British-Polish historian Norman Davies has issued a sobering assessment of Vladimir Putin’s long-term geopolitical strategy, declaring it a profound failure. In a recent appearance on TVP World’s On the Record program, Davies argued that Putin’s efforts to reconstruct a modern version of the Russian or Soviet Empire have not only stalled but have exposed deep vulnerabilities within the Russian Federation. This miscalculation in Ukraine, according to the renowned expert on Central and Eastern European history, could hasten the breakup of Russia itself, echoing the collapses of past empires.

Davies, whose works such as Europe: A History and studies on Poland and the Eastern Front have shaped understandings of the region’s tumultuous past, brings a long-view perspective to the current conflict. After more than two decades in power, Putin has secured only piecemeal gains from the former Soviet sphere. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine launched in February 2022 was intended to be a swift operation to reassert dominance, neutralize a perceived Western threat on Russia’s borders, and rally domestic support through nationalist fervor. Instead, it has devolved into a grinding war of attrition that has drained Russia’s resources, military capabilities, and international standing.

The Illusion of Strength Shattered

One of the central points in Davies’ analysis is the stark contrast between the Soviet Union’s military prowess during World War II and today’s Russian forces. The Red Army of 1944-45 represented a juggernaut capable of overwhelming Nazi Germany. In comparison, Russia’s performance in Ukraine has revealed logistical failures, corruption in defense procurement, outdated tactics, and an inability to achieve air superiority or decisive breakthroughs despite numerical advantages in certain phases.

“Russia is a shadow of its former self,” Davies remarked, underscoring how the conflict has demonstrated the limits of Moscow’s power. High casualties, estimated in the hundreds of thousands, combined with equipment losses that Western intelligence assessments describe as staggering, have forced Russia to rely on North Korean troops, Iranian drones, and Chinese dual-use components. This dependency highlights a reversal from Cold War-era self-sufficiency to a junior partnership in an emerging axis with authoritarian states.

Economically, the war has imposed severe strains despite sanctions evasion through parallel imports and redirected energy exports. Inflation, labor shortages due to mobilization and emigration of skilled workers, and a militarized budget have distorted Russia’s economy. While short-term resilience exists through wartime spending, long-term sustainability is questionable, particularly as global energy transitions reduce reliance on Russian hydrocarbons.

The Vassalage to China and Far Eastern Risks

A particularly insightful element of Davies’ commentary concerns Russia’s relationship with China. Far from an equal partnership, Moscow has become increasingly subordinate to Beijing. China dominates trade in Russia’s Far East, extracts resources on favorable terms, and holds leverage over critical technologies and markets. Davies predicted that this dynamic could lead to territorial shifts, notably around Vladivostok and surrounding areas acquired by Russia in the 19th century through unequal treaties with the Qing Dynasty.

“It’s only a matter of time before the Chinese take it back,” he suggested. This scenario is not immediate but plausible in a post-Putin era of weakened central control. Russia’s vast territory, spanning 11 time zones and encompassing numerous ethnic republics and autonomous regions, has always posed governance challenges. The war has exacerbated ethnic tensions, with disproportionate recruitment from minority regions like Buryatia, Dagestan, and Tuva leading to grievances over “cannon fodder” status. Incidents like Yevgeny Prigozhin’s 2023 mutiny briefly exposed fractures in the power structure, hinting at potential future instability.

Historical parallels abound. The Russian Empire collapsed amid World War I defeats and revolutionary fervor in 1917. The Soviet Union dissolved in 1991 following economic stagnation, the Afghan quagmire, and Gorbachev’s reforms that unleashed pent-up nationalist aspirations. Putin has repeatedly framed the Soviet breakup as a “geopolitical catastrophe,” driving his revanchist policies. Yet, by pursuing imperial restoration through force, he risks repeating the cycle of overreach leading to implosion.

Internal Fault Lines and the Specter of Fragmentation

Russia’s federal structure includes 21 republics and numerous other administrative units with varying degrees of autonomy, many rooted in non-Russian ethnic identities. While Putin’s regime has centralized power aggressively—suppressing regional leaders, media, and opposition—prolonged war could erode this control. Economic exhaustion might fuel protests, as seen in limited anti-mobilization demonstrations. Elite discontent, evidenced by occasional purges or mysterious deaths, suggests paranoia at the top.

Experts like Harvard historian Serhii Plokhy have drawn comparisons to imperial declines, noting that Ukraine’s successful resistance could inspire or embolden centrifugal forces elsewhere. A defeat or frozen conflict perceived as humiliating could undermine Putin’s legitimacy, triggering succession struggles or regional assertions of independence, particularly in the North Caucasus or Siberia.

Davies’ view aligns with broader analyses that Russia’s multi-ethnic empire, held together by authoritarian control and resource wealth, faces existential pressures in the 21st century. Demographic decline among ethnic Russians, brain drain, and the costs of maintaining a vast territory amplify these risks.

Poland-Ukraine Relations: Justice Versus Timing

Shifting focus, Davies addressed ongoing frictions between Poland and Ukraine over the Volhynia massacres of 1943-1944, in which Ukrainian Insurgent Army forces killed tens of thousands of Polish civilians. Poland maintains strong historical memory and demands recognition, but Davies cautioned against pressing these issues aggressively while Ukraine wages an existential defense against Russian aggression.

“The Poles are absolutely right, of course, about Volhynia,” he affirmed. However, “this is just not the moment… to bang the drum about historical disputes.” Reconciliation, he argued, requires patience, education, and goodwill—processes ill-suited to wartime. This balanced stance reflects Davies’ deep knowledge of Polish-Ukrainian intertwined histories, marked by both solidarity and tragedy. Recent diplomatic appeals from Catholic leaders in both nations echo this call for pragmatism amid shared threats.

Poland’s support for Ukraine—through humanitarian aid, military supplies, and hosting millions of refugees—remains crucial to the broader European effort. Navigating historical memory without derailing present-day alliance is a delicate but necessary task.

Empire’s Endgame?

As the war grinds into its fifth year, outcomes remain uncertain. Ukraine’s resilience, bolstered by Western aid, has inflicted strategic costs on Russia far beyond initial expectations. If Putin’s regime cannot deliver victory or a favorable settlement, the accumulated pressures—military, economic, demographic, and political—could precipitate rapid change.

Davies’ prediction that the Ukraine failure may speed Russia’s breakup is provocative but grounded in historical patterns. Empires rise and fall; few endure indefinite overextension. For Russia, the path forward involves confronting the limits of revanchism. A post-imperial future might involve decentralization, economic reorientation, and normalized relations with neighbors—though the transition could be turbulent.

Norman Davies’ analysis serves as a reminder that hubris in pursuit of lost glory often sows the seeds of decline. Putin’s Ukraine gamble, intended to secure legacy as a restorer of greatness, may instead mark the beginning of the end for Russia’s imperial form. The coming months and years will test whether Moscow can adapt or succumbs to the forces it has unwittingly unleashed. Observers worldwide watch closely, as the stability of one of the world’s largest nations carries profound global implications.

About The Author