War in Ukraine: why does Russia need face-saving?

Putin miscalculated his attack and is running out of options to save Russia from economic losses, domestic protests

Since the invasion of Ukraine on 24^th February, Russia has been subjected to international condemnation, isolation and biting sanctions by the West. After weeks of national resistance and resilience demonstrated by the beleaguered people of Ukraine, Russia now needs a face-saving option. Russian President Vladimir Putin miscalculated the adventure of attacking Ukraine and is now running out of options to save his country from colossal economic losses and prevent domestic anti-war protests.

The aggressor’s need for face-saving signals towards the need for a roadmap or strategy that can cease violence and establish peace. To save itself from further condemnation and a collapse of the economy, Russia must pay the price in the form of a regime change. Putin will need to go because he reflects a chauvinist and expansionist mindset, which led to the first occupation of Crimea in 2014 and the recent invasion of Ukraine.

According to an editorial in The Economist, “If Mr. Putin causes a bloodbath, the West can tighten the screws. An oil and gas embargo would further ruin Russia’s economy. And there is work to do in Russia. Military commanders should know that they will be prosecuted for war crimes. The West can discreetly assure them that, if they remove Russia’s president from power, Russia will get a fresh start. A palace coup may come to seem more plausible as the horror of what Mr. Putin has done sinks in. The economy faces disaster. Russian military casualties are growing.” Will the face-saving formula of eliminating Putin for Russia’s safe exit from Ukraine work or will the hardliners in Moscow stand behind their leader and remain confident in winning the war? Will the Russian people who are facing the ordeals of sanctions and economic meltdown remove Putin and his clique by a popular revolt?

Despite a ban on anti-war demonstrations and laws to arrest protesters in Russia, frequent anti-war demonstrations have taken place in recent days. This reflects popular discontent amongst the Russians over their government’s involvement in Ukraine and the perceived genocide of the Ukrainians. On 13^th March, nearly 800 Russians were arrested for protesting the military operation in Ukraine. In St Petersburg, a protester expressed her chagrin by lamenting, “It’s scary to go outside, of course, they are detaining everyone. Many of my friends have been detained in the past few days, some were even expelled from the university.” Within the past week, police have arrested more than 5,000 protesters across Russia. In the last three decades, Russia has given its citizens relatively more freedom, which is now apparent through the growing dissent. A major challenge for the Russian regime is the popular resentment against Putin’s aggression in Ukraine. The regime has been accused of serious human rights violations almost comparable to the Serbian military genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

It has been almost a month since Russia attacked Ukraine and struck cities and towns with bombs and missiles yet Russian forces have remained unable to occupy the capital Kyiv and other major towns. The fierce resistance of Ukrainians has impeded their efforts. Western countries provided anti-tank and stinger missiles to the Ukrainian military, which have caused significant losses to Russian forces. The dead bodies of Russian soldiers that have been sent back to Russia are further augmenting anti-war sentiment.

More than the beleaguered Ukrainian regime and its Western supporters, it is the Russian president who needs face-saving to avert serious consequences of blatant human rights violations of his forces in Ukraine. There are three reasons that a face-saving option is the need of the hour to prevent further bloodshed in Ukraine and its fallout in Russia.

First, face-saving might be possible if mediation to end the conflict is seriously pursued. Diplomacy and dialogue are one option. Turkey and Israel can play a fundamental role in mediation because of their closeness to both Moscow and Kyiv, which can ensure a safe exit for President Putin. Although Ukraine has agreed to talk to Russia without preconditions, it is unclear whether the mediation will be able to play a decisive role with the war still going on. To create a congenial environment for dialogue, a permanent ceasefire must be established, and the Russian leadership must drop its condition that Kyiv will not become a member of NATO or the European Union. Putin’s desire for regime change in Kyiv is unrealistic and will not be accepted by Ukraine or the West.

Second, eliminating Putin can be an acceptable face-saving formula to end the war in Ukraine because the West has blamed the Russian president for the prevailing crisis. Will the Russian establishment, which largely subscribes to Putin’s mindset on Ukraine acquiesce to Western pressure and agree to drop their leader in the larger interest of the country? The impact of the hard-hitting sanctions imposed on Russia will begin materialising in the coming weeks resulting in a predictable collapse of its banking and financial system. China may try to bail Putin out from the existing predicament; however, it may not be possible because of the outrage, particularly in Europe against Russia’s blatant aggression against a sovereign state.

Third, the elimination of Putin does not seem very credible because most Western countries have held a different approach towards war and invasion in other parts of the world. Particularly the US and the UK looked the other way when countries like Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Afghanistan faced grave humanitarian crises and millions of people perished because of foreign intervention. The world has also continuously ignored India’s blatant human rights violations in the Indian illegally occupied Jammu and Kashmir.

Many critics have accused the West of double standards by singling Putin out and ignoring the humanitarian crises and war crimes in other countries. Had Ukraine been a Muslim country and not part of Europe, no Western power would have reacted sympathetically. The entire Western world has adopted a singular voice in condemning the Russian attack on Ukraine. It would have made more sense had it taken the same position in the recent past when foreign occupation took place in Muslim or other developing nations.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 20^th, 2022.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.