Putin and Cuban Missile Crisis: Stalin-esque imitation

Anyone who has seen parts of Putin’s latest speech, where he openly threatened the West, couldn’t help but notice that the Russian leader appears to be in a precarious state. His mental condition suggests he should seek psychiatric help immediately, yet he stubbornly continues to escalate tensions, provoking further confrontation with Ukraine and the West.

Russian state TV has built the image of Putin as the “invincible leader of the nation.” Now he seems intent on bending the whole world to his will, just as he has done within Russia. The delusional Russian “tsar” is desperately clinging to power, supported by a group of aging officials in their seventies who are unwilling to relinquish their decades-long positions to younger generations. Putin intends to hold onto the Kremlin for as long as he lives.

Today, Russia is led by politicians who grew up in Brezhnev’s USSR, and they have absorbed - and are now reintroducing to the Russian people - the aggressive, late-Soviet neo-imperial mentality. This explains Putin’s obsessive drive to resurrect the Soviet Union, no matter the cost. In the Kremlin’s eyes, what is the Soviet Union without Ukraine?

This geopolitical maniac is betrayed by his eyes. The glazed, lifeless look of a psychopathic person, warped by an obsessive fixation that has become the core mission of his life. For Putin, his ultimate historical purpose is the destruction of Ukraine’s statehood.

The political and psychological motives behind this insane, missionary-like mania are clear: he is “purging the world” of the “invented Ukrainians” and the “artificially created” Ukraine, which, in his twisted view, poses a direct threat to Russia’s security. But this perverted sadist is not only driven by political motives - his imperial-chauvinistic instincts can’t accept the existence of a life different from the one he believes should have prevailed in the once-colonized territories that Moscow considered its own for 337 years.

Yet, today in Russia, there is no one who can stand up to this mentally ill tyrant and tell him that his reckless actions are endangering the entire world and provoking the potential outbreak of World War III.

His “mythical totalitarianism” is rooted in the myths of Stalin’s era, which he is trying to bring to life in the 21st century. With missiles, bombs, and Shaheds, Putin is attempting to create a pseudo-future for the Russians. At the same time, he is forcefully imposing his bloody system of "values" as if it were the necessary magic for a supposedly better world.

Having built a mafia-like structure within the Russian government, he has a deep disdain for intellectuals, the intelligentsia, and anyone who reads books or seeks information online. His main source of knowledge is state-controlled television, which is carefully crafted to feed him exactly what he wants to hear.

A mafioso, a sociopath, and a racist, Putin has absorbed the worst qualities that could have emerged in post-Soviet Russia. Yet, he tries to present his vision of reshaping the world order as if it were a necessity for now.

Intimidating the world with the threat of nuclear Armageddon and World War III has become his main “argument” to force America and Europe to back down and hand Ukraine over to Moscow’s aggressive regime. The perverted despot is bluffing because he knows the true state of affairs in Russia. He understands that if he continues the war in Ukraine, the world will soon witness the inevitable collapse of the Russian economy by mid- or late 2025.

So far, despite everything he’s done, Putin has somehow managed to avoid a palace coup. The system he’s built over 25 years of consolidating power has cushioned economic challenges, allowing his regime to stay afloat for now. But this can’t last forever.

Even the pillars of his criminal regime - the well-fed FSB, the oligarchs, the security forces like the GRU, FSB, SVR, Rosgvardia, and others to whom Putin’s terror state has delegated its monopoly on violence - are unlikely to want to continue living in a country that is collapsing in on itself. A country facing an inevitable 50 percent interest rate, out-of-control 300 percent inflation, and frozen bank deposits.

Not to mention the powerful mafia oligarchs, who will hardly be content with the current state of affairs, especially as social unrest, riots, and uprisings in Russia’s regional areas begin to spread to Moscow, St. Petersburg, and other major cities. The ruling elites are also growing increasingly concerned that, due to sanctions, they can no longer easily transport their ill-gotten wealth to the West.

With Russia’s foreign exchange reserves nearly depleted and companies like Gazprom on the brink of bankruptcy, Putin’s ability to keep the ruble’s exchange rate stable against the dollar is rapidly fading. Even someone as skilled in economic juggling as the head of Russia’s Central Bank, Elvira Nabiullina, won’t be able to help the dictator. Nabiullina, like her political boss, is also a war criminal. If it weren't for her actions, Russia’s war in Ukraine might have ended in 2023.

