Is Putin a Rational Actor?
It is critical we get this right.
There is little question that this has become a critical point of analysis amongst the world’s military strategists.
Amidst the ongoing and unjustified military invasion of Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been described as a madman, a fanatic, a despot, and even a psychopath. Yet, for Western military strategists who are charged with war-gaming every conceivable outcome of the Ukraine war, there is but one key question: apart from Putin’s atrocities and aggression, will he act rationally if the costs of his war exceed any conceivable benefit?
It was nearly 10 years ago that I sat in a small auditorium at a global counter-terrorism summit, listening to analysts conduct a briefing on Vladimir Putin.
While many of the summit’s presentations were well attended, this one was not, with most of the auditorium seats remaining unfilled. The few of us who were there collected near the front and listened to the expert panelists describe, in detail, Putin’s political mindset and his strategic longterm vision for Russia and its sphere of influence. It pains me to say how accurate and prescient these scholars were in forecasting precisely the events we are now seeing unfold in Ukraine.
Much has been said, and written, of Putin’s KGB origins and how that experience has indelibly cemented his nationalistic and ideological vision for Russia and his legacy. Certainly, the experts I listened to echoed these sentiments. The thrust of their message was that the decline, and ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union, was a painful insult to Putin and his ilk, and that this ideological fallout continues to inform his geopolitical ambitions.
Putin’s vision, then and now, is for Russia to win greater global power and influence, as a counterweight to — as Putin sees it — Western expansionism. In Putin’s view, this threat comes in two forms: the geographic spread of NATO and European membership amongst former Soviet controlled states, and second, the military defence of those states by Western allies, which could place sophisticated military installations near Russia’s border. In international relations, a “security dilemma” is a situation in which a move to strengthen a nation’s security with improved military defences is viewed as an act of offence by an opposing nation.
Many continue to think of Russia as a superpower. Yet, Russia has about the same GDP as many middle powers — and is more akin to a “petrostate”, by which much of the nation’s income is derived from petroleum, the proceeds of which find their way into the coffers of political elites. This is an important point, as political decision-making in these models of “governance” tend to rest on the whims of individuals, rather than government institutions. For analysts and military strategists studying the Russian invasion, this means that the course of events depends, not on Russia’s nation-state psychology, but on a sole individual’s psychological state.
There is little question that this debate has become a critical point of analysis amongst the world’s military strategists. Is Putin a rational actor? It is critical to get this answer right.
Russia has one of the world’s largest armies in terms of personnel numbers and has a rather formidable assortment of ballistic missile submarines, tanks, and strategic bombers. However, these alone do not equate to a country being a strategic threat. In terms of being a rational actor, the greatest threat is Russia’s arsenal of nuclear missiles — the largest in the world.
The decision of the United States, and by way of that, NATO, to avoid direct military confrontation with Russian forces is partly based on an effort to avoid a conventional war across Europe, but it is also surely hinged upon questions around Putin’s frame of mind — in particular, his willingness to use nuclear weapons, either against Ukraine, or against NATO countries.
Nuclear deterrence theory, for better or worse, is dependent upon rational actors, who must evaluate the benefits and costs of nuclear war — and together, with other like-minded rational actors, typically (read: always) judge the use of nuclear weapons as an unthinkable global “game-over” for the human race.
Mutually assured destruction is a fragile but workable deterrent — but only for rational actors.
The panelists whom I watched discuss Putin’s mindset a decade ago, did so in a context that portrayed Putin as ruthless, yet rational. But, that was then and this is now.
Questions to ask: Is Putin acting now because he sensed weakness and division in NATO, and America? Is he acting now because he cannot tolerate a NATO presence in Ukraine (a security dilemma)? Or, is he acting now because he believes his long reign is coming to a close and he needs a Soviet-style swan song?
Military strategists have a hard job here. They must distinguish labels such as horrible, heinous, and reprehensible, from that of irrational. Understanding the difference will be the key to predicting what happens next. To date, Putin has shown himself to be a ruthless dictator but one who uses cost-benefit logic. Of course, this doesn’t mean his logic is correct, as is clearly shown now by Ukraine’s incredible resolve, along with the collective condemnation of the Russian invasion, reverberating around the world.
It’s not a pleasant or satisfying conclusion, but one can be an egomaniac, be a narcissist, and even be evil enough to readily discard the welfare of others (including one’s own people), and still be rational in terms of military strategy. Based on his career record thus far, it seems Putin fits the bill.
What some fear is that any apparent rationality could well be two-pronged: in which Putin’s initial actions in Ukraine were based on his strategic calculations (however disproven), yet when cornered with no off-ramp guaranteeing his survival, he descends into suicidal irrationality and uses nuclear weapons.
Of course, there is the argument that it doesn’t matter; that we need to fight him anyway. But, it does matter, as it changes the strategic calculus of how NATO (and hopefully the world) responds, by which methods or tools they respond with, and by which steps. We must remember that ultimately deescalation is the aim, which is certainly not suggestive of Western acquiescence!
Regardless, Putin’s actions are despicable and an affront to all that we hold dear when it comes to living in a free and globalized world. Attacking a peaceful sovereign nation and targeting civilians is inexcusable, and Putin needs to be isolated, reduced, and punished in the name of humanity.
