The world is watching Russia’s war on Ukraine and wondering what its author, President Vladimir Putin, may do next.

The answer to that question lies in his character: one shaped by his background and the Soviet world in which he grew up. The son of Stalin’s personal chef and grandson of an early secret police recruit, Putin enjoyed the best of what the Soviet Union offered and spent his formative years in a world of domestic tension and intrigue — one in which personal situational awareness determined physical survival and future prospects.

That background and personal experience not only made joining the Soviet secret service, or KGB, a natural choice, but professionally advantageous as well. His KGB service accentuated and reinforced his childhood experiences and observations. The man who emerged from the KGB in the 1990s was by necessity a cold, calculating, narcissistic and opportunistic survivor with a vision.

His vision for Russia is founded in his upbringing, and his view of the world shaped by his personal and professional experiences as an adult. A lifelong opponent of democracy in general and NATO in particular, he saw the Soviet Union’s collapse as a national humiliation not unlike that suffered by Germany after World War I.

His actions of the last several years follow the same path as that of Germany’s hardline militarists: a decade of gradual preparation followed by a decade of growing authoritarian power and increasingly aggressive pursuit of irredentist claims. He appeals to Russian nationalism when it suits his political requirements, and to Russian fears at all times. The average Russian sees NATO as a hostile alliance intended to contain Russia, if not prostrate it.

However, Putin knows that Russians today are not the sheep of the Soviet era. His hold on power is as much based on his continuing the appearance of improving Russia’s national power and prestige as it is on his control of the security services; hence, his desperate effort to control the Russian public’s independent access to information. The war’s problems are eroding that control, a key component of his hold on power and potentially, his survival.

Therein lies the driver of his current and future decisions. Ultimately, he is a survivor. Bluster and threats have served him well up to this point. However, his options are narrowing and he is not getting the results he intended.

The weather is soon to turn against him and most of the world has already done so. China is backing him for now but at the cost of buying up Russian assets and supplanting Russian influence in Central Asia. Moreover, the Russian people’s most enduring historical fear is domination by Asia. European conquerors left in defeat but Asian invaders remained for centuries.

His financial allies are abandoning him and he is purging the enablers who helped his rise to power. He can give the order to employ nuclear weapons but realizes the odds are against their being obeyed. Chemical weapons are a more viable option, but using them on Ukrainians risks damaging domestic and international consequences. He reportedly has ordered the mobilization of Russia’s reserves but those forces won’t be ready before June. More importantly, the national response to that mobilization may shape his future since it may collapse the economy or incite widespread opposition.

Given his background, character and that dilemma, his most likely next move is to initiate the brutal suppression of his critics at home and escalate that against the Ukrainian people.

The early evidence has already surfaced from lists of those to be “detained” and the removal of those he promoted into his inner circle. The former is similar to Josef Stalin’s deportation lists of the Baltic countries’ key influencers and leaders in 1940 and 1945. The latter will ensure a team willing to execute Putin’s will.

Honolulu resident Carl O. Schuster is a retired Navy captain and former director of operations at U.S. Pacific Command’s Joint Intelligence Center.