appears to be the opposite, as Westerners continue to skillfully support Ukraine , by sending weapons to it without directly participating in the conflict.
On this basis, Hollander asked: Will Putin leave the trick of deterrence to move to direct threat or perhaps implementation?
Pointing out that this is not excluded if we know that the Russian president has nothing to lose.
Communication is necessary
Under these current circumstances, Hollander believes that Putin will do everything in his power in Ukraine, although in all major international crises he has played on the threat of the use of military force sometimes, but at the same time he opens the way for diplomacy, but since he took power 20 years ago He kept gaining more and more importance, but this time he embarked on a reckless process of escaping forward even if it seemed as if he had lowered his goals;
He has changed in terms of dimensions, taking an initiative that we have not seen since the Second World War, and that means that anything is possible.
The strategist cautioned that the disintegration of the international nuclear weapons control system, in particular the non-renewal of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, means that the minimum level of trust that can prevail between the actors in the famous scale of terror will no longer work, and therefore communication with Putin - As is France's position - it remains useful because dialogue with him must be preserved, even if it is not useful, because it is an element of control and verification of a possible escalation.
Hollander believes that engaging in a game of deception with Putin means engaging in a toxic game, because he mentions every time that the United States and other countries, including France, have intervened in other countries to defend their interests by bringing about a change in the regime, as is the case in Iraq and Libya, for example.
Hollander concluded that the Russians and the Chinese do not keep repeating that the West has no lessons to offer them, but the Cuban crisis in 1962 proved that it is not possible to get out of a deadlock if the parties remain in the logic of deception, and that the only good way to do this is to participate in restoring confidence, and then negotiation.