Intelligence agents see Ukraine’s Kursk offensive as a “significant tactical success” and suspect cracks in the “Putin system”. Possibly a mistake.
Kursk – “Kursk was a ‘significant tactical success’ that boosted Ukrainian morale and exposed Russia’s weaknesses” – the newspaper quotes Financial Times (FT) the American Bill Burns; the CIA director had exchanged views with the head of the British foreign intelligence service MI6, Richard Moore, during an event hosted by the British newspaper and publicly questioned Vladimir Putin’s support among Russian elites. The Ukrainian initiative at Kursk had therefore “raised questions among Russia’s upper class about where this is all leading,” he said.
Both agreed that the war in Ukraine had led to cracks in Vladimir Putin’s power, but the extent of the cracks was difficult to estimate. Financial Times Both said they saw no signs that Putin’s power had become looser. “But it would be wrong to ‘confuse a firm power with a stable power,’ said Moore, especially since the attack on Kursk ‘brought the war to ordinary Russians,'” the paper writes.
Kursk: A “bold step” by Ukraine towards Russia with consequences yet to be clarified
MI6 chief Richard Moore considers the Kursk offensive in particular to be a “typically bold and daring step by the Ukrainians”, but he also apparently sees no signs at present that Ukraine will necessarily be able to hold on to the conquered Russian territory – for him it is initially a question of time as to how long the balance of power between the two warring parties will remain like this.
“The president is ‘up to date’, but behaves in such a way that he can always say: ‘I didn’t know that and I didn’t promise anything like that.'”
“The surprise success is above all a signal to the inside,” commented Barbara Oertel. The Eastern Europe editor of taz is inclined to agree with those in Ukraine who see the “Operation Kursk” as a slogan of perseverance. In their opinion, it should not be underestimated as such. In the opinion of FTAccording to John Paul Rathbone, the Kursk offensive in Ukraine simultaneously “put a damper on Vladimir Putin’s war narrative.” This seems to be greatly exaggerated. Just like those responsible for the secret service, Eastern European observers believe that Putin’s position as a head of state is crisis-proof.
There will be little criticism of Putin or the war from Russia, Christian Caryl suspects. The Eastern European journalist writes in Foreign Policy (FP) from the Russians’ fear of expressing their opinions publicly. However, the war in the neighboring country has apparently helped to overcome possible crises in domestic politics: “Russians’ trust in their president fell to a 14-year low of 28.3 percent in March 2020, but rose sharply again after the large-scale invasion of Ukraine,” reports FP about a survey conducted by the Russian institute VCIOM.
Sabre rattling: Secret service chief considers Putin a tyrant and escalations possible
According to Bill Burns, Putin would also behave towards the West in accordance with this support: “Putin is a tyrant and will continue to rattle his saber from time to time,” the CIA chief told the Financial TimesPutin’s power would exist as long as he could back up his chosen path of demonstrating strength to the outside world with results.
Nevertheless, the Russians would continue to rally around Putin, stressed Valery Fedorov, the political scientist and head of the opinion research institute VCIOM in an interview with the state broadcaster RBC: “As different as these groups were, all of them, except those who moved away, united around Vladimir Putin. They hold him not only as a symbol but also as a saving anchor. In the extreme situation in which Russia finds itself today, Putin remains a protector and savior,” he says.
“Remasculinization” of Russia: Putin sells himself as a whole man
If Sabine Fischer were to be right with her thesis, then Kursk could be seen as a tactical coup, but it would do little to damage Putin’s image. “The ‘remasculinization’ of Russia also played a decisive role in consolidating Putin’s rule since the 2000s, writes the political scientist from the German think tank German Foundation for International and Security Affairs (SWP)She contrasts Putin with the first Russian president: Boris Yeltsin.
Between 1991 and 1999, he tried to help the huge empire move from decades of communist rule to democracy and a market economy. However, he was said to have been an alcoholic. “This demasculinized, infantilized type of man of the 1990s was unable to prevent the collapse; he succumbed to alcohol and became addicted,” writes Fischer. Yeltsin’s successor, Vladimir Putin, not only represents a counter-model as a person, but also seems to have personified a male archetype and a shift towards the new Russian self-image.
“Real guy”: Chauvinistic worldview spills over Russia’s borders
At the centre of this process is the “russian mushik” confessed, as Fischer explains, “a ‘real guy’ who put an end to the weakness of the Russian man in the late Soviet Union. In addition to a sharper wind in domestic politics towards supposed minorities with regard to sexual orientation, for example, this attitude, which Sabine Fischer describes as chauvinism, also spilled over into foreign policy: the exaggeration of the self-image of the Russian people seems to go hand in hand with the fear of a supposedly fascist foreign country or at least a neighbor hostile to Russia.
For almost ten years, Vladimir Putin has been re-regulating the management around him, as Eastern European researcher Hans-Henning Schröder explained in 2017 for the Federal Agency for Civic Education. According to Schröder, the population is divided into rich and poor; while the majority of the population lives a life just above the poverty line, the middle class is trying to secure its position, and a minority of politicians, civil servants and large businessmen manage the power and capital resources. Political power is being concentrated from this circle on Vladimir Putin.
Losses or counter-offensives: Putin blames the military for the defeat
The president has “built an unreachable level” at the top of the regime, Schröder quotes the practitioner Gleb Pavlovsky as saying: “The president is ‘up to date’, but behaves in such a way that he can always say: ‘I didn’t know that and I didn’t promise anything like that,'” explains the political consultant, who has worked for both Yeltsin and Putin. According to him, decisions made by the Kremlin are always only of a conditional nature. Conversely, Putin can also absolve himself of wrong decisions or delegate responsibility for wrong developments such as the Kursk offensive.
Putin blames the defeat on the military, as the Washington Post reports: The Kremlin has tacitly agreed to a comprehensive purge in the Ministry of Defense – the accusation is often corruption or fraud. Arrests are also apparently extending down to lower officer ranks. However, the elites are crucial to his retention of power, claims Ekaterina Schulmann. According to the scientist from the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center in Berlin, the elites in Russia have actually been asking themselves for a long time whether the old man is still an asset or already a burden. However, they are apparently leaving the status quo because they are not comfortable with a power struggle in Moscow.
This in turn strengthens the thesis of the two Western intelligence agents. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) sees, above all, Putin’s passive reaction as evidence that the nation offers neither national solidarity nor a sense of community. FAZ-Author Martin Schulze Wessel even speaks of a “country of the indifferent”. (KaHin)
#Kursk #offensive #intended #Russian #elites #doubt #Putin