In this exclusive interview with Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Georgian Service, British-Swedish geostrategist, advisor, and author Mark Brolin discusses the ongoing war in Ukraine, Russia’s strategic failures, and what the West could have done differently. Reflecting on four years of conflict, Brolin offers insights into the long-term consequences for Russia, Europe, and global geopolitics, including the role of technology and the AI revolution.
Where do we find ourselves at the moment, four years on and entering the fifth year in the Ukrainian war?
I would say we have upsides and downsides. The downsides are quite obvious: it has been a human tragedy on an epic scale in actually two countries, affecting lots of Ukrainians and also many Russians who have been led into this war. That’s a major tragedy. But we have some upsides as well.
And it is that Russia has been proven to be much weaker than most people thought at the start. I think that is a big win in a way, seeing that Putin is certainly not a strategic genius. He has made mistakes from the start. He has made so many mistakes in this war. I think his original sin was even when he took over from Boris Yeltsin, that he did not choose the path of modernity. He chose the path of backwardness; of clinging to the past.
So, in that sense, his failure started before the war, and he had to do something about it. I think that’s why he started the war. It is a classic tactic to divert attention from domestic failures. It’s been a massive failure for Russia. It has set Russia back some 150 years.
Of course, his propaganda apparatus portrays things differently, but this has been such a failure. I mean, everyone is losing. In this war, Ukraine has lost in a way, and Russia has lost as well. But I think long-term Russia will have lost much more.
He had so many other options, so many modern routes, and he chose war and destruction. And now Russia is in such major trouble, it will backfire economically in so many ways. And while he is the big culprit, of course, he started the war, he is far from being the only one who made mistakes. If we take Europe, for example, it is the blend of disarmament and making yourself dependent on your arch-enemy for energy consumption. I mean, that is an epic failure, there are no two ways about it. Without that, possibly, there would not have been this war. Ukraine, Poland, and other countries were warning against this and were just ignored. So, that is a big failure on the European part.
And then we have, of course, Washington with the White House president, who is the most Moscow-friendly ever, for reasons nobody really understands. So, in a sense, despite Putin’s major blunder, he has been really, really lucky in the White House. And the European response was so meek, at least from the start. It has improved, but it was too meek.
What would have been the other course of action on the West’s part? What could it have done differently?
In the best-case scenario, which is not going to play out, I think if there was a will in Europe to do so, Russia could actually fairly easily be pushed back all the way, and even lose Crimea. I think it would be perfectly possible. If you look at the size of the economies, Russia is only number five. Germany, UK, France, Italy, all have larger economies. And at the end of the day, money matters, and military operations cost money. So that is a massive constraint for Russia. If you take the Nordic countries and Poland together, that joint economy is larger than Russia’s. So, there is lots of capacity to push Russia back. But in the real world, that’s not how things work, because there is not sufficient will.
It is a tragedy for the Russian people that Putin has set them back almost 150 years
But I think the will in Europe is actually building. In a sense, Russia has made the same mistake as Japan did when bombing Pearl Harbor. They saw only decadence and lots of talk in the US, and that is what Russia is seeing in Europe as well. But it has been a bit like waking a sleeping giant. Now we have Finland and Sweden joining NATO, and also the rearmament in Europe across the board. Europe cannot afford to make him a big winner, and they should have pushed back from the start. It would have cost much less, both in terms of money, weapons, and lives. But that’s too late now.
How well has the West used these four years, essentially bought by Ukrainian blood?
Poorly. I wouldn’t say appallingly, because without the resources from the West, Ukraine wouldn’t have survived. But it has still been half-hearted. It should have been much more from the start, because then Russia could have been pushed back.
And I think this goes back to how we have misjudged Putin for actually decades. We have thought that the West has seen him and perceived him as some sort of strategic genius, much stronger than he actually is. So he should have been pushed back much, much, much further long ago. It would have been so much cheaper for Europe and the West in general. It has never been as easy to push Russia back, because with the help of Ukraine and with the help of united Western forces, this could have been over long ago.
And it would have been so much cheaper. Now we have this threat of Russia. I think it’s overblown, because Russia doesn’t have the capacity to threaten the rest of Europe. It can only threaten the border states, which it has always done anyway. And actually, now there are fewer bordering states that it can feasibly threaten than in the past. So it is weaker than it has been in several hundred years.
On that particular scenario where Russia actually attacks one of the border states or tries to cause some mischief, how do you see that playing out? Where and when would that happen, and what would be the likely outcome, do you think?
Yes, that is the big risk. The reason he’s hesitating to conclude peace is that he wouldn’t know what to do with his army if peace were concluded in Ukraine. He would have to return to the domestic situation. There are so many problems.
So in a way, it’s in his interest to keep up the war machine, even though he can’t actually afford it. As to where it would happen, it would not happen in any NATO country. He would never be brave enough to do that. He would be gone in four hours, probably. And he can’t do it within the Chinese sphere of influence either.
