Recent developments suggest Putin is gaining the upper hand, not just in the Middle East but also in Ukraine. At the Munich Security Conference (Feb. 16-18), there was a kind of deja vu of Munich 1938, the time when nascent Czechoslovakia was sacrificed to tame the Hitler threat. The Russians have taken Avdiyivka in a strategic win, and Alexei Navalny's death marked the solidification of Putin's domestic position. There was an eerie feel to the conference, a bit like the WEF meeting in Davos, Switzerland, earlier in January. Constant chat of 'will they, won’t they' pass the Ukraine funding bill in the U.S. Congress dominated proceedings. There was the uninspiring coterie of Kamala Harris, Olaf Scholtz, and a tired Zelenskyy offering more talk but little resolution. Then there was the revelation that the Czech president had offered the Ukrainians 800,000 artillery shells if they could be paid for them, although Petr Pavel used the term 'aid'. Behind the scenes, however, it transpires that Ukraine is more focused on the cash from Congress, with Zelensky privately rubbishing the Czech shells since 500,000 of them are 155mm and 300,000 are old Soviet-style 122mm. Not good enough.

Far more worrying is a broader criticism of the Ukrainian military leadership as amateurish, which sources are contrasting with the Russian appointment of General Andrei Mordvichev, the victor in Avdiyivka. Mordvichev, speaking in September, spoke of a long campaign:

'I think there's still plenty of time to spend. It is pointless to speak about a specific period. If we are talking about Eastern Europe, which we will have to, of course then it will be longer.'

The Russians are employing the military tactic of  'defeat in detail,' using large forces on particular enemy positions. This is costly in men for the Russians, but these divide-and-conquer assaults have exposed the stretching of Ukraine's forces and a diminution in artillery power.

Meanwhile, in the Middle East, Putin's latest strategy is to build an Arab-Islamic front. This could prove existential for Israel. Putin's invitation to the Palestinian Authority leader Mohammed Shtayyeh and to Hamas signals a new confidence from the Kremlin, ostensibly from increasing wins on the Ukraine battlefield. Putin and his potential role as the 'honest broker' adds another aspect to the mounting pressure on Netanyahu. This would be in opposition, however, to British and French governments, who seek the disbandment of Hamas.

This new Putin move may work because what the bombing of Gaza and the deaths of thousands of civilians has done is to drive moderate Palestinians into the arms of Hamas. Israel has undermined the Palestine Authority by allowing settlement encroachment into the West Bank. Netanyahu, whilst playing the tough-guy card, may well be digging his own grave. The two-state solution is gaining momentum in Europe. The wild card is Trump, who will, no doubt, scupper the idea if he gets into power.

No surprise also that the Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran was in Moscow on Thursday. The Grand Alliance, with the trinity of China, Russia, and Iran at the forefront, is gradually assembling a coterie of strategic influence. Consequently, through BRICs, alliances, and a type of Chinese Tianxia (all under heaven), the Russians are presenting a post-Westphalian playbook of dominion. The world is moving to 'grossraum' empires, and the U.S. dollar world is in structural retreat. This means huge difficulties for Israel and also the former East European states. Whether Putin conquers them by war, stealth, or economic means 'a la China' (soft loans, cultural economic expansion, the Silk Road) is by the by.

In the West, there is no such confidence in their Alliance as economic woes and splits dominate funding to Ukraine and, to a lesser extent, Israel. Putin, with a Kalashnikov in one hand and a copy of Machiavelli's The Prince in the other, is seeking to present the world with a confident, alliance-building empire. Putin is observing the dissolution of the Western axis. In the U.S., the Friends Committee, a Quaker group, is calling for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. In the UK huge demonstrations signal a more pro-Palestinian line.

The powerful Putin axis has many facets, and the role of Iran could prove pivotal. Iran can summon the Houthi ship breakers to heap pressure on Western economies. It is all part of what the Russians call 'Bipolarity 2.0'. The Rand Report of 2022 postulates that Russia sees the geopolitical dynamic as having two possible paths. One is the continuance of a unipolar world of liberal governance, globalisation based on a Western financial system, and U.S. dominance in foreign policy. The second alternative is Russia probing and attempting to dismantle this hegemony. This is due to their perceived inability to achieve economic goals and access to capital and technology. An axis consisting of China and Russia makes this much more likely. The Ukraine war is not about the Ukraine. It is this vying for position, this intrinsic planning (what the Russians call a 'VPO' analysis) that sees its strategy as a long game. Underlying all this is a military perspective that needs to match adversaries. The Russians forecast that, under existing trajectories of globalisation, by 2040, the U.S. will be 60% stronger in military capacity. Globalisation is a Janus-faced chalice for Russia; at once a source of oil revenue, yet potentially debilitating. Economic sanctions compound the problem, and restrict access to technologies and capital. For the Russians, war is a means to disrupt the flow of geopolitics. The second alternative sees a VPO of a reformed military balance in which China, by 2040, equals the U.S. in military capability, and the Russian deficit is reduced to 20%.

This vision, called 'Bipolarity 2.0' now drives Russian and Chinese policy. It aims to create favourable blocs in BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organisation). The debacle of Munich this week illustrates the complete absence of planning requirements within liberal democracy. This incoherence is driven by the limited terms of representative government executives and the poor caliber of elected bureaucrats. The Achilles heel of the West is its own paradigm of the short-termism of liberalism -- there is no 'telos' or guiding principles.

Brian Patrick Bolger LSE, University of Liverpool. He has taught political philosophy and applied linguistics in Universities across Europe. His articles have appeared in leading publications and journals in the US, the UK, Italy, Canada and Germany etc . His new book- Nowhere Fast: Democracy and Identity in the Twenty First Century is now published by Ethics International Press.

Image: Public Domain