www-russia.org

Chapter 7: The Paper Tiger’s Roar

In the funereal silence of the briefing room, General Gerasimov droned on, his words a defensive smokescreen of military jargon. The President listened, but his mind was elsewhere, replaying the data points that truly mattered, the ones that confirmed his core strategic thesis.

He remembered the first seventy-two hours of the invasion, the single, gnawing fear of a Western-imposed No-Fly Zone. He remembered the almost sickening wave of relief when the American president had publicly ruled it out. They had folded before the first card was even played.

He remembered the intelligence report detailing Germany’s initial offer of five thousand helmets. He recalled the deep, barking laugh of pure contempt that had erupted from him, a sound that had made his generals flinch. Helmets.

He thought of the endless, agonizing debates in Western parliaments, the slow, fearful trickle of aid, just enough to prolong the conflict but never enough to end it. He thought of his Kerch Bridge, still standing, a monument to their self-imposed red lines.

An aide entered the room and approached him, placing a note discreetly on the table. "The President of France is on the secure line for your scheduled call, sir."

The President rose, leaving his generals in mid-excuse. He walked to his private office, a small smile touching his lips.

The face of the French President, Emmanuel, appeared on the large screen, looking earnest and deeply troubled. “Monsieur le Président,” the Frenchman began, his voice filled with an almost pleading sincerity. “We must find a way to stop this spiral. There is still a path to a negotiated peace, a way to guarantee security for everyone…”

The President listened with a predatory stillness, letting the younger man speak. He did not hear a statesman; he heard a beggar. When the plea was finished, he did not respond to it. Instead, he began to politely, almost academically, interrogate him.

“Monsieur le Président, your words on European security are very moving,” he said, his voice a soft purr. “Tell me, how are your approval ratings this week? I read about the pension reform protests. Very… energetic.”

The French President was visibly taken aback. “That is a domestic matter…”

“Of course,” the President continued smoothly, ignoring the interruption. “And I saw another report, about the difficulties your government is having with a new generation of radicalized youth in the banlieues. A complex social problem. It must demand a great deal of your attention.”

“We are discussing Ukraine—”

“And your military,” the President pressed on, his voice still gentle, the questions like a surgeon’s probes. “A fine, professional force. But I read that the maintenance readiness of your Leclerc tanks is below forty percent. The budget shortfalls… it is always a difficult choice, isn’t it? Butter, or guns?”

The French President was left flustered, speechless. He had come to the call prepared for a diplomatic negotiation about a war. He had been subjected to a brutal, forensic demonstration that the man on the other end of the line knew every one of his domestic political weaknesses and viewed them with utter contempt.

The President leaned forward, a final, thin, cold smile on his lips. “You see, Emmanuel, you worry about your next election. I am worried about the next century. We are not playing the same game.” He paused for a beat. “Thank you for the call.”

He pressed a button, and the screen went blank.

The brief, momentary humiliation of the Engels-2 strike had completely evaporated, replaced by a surge of pure, unadulterated confidence. The conversation had only served to confirm his most deeply held conviction. His opponents were not lions. They were paper tigers, obsessed with their own internal squabbles, and he held every one of them in the palm of his hand.

The Discourse, 7: Strategic Contempt and the Principle of Self-Deterrence

Section 7.1: The Doctrine of Strategic Contempt
A leader's grand strategy is often presumed to be based on a rational calculation of his own nation's strengths versus those of his adversary. The President’s thinking, however, reveals a different and more dangerous doctrine: Strategic Contempt. This is a worldview in which strategy is predicated less on an assessment of the enemy's material capabilities (tanks, planes, GDP) and more on a deeply held conviction of their moral, psychological, or spiritual weakness. The dialogue with the French President is a live demonstration of this doctrine. The Russian leader is not engaging with his counterpart's arguments about peace; he is systematically cataloging his opponent's domestic political weaknesses (protests, social issues, budget shortfalls) to reinforce his own pre-existing belief that his democratic rivals are fundamentally unserious and lack the will for a prolonged struggle.

Section 7.2: The Exploitation of Self-Deterrence
The President's internal monologue about the No-Fly Zone and the Kerch Bridge is a clear analysis of the principle of Self-Deterrence. This phenomenon occurs when a state or alliance, despite possessing overwhelming material superiority, limits its own actions due to a fear of potential escalation. The stronger power, in effect, does the adversary's work for them by creating and adhering to a set of "red lines" that the weaker power has no ability to enforce on its own. The President's strategy was not just to invade Ukraine; it was to present the Western alliance with a series of escalation dilemmas which he correctly calculated they would consistently fail, choosing the perceived safety of inaction over the potential risk of decisive engagement. His confidence is built on the belief that his opponents will always deter themselves.

Section 7.3: The "Different Games" Fallacy
The President’s final, devastating line—"You worry about your next election. I am worried about the next century. We are not playing the same game"—is a concise articulation of the "autocrat's advantage." He perceives the short-term focus of democratic politics, with its electoral cycles and public opinion polls, as a fatal structural weakness. He believes that his own ability to plan on a much longer, historical timescale, unconstrained by popular consent, gives him an insurmountable strategic advantage. While this can be a real advantage in the short term, it is also a dangerous fallacy. By placing himself outside the "game" of normal politics, he also disconnects himself from the feedback mechanisms and reality checks that democratic systems, for all their messiness, provide, making a catastrophic, long-term miscalculation not just possible, but almost inevitable.