Putin Closer to Peace


In the following processes, the issue of whether very basic questions have actually been realized in the Ukraine-Russia War will come to the fore. In terms of the dominant powers, I made a comprehensive comparison of Russia and NATO, which it sees as its concrete enemy (NATO includes the USA and its Partners). Here I have identified four key questions for an analysis. I examined the identified basic questions with Bayesian analysis methods. Based on this analysis, I came to some conclusions. I will give you only the conclusion part of the analysis in order not to disturb the integrity of the subject.

Let me first point out the limits of this study: 1) I have overlooked the psychology of leaders and extraordinary circumstances in the analysis. However, we need to know that this is important and will have a great impact on what will happen. 2) Even for Volodymyr Zelensky as the President of Ukraine, it is necessary to examine the possibilities. In this analysis I have narrowed down the problem, I have studied the possibilities of a World War or Nuclear War.

According to this analysis, the results were as follows:

  • Will Russia sit at the peace table? Peace table: 62% yes. No, 38%. Clearance 12%.
  • Will Russia use limited tactical nuclear weapons? Nuclear option: 57% no. Yes, 43%. Clearance 7%.
  • Will Russia turn the war into a NATO-Russia war by attacking a NATO country? NATO-Russia War: 63% no. Yes, 37%. Clearance 13%.
  • Will the West prepare the necessary conditions for Russia to spread the war? Provocation: 55% yes. No, 45%. Clearance 5%.

According to these results, the main risk develops depending on the provocative field. If the leaders of Russia and Ukraine see the possibility of provocation during the process, the conditions may develop more peacefully. However, as I have stated, I have excluded the psychology of the leaders from the study, and since it indicates a natural state of carrying all the burdens up to now, it is a parameter that will definitely affect the result. Therefore, those who want to turn the process towards peace should make the most effort to approach and persuade the leaders in a reassuring way, not to make them even more aggressive.

The President of the United States of America, Joe Biden, in the simplest way, deliberately uses all kinds of negative words (butcher, murderer, etc.) to the President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. In order to put forward nuclear options, the parties accuse each other of false flag operations. The Nazi discourse in Russia has reached interesting points. These are the best-known examples of provocative issues. Of course, other provocations take place on the field as well. For example, genocide, chemical weapons were used, there are biological agents, etc. The great invisible front of this war; propaganda, media operations, Information War, Cyber ​​War. There are also losses in personal wealth due to the pinpointed sanctions applied, it is not possible to see such effects clearly.

As can be seen, the results appear in percentages that are close to each other. The clearances are between 7-13%. This means that as a result of approaches with positive or negative results, the situation can be affected. If the gaps were (for example) more than 25%, the power to persuade leaders needed for peace or war would also increase.

When Putin is at the critical threshold where he will make a strategic decision on important issues, if this sensitivity is not taken into account and the implemented policies are pursued without care, for example, while Russia does not want to use tactical nuclear weapons by 57% at the moment, you can see that this ratio is 8%, with a shift of 8%. drops to 49. This indicates a critical situation, because the gap is not more than 25%.

What can be said after all? Despite the Kremlin’s use of the language of war, the threat of using nuclear weapons, or the options to spread the war across Europe, the actual circumstances seem appropriate to bring Putin to the peace table. According to the analysis, the option that Putin would not want most would be to involve Russia in a war with NATO (63%). NATO (mainly, the leading countries of NATO, the USA and the UK, follow a more active policy against Russia, these powers) continue to support Ukraine more, since it is considered that Russia will want to stay away from too risky initiatives. However, this issue (especially the heavy and sophisticated weapons, cyber and intelligence support) increasingly corners Putin and causes him to become psychologically tougher.

In that case, it will be beneficial to evaluate the steps to be taken even for the deterrence to be applied from now on, by calculating the risks very well.

Conclusion: The steps of the Western powers that determined the conditions in the Russia-Ukraine War (although they stated that they were not involved in the war) are very important. With these, it may affect Putin’s decisions to a significant extent, lead him to error with the pressure systems they have established, and it may be possible to face a situation that will take steps towards this. So the issues raised are those of a nuclear or world war. The warring parties and supporters of Ukraine aside, let’s look at the whole, when we are at a point where it is necessary to think about the world and the future, the assessments to be made need to be put forward in cool blood. Because the situation is very critical!

NOTE: Due to intellectual property rights, you can use this information by reference.

Gursel Tokmakoglu

Bir cevap yazın

Your email address will not be published.


NATO ve Rusya Analizi


Amerikan Kampanyası

Politika 'ın son yazıları

Kaosu Yönetmek

Okuyucularım bu yazacaklarıma uzak değiller, kaosu yönetmeyi, tam spektrumlu baskı kurmayı, hatta geleceği tarif ederken çokça

Elitizme Karşı Putinizm mi?

Geçtiğimiz gün Putin, Ukrayna'nın dört bölgesinin ilhakı töreninde yaptığı konuşmada, yaptığı savaşın anlamını uzun uzadıya açıkladı.