Russians Disagree with Putin’s Brink of Abyss

Grave dangers lie in the game of brinkmanship between NATO leaders and the Russian leadership embodied by President Putin, who faces the prospect of total isolation because of his invasion of Ukraine. While Ukraine and Russia are suffering grim losses at all levels, the escalation of the Russian war in Ukraine into a world war between Russia and the West would take these losses beyond Russia and Ukraine. In Putin’s view, such an escalation would change the rules of the game and force the West to back down. The risk in such a bet is the apparent certainty felt by Putin that only escalation can allow Russia to emerge victorious in the war, and as such, that a world war fought with weapons that include ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons can erase the appearance of Russian military defeat in Ukraine. The next two weeks will be crucial for the outcome of the war and the fate of Russia. Putin will have to make clear decisions given the resentment building up in the military and the public opinion in Russia. While the latter may still be blaming the West for provocations, sanctions, and economic warfare, they do not want Putin to take Russia into the abyss for the sake of an egomaniacal adventure.

President Putin may hold the view that Mikhail Gorbachev, the last president of the Soviet Union, was responsible for dissolving the USSR because of his close ties to the West and Washington, downsizing the mighty Soviet Empire into the Russian Federation. Now, it appears for most people that Putin himself is destroying Russia, because of his gamble in Ukraine and his animus with NATO and Washington, at the very least for having fallen into a trap and acted in a haphazard manner he was not previously known for.

Today, the West is unified like never before. The level of coordination between Washington the Europeans is unprecedented. Not long ago, Ukrainian membership in NATO was a Russian red line, but today NATO could expand to include Finland, Sweden, and others, fully encircling Russia, all because of an adventure Putin could have avoided, and which most likely he blundered into because of miscalculations in the Russian military, intelligence, and diplomatic establishments.

The West believes that its coherence on imposing sanctions on Russia, its president, and its military and diplomatic establishments will force a political change in Russia, that is, regime change. The Western leaders do not admit publicly to this pursuit, but the trajectory of their course is clear in seeking to remove Putin from power, relying on calculated measures that consider the mood of the Russian populace and military establishment, including international measures to isolate and immobilize Putin and Russia in international fora.

If this coherence in Western policies and measures is sustained, and if the Russian president persists in his false belief that escalation favours him and that he can win in Ukraine, the West could indeed succeed in changing the regime in Russia. The problem however is that this would cross a red line and could invite an unthinkable revenge by Putin. That is, unless the Western cohesion and warnings would convince Putin there is a last chance to reconsider and back down – albeit this looks unlikely, if not impossible, because Putin is not a man who can be forced into a corner.

Matters could become worse if Putin finds himself both unable to achieve military victory and unable to fully withdraw from negotiations, which have reached a dead end. So, what can he do?

The Russian domestic situation may alone be the reason stopping the deployment of the nuclear card. According to one informed Russian source, “The tragedy today is that people have lost faith in the Russian army. They believe that the exposure of the Russian army is a disaster”. The source added: “Using nuclear weapons will increase Russia’s isolation and shatter its image, and the Russian public opinion would not stand idly by”.

The Russian military establishment is also mired in resentment and tension. A faction in the army, according to an informed source, believes that the withdrawal from Kyiv was a blunder that has brought popular dissatisfaction against the armed forces. According to this source, there is now a heated debate about “what to do with the liberated Ukrainian territories in Donbas: What is their legitimate status? Are they part of Russia, or will they remain part of Ukraine? What flag will be hoisted thee? Who will pay for their reconstruction? What currency will be used there since the rouble is not used in that part of Ukraine?” These are all fundamental questions that pose a major problem for the Russians, and the Russian president is required to demystify his thinking about them.

Russia’s policy is suffering from incoherence at all levels, but the Russians want Putin to identify his choices and explain where he is taking them.

On the diplomatic front, Russian FM Sergei Lavrov backtracked from giving the impression that there is progress in the political negotiations with Ukraine in Istanbul, accusing Ukraine of reneging on its promises. Some believe Lavrov had been deliberately misleading on this from the get-go because he feared the impact of admitting to the dilemma Russia is in on the Russian and international public opinion.

The West has won the media battle, after winning the intelligence war that exposed Russia’s plans then dismal performance in Ukraine, which has shocked the world. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky international campaign has successfully not only exposed Russia’s actions in Ukraine, but also the shortfalls in Western support for Ukraine.

Despite this, the Ukrainian delegation have engaged in negotiations with the Russians with a clear set of points and some margins for compromises. By contrast, the Russian delegation came to the negotiating table without any agenda, engaging in deliberate obfuscation. The Ukrainian side responded by demanding the Russians clarify their objectives in the negotiations. When Moscow ignored this, the Ukrainians adjusted their position, which Lavrov then claimed constituted backtracking. The truth, however, is that there is no possibility whatsoever for a diplomatic solution if the Russian president believes he can win militarily, where the winner takes all.

The Russian public opinion is not keen or united behind the quest to annex Donbas, as it had been with the annexation of Crimea in 2014. A major crisis is lurking for the Russians in Donbas, where 62,000 Ukrainian soldiers are waiting for them. What will Russia do about this and what is Putin’s strategy here? What if the Russian president decides there is no choice but to crush more than 60,000 soldiers and erase Ukrainian cities that stand in the way? How will the international public opinion react?

Furthermore, how would this impact the positions of the states that have tried to remain neutral in the standoff between the West and Russia? Most probably, many of these states will have to take a different position as more cities in Ukraine are razed and evidence of war crimes piles up. Russia’s isolation in international fora would also grow, with more steps like the suspension of Russia from the UN Human Rights Council expected. The states inclined towards neutrality will not be able to maintain this posture and will have to join the international majority, which could happen in a matter of weeks.

The Russian people does not want to be isolated. The Russians may not take to the streets or erupt in revolution. But they have their own ways to protest, which requires careful observation. According to a veteran Russian expert, the period between 1 and 10 May is traditionally a national holiday in Russia, beginning with Labour Day on May 1 and culminating with the Victory Day on May 9 – a day when Russia celebrates victory over Nazism, which Putin seeks to echo today with victory over ‘Neo-Nazism’ in Ukraine. Next week, before this national holiday, Putin will have to make his final decisions and explain them to the public opinion, according to the expert who is close to decision makers in Russia.

Clearly, there is no possibility for a military victory in Ukraine before 9 May. Clearly, there will be more sanctions targeting Putin personally as well as Russia. Clearly, the Western powers, led by the United States, believe that the combination of sanctions, isolations, and turning Putin into an international pariah will mark the beginning of the end of Putinism. So, what could Vladimir Putin do?

One concern is that Putin will decide between launching a renewed military offensive in Ukraine to take Kyiv, the major cities, and win; and fully destroying Ukraine using cruise missiles and WMDs if he sees defeat as inevitable. Taking things to the brink of the abyss seems a favourite tool of Putin’s strategy, because he believes that this will force the West to back down. Even if Russia could not win, escalation to the brink could cause the West to make huge blunders, which Putin believes will benefit him as he would not be the only one falling into the abyss.

The 9th of May could be an appointment with disaster and tragedy, rather than victory and pride for Russia. The Russian mood is resentful because the Ukraine war has shredded Russia’s influence, prestige, and international mass, and dented the Russian pride. The mood is one of hurt, confusion, and it demands Putin to explain the roadmap in his mind and where he intends to take Russia with him.