Wondering if Joe remains comfortable with his "Putin is a rational actor" assessment. Putin seems a rather clositered, paranoid Captain Queeg, tumbling his ball bearings, surprised by resistance, advising Ukrainians to rise up against their Neo-Nazi (sic) leaders, the Macron embassy's take on Putin's curious behavior, etc. Evidence piles up that, as malignant narcissist (like Trump}, he's disastrously all-in on what increasingly seems a disastrous, maniacal course that has surely bewildered his intended domestic audience.
Paul, thank you for your thoughtful comment, I appreciate it. Given the unimpressive and potentially disastrous character of the Russian intervention to date, I've also been questioning the "Putin is a rational actor" assumption myself in recent days. After reflection, however, I do still stand by my assessment that Putin is a rational actor. We'll have more evidence very soon.
The war is still in its early days and Russia, in keeping with previous practice, apparently attempted to minimize its costs by launching a decapitation strike at Kyiv. That strategy, while highly risky, was potentially highly "rational": the expected benefits from a lightning war may have exceeded the expected costs, at least from Putin's perspective. Moscow's decapitation strike appears to have failed, however, at least of this writing.
What comes next will determine if Putin is a rational dictator or Captain Queeg. If Putin made no contingency plans (or bizarre ones) in the event of the lightning strike's failure then yes, that would be clear evidence that he is not rationally assessing probabilities and consequences. But with Russian troops on the move across Ukraine he does appear to have next steps in mind. I fear that the next phase of the conflict will be much more brutal, but perhaps more effective in accomplishing his goals.
I've maintained that Putin's escalation serves dual purposes: 1) securing Crimea, which is critical for his domestic legitimacy; and 2) undermining his constitutional democracy rivals. I've argued that 2) has motivated Putin less than 1). But I could have been wrong. It may be that Putin's primary objective in the escalation, in fact, was to diminish performance legitimacy of constitutional democracy and empower personalistic authoritarianism and populism across Europe and North America.
If Putin is, in fact, seeking to undermine constitutional democracies he would 1) certainly not verbalize this to foreign audiences, much less domestic ones and 2) use deception. His actions, while bewildering, may be rational.
Wondering if Joe remains comfortable with his "Putin is a rational actor" assessment. Putin seems a rather clositered, paranoid Captain Queeg, tumbling his ball bearings, surprised by resistance, advising Ukrainians to rise up against their Neo-Nazi (sic) leaders, the Macron embassy's take on Putin's curious behavior, etc. Evidence piles up that, as malignant narcissist (like Trump}, he's disastrously all-in on what increasingly seems a disastrous, maniacal course that has surely bewildered his intended domestic audience.
Paul, thank you for your thoughtful comment, I appreciate it. Given the unimpressive and potentially disastrous character of the Russian intervention to date, I've also been questioning the "Putin is a rational actor" assumption myself in recent days. After reflection, however, I do still stand by my assessment that Putin is a rational actor. We'll have more evidence very soon.
The war is still in its early days and Russia, in keeping with previous practice, apparently attempted to minimize its costs by launching a decapitation strike at Kyiv. That strategy, while highly risky, was potentially highly "rational": the expected benefits from a lightning war may have exceeded the expected costs, at least from Putin's perspective. Moscow's decapitation strike appears to have failed, however, at least of this writing.
What comes next will determine if Putin is a rational dictator or Captain Queeg. If Putin made no contingency plans (or bizarre ones) in the event of the lightning strike's failure then yes, that would be clear evidence that he is not rationally assessing probabilities and consequences. But with Russian troops on the move across Ukraine he does appear to have next steps in mind. I fear that the next phase of the conflict will be much more brutal, but perhaps more effective in accomplishing his goals.
I've maintained that Putin's escalation serves dual purposes: 1) securing Crimea, which is critical for his domestic legitimacy; and 2) undermining his constitutional democracy rivals. I've argued that 2) has motivated Putin less than 1). But I could have been wrong. It may be that Putin's primary objective in the escalation, in fact, was to diminish performance legitimacy of constitutional democracy and empower personalistic authoritarianism and populism across Europe and North America.
If Putin is, in fact, seeking to undermine constitutional democracies he would 1) certainly not verbalize this to foreign audiences, much less domestic ones and 2) use deception. His actions, while bewildering, may be rational.