Second Gorbachev needed to end Cold War II
Let us have a brief distraction from the storm-clouds of fear, suffering and grief, and salute a life well-lived. Last week saw the passing of an outstanding public servant. Sir Christopher Mallaby, who had been Ambassador in Bonn before a final posting in Paris, was one of those chaps whom no one ever hears about but who play a key role in ensuring that the country is well-run. His memoir, Living the Cold War, should be read by anyone trying to understand geopolitics. Inter alia, he is wryly amusing about his attempts to reconcile Margaret Thatcher to German reunification – which helped to symbolise the end of the Cold War, on the West’s terms. He was right: she, for once, wrong.
Christopher was an old-fashioned diplomat. Cerebral, with a mind like a clear blue winter’s day, and always happier offering his own analysis rather than his own views, he effortlessly followed Talleyrand’s dictum: “Surtout, pas trop de zèle”. Although he never trumpeted them (the trumpet would not have been his instrument) he did have two twinned deeply-rooted beliefs and values: patriotism and public service.
In earlier days, he also served in Moscow and remained an expert on Soviet matters. He was there en poste on the crucial nerve-racking evening when it was not clear that nuclear war would be avoided. Knowing that there was no prospect of sleep, he and three friends played bridge all night. In the course of it, they concluded that they would go on living, because Khrushchev wanted to see his grandchildren grow up.
It would be interesting to know if the same applies to Vladimir Putin. There is a further sad irony: that Christopher, who had done his bit to manage and win the first Cold War, and who retired from the Foreign Office with success in sight and optimism in the air, should leave the scene in a very different atmosphere at the beginning of the second Cold War.
Even assuming that this new war does stay cold, there is no reason to expect that it will be brief. Putin cannot back down, except on terms which would be wholly unacceptable to the Ukrainians. That said, is Putin in control of his own destiny? There is growing evidence that the logistics underpinning his invasion plans were seriously defective. We can take it for granted that Putin’s advisors do not include Russian equivalents of Christopher Mallaby. The autocrat of all the Russians has almost certainly been foolish enough to surround himself with characters who tell him what he wants to hear.
In this case, close advisors appear to have encouraged his own belief that the Ukrainians neither could stand up to a Russian blitzkrieg, nor would wish to do so. He ignored the possibility that a harsh history over many generations can breed brave bones and resolute brains. The US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, believes that the Ukrainians might even halt the Russian advance and could certainly prolong the war. That would be a marvellous reward for indomitable courage. The fallen Ukrainian heroes would not have died in vain. We can hope, and pray.
In order to prove Blinken wrong, the Russians, who have already been brutal, would have to bomb and bombard the Ukrainian people on an appalling scale. At the end, they would have overrun a ravaged country with a rebellious population and they would search in vain for allies and trading partners. Putin would have turned his country into a pariah state.
Even before Secretary Blinken’s comments, there was feverish speculation about the gangster in chief’s state of mind and body. His face has a steroid look. Might he have cancer or some other terminal ailment? Moreover, large numbers of Russians have been unpleasantly surprised by events in Ukraine. Millions of them had come to hope that a new Russia would make a decisive break with the era of blood and terror. They do not want to live in a pariah state. But could they be able to disrupt Putin’s plans to lead them into one? In the context of Ireland, Gladstone once said: “The resources of civilisation are not yet exhausted”. If Putin were to paraphrase that, it would no doubt read: “The resources of repression are not yet exhausted”. Yet the threat of repression has not deterred brave Russians from protesting.
How destabilising are those demonstrations? Is there any chance that Russian generals and security chiefs might move against him? Or are they all incorrigible lick-spittles? One might have thought that even those who gave the invasion their thoughtless support might now be wondering where this is all going. Now that the blitz has gone out of the blitzkrieg, could it be that some hitherto worm-like creatures may now think it politic to turn? Even under a tyrant, failure can be destructive of illusions. So what do the former fawners now think of their boss? Then again, what does he think about them? Has paranoia inspired him to ensure that his grip is unbreakable? Has he carefully selected subordinates who feel that they dare not trust their colleagues and that it is only safe to sit at his decreed distance down the long table and act as an echo-chamber.
As our hopes outrun our knowledge, it is wise to take counsel from caution. Yet one point is clear. Eventually, there will have to be negotiations, but not with Putin. We will have to wait for a second Gorbachev to end the second Cold War.
In the meantime, we should do everything possible to reach out to as many Russians as possible. Putin is in a position to echo Macbeth. “I am in blood/Stepped in so far that, should I wade no more/Returning were as tedious as go o’er.” But that does not apply to the vast majority of Russians. The West should make it clear that we regard them too as victims. Although Putin may have created a gangster state, eternal Russia is not a gangster nation.