By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a year-end press conference, Vladimir Putin admitted that Russia should have begun its invasion of Ukraine sooner and with more thorough preparation. He also discussed Russia’s continued support of the Assad regime in Syria, its strengthened relationship with China, and its assertive nuclear doctrine. Despite claiming progress in Ukraine, Putin expressed openness to compromises to end the conflict. The event, heavily controlled and broadcast nationally, showcased Putin’s perspective on Russia’s current standing in global affairs.
Read the original article here
Putin’s recent televised address to the Russian people contained a startling admission: he should have invaded Ukraine earlier. This statement, delivered during a lengthy marathon broadcast, immediately sparks a cascade of questions and interpretations. Was this a genuine reflection of regret, a strategic miscalculation presented as a moment of self-awareness, or simply a calculated attempt to shift blame and justify his actions?
The timing itself is crucial. The invasion, initially portrayed as a swift, decisive “military operation,” has dragged on far longer than anticipated, resulting in significant losses for Russia and international condemnation. The admission that a “sooner” invasion would have been preferable suggests that Putin underestimated the Ukrainian resistance and the international community’s response. His statement hints at a belief that an earlier strike, before Ukraine had time to build its defenses and secure significant international support, would have led to a more favorable outcome for Russia.
The notion of an earlier invasion raises several counterfactual scenarios. Could Putin have truly achieved a swift victory if he had acted sooner? Perhaps, but the inherent risks are undeniable. A preemptive strike in 2014, immediately following the annexation of Crimea, might have been met with even stronger international resistance than the current conflict. The West, less prepared for a full-scale invasion then, might have responded with even greater force and determination, potentially leading to a much broader and bloodier conflict.
Furthermore, Putin’s admission raises questions about his strategic decision-making process. While he portrays himself as a shrewd and calculating leader, his statement reveals a potential lack of foresight. The suggestion that an earlier invasion would have been more successful underscores the substantial miscalculations that have plagued the Russian military campaign. His words imply that he failed to adequately assess the Ukrainian army’s resilience, the West’s willingness to provide military aid, and the strength of Ukrainian national identity.
The statement also reveals a troubling disregard for human life. The phrase “should have done it sooner” disregards the devastating impact of the invasion on the Ukrainian people and the immense suffering that could have been avoided or lessened with a different timeline. It’s a chillingly detached perspective, prioritizing strategic objectives over the lives and well-being of countless innocent civilians.
Another layer of complexity is added when considering the geopolitical context. The timing of the invasion was likely influenced by various factors including internal politics within Russia, the state of the Russian military, and assessments of Western resolve. Putin’s apparent belief that a Trump administration would have been more lenient, or even complicit, also highlights his calculated gamble on American politics and the impact this had on his decision-making.
Many have speculated about the role of COVID-19 in delaying the invasion. A pandemic surely presented logistical challenges and might have impacted the timing of a large-scale military operation. However, it’s highly unlikely that it was the sole determining factor. The strategic considerations mentioned earlier likely played far more significant roles.
Ultimately, Putin’s statement is a complex and troubling revelation. It’s a candid admission of strategic error, disguised as a show of strength and a subtle attempt to shift responsibility. It doesn’t excuse the brutality of the invasion or lessen its impact. Rather, it reveals a disturbing detachment from the human consequences of his actions and a flawed understanding of the complex geopolitical landscape he operates within. The world watches with apprehension as this conflict continues to unfold, shaped by a leader whose judgment is increasingly questioned even by his own pronouncements.