This is Putin's personal war. What game are Russia and China playing?

The last five years have been a master class in comparative politics, because at that time something happened that we have not seen so far.

The world's three most powerful leaders - Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Donald Trump - have taken the most extreme measures to stay in power beyond established mandates. One failed. The two succeeded. And this story says a lot about our modern world.

Trump failed for a very simple reason. U.S. laws and regulations have forced him to relinquish power at the end of his four-year term. Despite all his attempts to discredit the election results by attacking his supporters, in order to intimidate the deputies and annul his election defeat.

For Putin and Xia, things are better, at least for now. Unencumbered by democratic norms, they introduced new laws to actually become lifelong presidents.

And that is very sad for the nations they rule.

God sees that modern democracies have their problems, but still have something that totalitarianism lacks. First and foremost is the ability to change course, often by changing leaders, and to publicly discuss alternative ideas before taking action.

These qualities are especially valuable in an era of rapid technological and climate change, when the chances of one person over the age of 60 (like Putin and Xi) making more and more decisions and more and more are left alone as they age.

However, in 2020, Putin forced the Russian Duma to effectively lift the limit on the number of presidential terms. This will enable him to run for president again in 2024 and to remain in office until 2036.

In 2018, Xi persuaded his lawmakers to change China’s constitution and lift restrictions on his presidency. Now he can officially stay in office forever. Provided that he is re-elected president in 2023, which you can most likely assume will be the case.

In 1982, Deng Xiaoping imposed a two-year restriction on the Chinese presidency for one reason: to prevent another Mao Zedong, whose authoritarian leadership and cult of personality combined to keep China in poverty, isolation, and often deadly chaos. Xi successfully passed through this checkpoint. He considers himself irreplaceable and infallible.

But, as we all clearly see, Putin's actions in Ukraine are walking, talking and spilling advertisements, which is a danger posed by the lifelong presidency of a man who considers himself irreplaceable and infallible.

Ukraine is Putin's personal war, and he made all possible mistakes. He overestimated the strength of his army, underestimated the readiness of Ukrainians to fight and die for their freedom, and completely misinterpreted the readiness of the West (government and business) to unite to support Ukraine.

Either his aides fed him lies for fear of telling the truth or he was so convinced of his infallibility that he never doubted himself, which is why he did not prepare his government and society for what his spokesman called the "unprecedented" economic war of the West.

All we know for sure is that Putin banned all criticism in the media and practically prevented the Russians from punishing him in the elections for barbaric stupidity.

In China, the situation is even worse. Since the late 1970s, some 800 million Chinese have come out of extreme poverty. And Xi looks much more serious than Putin. However, the dangers of autocracy are obvious.

Xi did not want to conduct a serious investigation into the circumstances in which the coronavirus appeared in Wuhan or at least share any of the findings of this investigation with the world. Perhaps out of fear that it might adversely affect his leadership.

His desire to rely on the blockade and only Chinese vaccines, which seem to be less effective than Western ones against the Omicron strain, is seriously undermining the Chinese economy.

Xi's bet on an alliance with Putin's Russia also failed quickly. When the two leaders met on February 4 at the opening of the Olympic Games in China, they said that the friendship between the two countries has no borders and "forbidden" areas of cooperation.

The fact that Putin saw this boundless friendship as a green light for the invasion of Ukraine clearly stunned Xi. China is a major importer of oil, corn and wheat from Russia and Ukraine. Therefore, the Russian invasion increased the expenditures on the import of this and other food, and it also contributed to the fall of the Chinese stock market (although it began to recover). It has also forced China to show neutrality in Russia's attack on Ukraine, which has strained Beijing's relations with the European Union, China's largest trading partner.

The question is how many officials in Beijing are now muttering to themselves: "Ah, that happens when you have a lifelong president."

It is comforting to note that one of the most beaten foreign policy clichés is now beginning to look like nonsense. In the past, it was often said that the leaders of China and Russia are smart and always play like chess grandmasters, and these stupid Americans with their casual approach to the world like meat and potatoes can only play checkers.

In fact, it seems to me that Putin is not playing chess, but Russian roulette. And that happiness stops following him when he drilled a hole in the heart of the Russian economy.

And Xi looks paralyzed. He can't figure out which game to play, because his heart is looking for a confrontation with the West, and his mind is telling him that he can't afford it. As a result, China has taken a neutral stance on the greatest war crimes committed in Europe since World War II.

Meanwhile, sleepy Joe in the corner played Lego, methodically linking one ally to another, linking them to common values and fear of external threat, and forming a strong coalition that can cope with this crisis.

At least for now, chaotic democracies, with their regular rotation in power, are outperforming lifelong presidents, who today, like never before, need to stifle all sources of dissent.

This contrast is now very useful, because the movement for global democracy has slowed down everywhere. The evolution of democracy around the world after World War II went through several stages, says Larry Diamond, a Stanford democracy expert and author of Stormy Winds: Saving Democracy from Russian Rage, Chinese Ambitions, and American Complacency.

After World War II, the United States and its Western allies made tremendous efforts to promote democracy around the world. The movement stalled and even reversed in the 1960s as a result of a wave of military and government coups in Africa, Asia and South America.

But a new wave of democracy began in the 1970s after the fall of dictatorships in Portugal, Spain and Greece. Democracy has spread to Asia - and even Tiananmen Square in China. Then the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 sparked another wave of democracy in Eastern and Central Europe, as well as in Russia.

But since 2006, when America weakened due to two wars in the Middle East and the financial crisis of 2008, as well as China's staggering economic recovery, democracy has entered a "global recession," Diamond told me.

"And China and Russia are constantly promoting the narrative that democracies are weak and morally and politically failing. They can't bring order. Authoritarianism is the future. "

Today, the question arises, Diamond added, is Xi and Putin's Feb. 4 declaration, "which says why their 'democratic' systems are numerically larger than bankrupt, helpless liberal democracies," really the pinnacle of their autocracy?

One thing is clear, Diamond said sarcastically: the recent mistakes of Putin and Xi "give authoritarianism a bad reputation."

But to reverse the authoritarian wave, two important things are needed.

First, Putin's attack on Ukraine must fail. After all, it can lead to the fact that he will lose power. Of course, Russia without Putin may not be better or even worse than with him. But if it gets better, then the whole world will get better when there is a worthy leader in the Kremlin.

The second point is even more important. America must show that not only is it good at building alliances abroad, but it can re-create healthy coalitions at home - good government, economic growth, unquestioning transfer of power and more. Our ability to do this in the past has brought us respect and imitation in the world. We have been like that before, and we can be like that again.

If that happens, then my favorite text from the musical Hamilton will become relevant again. In particular, the place where George Washington explains to Alexander Hamilton why he resigned voluntarily and did not run for a third term:

Washington: If we do everything right / We'll teach them how to say hello / You and me.

Hamilton: Mr. President, they will say you are weak.

Washington: No, they will see that we are strong.