Putin is darting from side to side, bluffing and pretending that Russia is already winning, but the reality is completely different. If things were truly going well for Moscow, why would the Kremlin need to send North Korean troops to fight the Ukrainian army in the Kursk region? This is nothing more than an escalation of the conflict - a provocation, a cynical and desperate move aimed at forcing the Ukrainian army out of Kursk at any cost.

The situation is clear: Ukraine is crucial for Russia, and without it, Putin cannot revive the Russian empire. That’s why the Kremlin is willing to take such risks. For the United States, however, Ukraine is a matter of choice, and for a long time, America has been hesitant to provide Ukrainians with all the support they need. Moscow is hoping for a change of leadership in Washington, believing that in a military conflict, political will often matters more than military power.

That said, military power does play a role. In the Russian-Ukrainian war, rapid changes are possible, and a critical turning point may come with the U.S. allowing Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles. The next step should be for the European Union to increase its arms supplies to Ukraine and begin moving troops. NATO forces could be deployed along Russia's border with Finland and near the Ukrainian border.

Both moves would break the EU’s current indecision in confronting Russia. This indecision comes from the belief that Ukraine is at war with Russia, while the EU is not. This kind of selective thinking is a mistake for a united Europe and needs to be fixed quickly.

Putin himself keeps insisting that Russia is not at war with Ukraine, but with NATO. Most EU countries are also members of the North Atlantic Alliance. The EU needed to show that it was ready to communicate with Putin in a way he would understand - through force.

Engaging with Putin from a position of strength is the only way to prove that the EU’s support for Ukraine isn’t just rhetoric, and to show that the EU sees Ukraine as part of Europe’s unified security system. Russia, in reality, is much more vulnerable than the dictator believes.

Europe needs to make a clear decision and stop worrying about the fact that increasing support for Ukraine will make Putin its enemy. Putin is, and always will be, an enemy of a united Europe. That’s why he’s constantly trying to divide Europeans, undermining their solidarity and unity. For Europeans to act as if the EU is just a secondary supporter of Ukraine is nothing but self-deception.

The paradox of the situation is that the only way to lay the groundwork for de-escalation is by taking further militarized actions. Allowing Ukraine to use ATACMS missiles on Russian territory is the best option because if Moscow gains control over Ukrainian lands, it would be a strategic defeat for Europe as well.

Ukraine is strategically important not just for Russia, but, above all, for a united Europe. If Putin were to succeed in seizing Ukraine and destroying its statehood, it would pave the way for Moscow to invade not only Eastern but also Western Europe. At that point, the Russian Federation would essentially hover over Europe, waiting for the right moment to launch a new invasion.

Is Putin’s imitation of the Cuban Missile Crisis just a bluff or something more? It’s clear that Putin is desperate because he can’t get what he wants with Ukraine. That’s why we’re seeing attacks on Dnipro with intercontinental ballistic missiles, new threats of nuclear weapons, and other irrational actions from the dictator. However, no matter how furious he is with the world, Putin isn’t ready to risk using nuclear weapons to ignite a global catastrophe.

Russia’s use of nuclear weapons against Ukraine or its NATO allies would immediately mark it as a rogue state for decades to come. The power of Russia's nuclear weapons lies in the belief of its enemies that they could be used - and the more Putin threatens to use them, the less credible that threat becomes.

How might Moscow’s escalation in the ongoing war with Ukraine and the West end? Does Russia even have the strength to take on NATO? Putin’s original strategy was to defeat Ukraine in three days by capturing Kyiv. After this failure and the retreat from the Ukrainian capital, his criminal regime finds itself mired in a war of attrition that Moscow cannot win.

The Kremlin’s financial reserves are dwindling, a large portion of Russia's troops have already been decimated in “meat assaults,” and continuing the war at this pace will not only weaken Russia but severely damage an already fragile economy. In this scenario, the collapse of Putin’s regime becomes inevitable.

If the West strengthens its resolve and provides Ukraine with the full range of offensive and defensive weapons in the quantities needed, Putin will be defeated and almost certainly removed from power. After all, even the Russians, heavily influenced by propaganda, will likely turn against the usurper if he loses the war he so recklessly started against a peaceful neighboring nation.

Source

About the author. Viktor Kaspruk, journalist.

The editorial staff does not always share the opinions expressed by the blog authors.