Small Wars Journal

When Expansionism Fails: Putin, Bagdhadi, and Keeping Up Appearances

Wed, 12/16/2015 - 5:15pm

When Expansionism Fails: Putin, Bagdhadi, and Keeping Up Appearances

Stan Wiechnik

Question – what do Vladimir Putin and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi have in common?  Answer – both man’s dream of territorial expansion are failing.  While both had initial successes – Putin in the Crimea and Baghdadi in Syria and Northern Iraq, of late, both have seen their dreams fade.  Putin’s forces in the Ukraine have not expanded their influence and have failed to consolidate any gains.  Baghdadi is even worse off, losing key terrain over the last year to everyone from the Kurds to his old compatriots, the al Nursa Front.  So what is a strongman to do?  Image is everything.  Supporters follow a strongman because they believe he is invincible, or at least not a loser.  If kinks appear in their leader’s armor, dissolution and disenchantment will splinter the devotees.  If their leader appears weak, then that leader is open to attack by others seeking the throne.

Luckily for our anti-heroes, there is a solution – diversion.  If you are not succeeding in one theater, open up an offensive in another.  Putin, after years of ignoring Assad, has suddenly decided to aide him in his fight against ISIS.  He seeks to join the coalition of Western states reminiscent of the Yalta Conference. Bagdhadi, with his history of work with al Qaeda, “ran back to mamma” and returned to international terrorism.  He seeks to make the West believe that his numbers are legion and every refugee is a part of his world-wide army.  

While some might consider these acts as increasing each strongman influence on the world stage, both cases reveal a weakness in their primary efforts.  Putin cannot succeed in protecting the “Russian Speakers,” code for ethnic Russians moved into concurred territory during Stalin’s reign.  He will not be able to force Europe to accept his territorial aims.  Similarly, Baghdadi’s vision of a restored Caliphate is slipping away with every airstrike.  He is not gaining ground anymore.  Without victories, it is hard to convince the faithful to give up their lives and join the jihad.  Both had to do something.  Both chose the same course of action.  A slight-of-hand to distract the masses with “victories” on other fronts in hopes no one notices that they are losing ground on their primary ambitions.

So, before you believe that Russia, led by Putin, bear chested, riding a white stallion, armed with only his hockey stick, will save the West’s efforts in Syria and singlehandedly crush ISIS; before you cower in fear of every refugee because they are agents of the Rolex wearing pretender Bagdhadi, realize that you are witnessing the actions of two men whose carefully crafted image is their true source of power, and what they are most afraid of losing.  Before you tremble in fear of the Wizard’s stage show, pay a little attention to the man behind the curtain.  In reality, both these leaders are losing their ability to achieve the territorial gains and maintain their followers, and both are desperately working to ensure that those followers don’t begin to look elsewhere for leadership.

Comments

Both Putin and Bagdadi are nearing the top of their "dead-cat" bounces.

While both are still capable of much bloody mischief, both must suspect that the light at the end of their tunnel is a train coming the other way.

Putin may not admit that demographics and low commodity prices indicate that Russia will soon be just a huge landmass, third-world kleptocracy---with nukes. But that's the way things will probably go.

Al-Bagdadi? If one of the dozen or so other would-be leaders of the Caliphate doesn't ice him first, a drone will assuredly take care of the job sooner or later. And the one after him, and the one after that.

Considering the lack of leadership and vision at the top, the USA could be in a much worse position, imo.

Re: Russia, ISIS, etc., if we were to change the title of the article above from:

"When Expansion Fails ... " to

"When Containment and Roll Back Succeeds ... "

Then might we see things -- as per Putin, Bagdhadi, etc. -- differently?

Thus, to change the author's concluding thought above

From:

"In reality, both these leaders (Putin and Bagdhadi) are losing their ability to achieve the territorial gains and maintain their followers, and both are desperately working to ensure that those followers don’t begin to look elsewhere for leadership."

To:

"In reality, both these leaders have succeeded in preventing the U.S./the West from gaining greater power, influence and control in their back yards. This, by preventing the U.S./the West from transforming states and societies, in these regions, more along modern western political, economic and social lines. Based on the success of these such endeavors, these leaders have now felt bold enough to expand their such "containment/roll back" operations to areas further afield."

Thus, to see Putin, Bagdhadi (et al.), and their common "containment/roll-back" strategies (and the hybrid warfare approaches employed in these such strategies' behalf), stop U.S./Western "expansionist" efforts dead in their tracks. This, as these leaders -- together or separately -- and for the moment at least -- appear to have prevented the U.S./the West's from achieving its political objective, which is:

a. To gain greater power, influence and control in these regions of the world; this,

b. By transforming various states and societies, within these regions, more along modern western political, economic and social lines.

Thus, to view Putin, Bagdhadi, etc., actions today less from the point of view of "expansionist failure" (this, in fact, being a better characterization of U.S./Western efforts) and, instead, more from a "containment/roll back success" perspective?

In this manner to better understand why these guys (Putin, Bagdhadi, etc) would now feel bold enough to move even further forward; this, in the hopes of causing the U.S./the West to abandon its expansionist designs (at least in their backyard/their sphere of interest) completely?

Herein to see our "Pivot to the East" as these guys (Putin, Bagdhadi, etc.) -- and via their common "containment/roll back, etc. efforts -- believing that they have achieved much toward this exact end?

Putin, Bagdhadi, etc., however, must know that their current moment of success is fleeting.

Why?

Because they are watching as the U.S./the West re-organizes and re-groups (think "advice and assist," etc); this, so that the next time we move forward to transform states and societies (more along modern western lines) in Putin, Bagdhadi, etc.'s own backyard, we will have the local "muscle" needed to (a) overcome our opponents "containment/roll back" efforts and to (b) see our such "expansionist" projects through.

The "when expansion fails" thesis offered above, possibly adapted to the recent failures of the United States/the West:

"If you are not succeeding in one theater, open up an offensive in another."

Thus, to consider that the U.S./the West -- having the dream of expansion (not of territory in our case but of our way of life, our way of governance, etc.) -- and having seen the U.S./the West's such dreams fade in one area of the world (to wit: in the Greater Middle East), to consider a solution of diversion.

Thus, if the U.S./the West is not seen to be succeeding in one theater (in our case the Greater Middle East) then, as a diversion, to shift focus to another theater (to wit: the "Pivot to the East")???

This, so that the U.S./the West might "keep up appearances???"