So that leaves only a few countries. And that’s like Moldova and Georgia, and the like. I don’t think it is likely he would do it, but there still is a chance. His advisors are all sycophants, so they tell him what he wants to hear, even if it is extremely ill-advised. So it wouldn’t be a rational thing to do, but then again, it wasn’t rational of him to invade Ukraine either.
When you say that if he were to attack a NATO member country, it would be over for him in four hours, what about something minor but aimed at undermining NATO credibility? How united do you think the Western response would be?
Yeah, that’s a great question. I agree with some of the hesitation in your sentiment here, because I think it might not be totally united. Still, I think it would be much more united than when Ukraine was attacked, because nobody trusts Putin anymore. But if we had Trump still in the White House, there might be some hesitation to push back. One major change on the playing field is that Trump is not as influential in Washington anymore. It has shifted back to a more normal balance of power, with Congress much more influential. And in Congress, there is bipartisan support for Ukraine.
Europe cannot afford to make Putin a big winner, and they should have pushed back from the start
Another point is that domestically, I’m not so sure the Russian military would embrace the opportunity, or the “chance,” to take on NATO forces, as they know the losses would be even more devastating. So he would be gone quite quickly, but not because of total unity in the West, rather because of the combination of a more resolute West and a more split Russia.
For any of that to happen, Ukraine should be dealt with somehow. Can you see Putin actually compromising on any of his maximalist demands?
I think people are seeing that Russia is in a moment of weakness. People see that it has become a junior partner to China, that Putin draws on resources from there. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be able to sustain it. He was even dependent on Iranians making drones for him. Washington is turning a little bit less Moscow-friendly. Europe is catching up.
But then again, we have this sycophant thing again. So Putin might not see this, but if he were wise, he would conclude peace right now. I think the forces are gathering slowly, slowly, pushing him more and more back. So I would be surprised if there was a fifth anniversary, but I think chances are better that there is not a fifth anniversary.
Can Putin survive peace, an agreement that is compromise-based? How does he solve his domestic problems? What does it take for the House of Vladimir to fall?
As soon as there is peace, and he’s forced into peace, people will ask many of the hard questions. And of course, he has an army protecting himself personally. That is what is holding back someone from toppling him. But in the coming years, I think the focus might turn to keeping Russia together. We’ve seen all the time that when Russia is strained, the peripheral regions press for more autonomy. And the legitimacy of Putin is already eroding, even despite all the propaganda. When you have had an autocrat ruling for a long time, the country is sort of divided into factions. And I think the Russian regime, even if it manages to cling on a couple of more years, much like in Iran, the magic is gone. People have seen that he is not infallible. That usually means it is only a question of time before the regime falls.
Is he also at his most dangerous and desperate due to this weakness? And if it were to fall, what would be the risks and dangers, given we’re talking about a nuclear power here?
Of course, it’s an uncomfortable situation that Russia has nuclear weapons. Still, I think anyone trying to press the buttons would face resistance domestically. I’m not sure if Putin today told his military to press this button, these people would know that the bomb would be coming from the West within possibly a minute. So I don’t think they would do it. I don’t think Russia would. I don’t think Putin would do it, however desperate. I don’t think he’s that kind of person who would be fanatical in that sense. I think he wants to live, very much so, and if you push the button, he will be gone—dead. Team Putin started this war to stay in power. That’s the ultimate objective, not to give up and die.
The fall of the Soviet Union was less troublesome than many expected, but it was still accompanied by a number of regional wars. Would you expect a similar scenario if Russia were to come crashing down?
Yes, I think that would be more than likely. We would see a new equilibrium. There would be a power vacuum in Central Asia, in the South Caucasus, and especially in the region close to Ukraine. Then we have Dagestan and Chechnya, areas where people would try to become more independent again, and probably succeed. We’d end up with a much diminished Moscow, fighting inwardly to retain these territories, as opposed to bringing war on its neighbors.
And I think one other fact that is never discussed, but which I think should be discussed more, is how the AI revolution is changing the geopolitical situation. That is rarely mentioned in this context, but I think it should be, because now when Russia has wasted so many resources, they are so far behind in AI, and so much is changing. Of course, the military has adopted AI, which is quite advanced, both in Ukraine and in Russia. But that’s about it. That has always been the case with Russia: the technology has been advanced within the military, but the rest of society lags so far behind.
And that also leaves them going to be even more diminished going forward. It is a tragedy, in a sense, for the Russian people that he has taken them back almost 150 years. I mean, it is the largest country by land area on the planet, they have the ninth-largest population, and they are one of Europe’s poorest countries. And they will be even more diminished because of the AI revolution. It is changing everything, and they will be lagging behind.
Interview by Vazha Tavberidze
