Main Edition
US
FR
A Ukrainian tank near the Russian border (ROMAN PILIPEY/AFP via Getty Images)
Throughout its war against Ukraine, the Kremlin has gone to great lengths to inseparably bind the identities of ordinary Russians to the conflict while also insulating them from its immediate effects. It was always a difficult balancing act, but Ukraine’s invasion of Kurk has now made this all but impossible. The rapid advance across nearly 1,000 square kilometres of Russian territory has eliminated whatever remained of the Russian public’s security bubble.
Putin and his propaganda machine would seem to be carrying on as normal, referring in typical Moscow Newspeak to the advance as a “terrorist attack” or “provocation”, or even merely as “the events in Kursk”, and launching a media blitz to reassure Russians that they are in control. But it is obvious to everyone, including the Russian people themselves, that things are different this time — more threatening even than the short-lived Wagner mutiny, led by Yevgeny Prigozhin, in July 2023. Ukraine has not only turned the tables on Moscow, but has fundamentally altered the rules of the game, extending the frontline to include the entire Russo-Ukrainian border — areas where Ukrainian forces can strike decisively at Russia’s soft underbelly. Now, Russia is being forced to defend its own sovereignty too.
Something else, however, is happening on the home front that may be even more dangerous. As the illusion of security and disconnect from the war in Ukraine disintegrates for those Russians living in Kursk, residents across the country’s southwestern border are feeling increasingly abandoned by the Russian state itself. Some are even holding Putin personally responsible. At the same time, dissatisfaction with Russia’s military brass, which in part fuelled Prigozhin’s insurrection last year, is continuing to escalate within the country’s nationalistic military blogosphere. Influential voices are furious not just with the military’s handling of the crisis in Kursk, but also with the state media’s ongoing obfuscation of the realities on the ground.
A growing realisation is setting in that these lies from the Russian establishment have led to a real and immediate threat to Russian national security. And for Putin to have allowed such a threat to continue unabated for over a week undermines the central guarantee he had made to the people about his war in Ukraine from the start: rebuilding Russia’s imperial sphere of influence and keeping Nato at bay would make the Russian heartland safer and more prosperous.
The Kursk incursion won’t convince Russians that the war in Ukraine was a bad idea — that ship has long sailed. But it may finally convince a growing number of Russians that the people running the show in Moscow are no longer up to the task of executing the national vision that Putin set in motion in 2022.
So far, it appears locals from Sudzha, the largest town captured by Ukraine in Kursk, have taken this red pill. “Vladimir Vladimirovich, tell your officials responsible for truthful information to show the real situation,” said a Sudzha resident in a video addressed to Putin and posted on Telegram before the town was fully captured by Ukraine. The residents complained about the wholesale downplaying of the realities in Kursk even as the town was on the brink of conquest by Ukraine. “These lies are causing civilians to die.”
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeI for my part am happy that the “Russian military bloggers” exist. They may be very pro-Russian, but they don’t seem to feel the need to adhere to the Kremlin narrative.
Being ultra-patriotic is often a prerequisite to being able to be critical and suggest alternatives without risking one’s own freedom. Rather as Nixon was able to open relations with China where a Democratic President would have faced more criticism. Of course in Russia criticism without an ultra-patriotic shield would result in a term in the gulag.
“Being ultra-patriotic is often a prerequisite to being able to be critical and suggest alternatives without risking one’s own freedom.”
They are not doing so “without” risking far more than their freedom. No few in fact also have no clue as to how Russia would better conduct it’s affairs, but all in Russia literally have skin in the game.
The fact that they exist, suggests there is appetite for critical, independent, voices there despite “strong man” Putin, and therefore more chances that Russia will correct it’s mistakes and tactics (as they have done before).
Which is contrast to, say, Ukraine, where there are no voices wondering why send vital troops to Kursk while their fronts are collapsing elsewhere. It’s not about whether that’s the right strategy or not – it’s more the lack of questioning, as has been the case throughout.
And even more so for the West, where except for a few random rogue bloggers , the media, establishment and government seems seem far less eager to question the whys of their Ukrainian “strategy ‘.
“there is an appetite for critical, independent, voices”
Only because they want even more damage to Ukraine, not an end to the war.
The MSM is full of exactly that. What if anything have you been reading?
Yes, but they are not against war in Ukraine and destruction of Ukrainian state and other wet dreams of Putin.
They are just critical of conduct of the war and corruption of top officials which weakens Russian state and its war effort.
Lessons to be learned for other countries?
For an article to claim be to countering propaganda, hard facts need to be presented. Sadly this piece seems to be more conjecture than anything else. Referring to the “1000 square kilometre” claim, The Guardian (in itself a dubious source of truth), cites a video briefing the “Ukrainian top commander” has given Zelensky. Those are “facts” that are likely to be very economical with the truth. The fog of war persists..
1000km2 isn’t that much territory, it’s only just over 30km in and 30km across, which is entirely plausible having taken the Russians completely by surprise
1000km2 sounds much more impressive than “30km in and wide”, which is no doubt the reason that description is so frequently used by the media.
One thousand square kilometres sounds similar to one thousand kilometres, square. 🙂
Or to put it another way it is about 0.005% of Russia. In England that would be equivalent to about 6.5km2 or about 3km by 2km. Or about 1600 acres, the size of a largish farm.
I know everything is bigger in Russia, but how does 1000km2 in Russia translate to 6.5km2 in England?
Because Rob arbitrarily makes an assumption that country size has meaning thereby making only 0.005% occupied. I assume his maths is such that 0.005% of England is 6.5 square kilometres. Meaningless initself. A 1000 square kilometres is a 1000 square kilometres wherever it is. Other factors give it meaning.
It’s more like about 1500 sq km now, and more territory Ukraine has taken from Russia in Russia than Russia has taken from Ukraine in Ukraine since now about November of late year. At least all of Kursk south of the Seym in it’s roughly East-West run will fall to Kyiv.
Putin is most clearly a ruthless totalitarian – which, sadly, is not without precedent in Russia. The Russian people certainly deserve better but a free society still seems a distant dream. One fears that when he is eventually gone Putin will be replaced by another “strongman”.
It amazes me that Western people who were happy to see their governments gleefully participate in the looting of Russia during the 90s, and enthusiastically support the oligarchs (notice how quickly the West cracked down on them when they needed to post 2022) – also claim the right to shed crocodile tears for a “free society” in Russia.
The Russians chose a strongman like Putin for a reason. They saw what happened with “democracy” before him.
Do Russians really “chose”? In a society with free and fair elections nobody would be in power for 25 years.
It amazes me how little knowledge some people have about history, who then comment on history. The vast, vast bulk of Russian corruption in the 90s was committed by Russians. They stole the gas and oil industries and became the oligarchs. But let’s give special mention to chief-thief Putin, who has estimated to have stolen trillions from the Russia he supposedly loves. Russia is a kleptocracy – nothing to do with the West.
To be fair, the UK in particular turned a blind eye to the Oligarchs until 2022. How many lawyers and accountants in London have gotten rich on laundered Russian money?
While this is true, it was Russians who mostly looted Russia.
Somehow former Soviet Block States made successful transition to capitalist system and democracy.
Anyone with knowledge of Russian history would accept that development in Russia post communism are following clear pattern, well established over centuries of despotism.
The oligarchs are the result of a shock-therapy privatization of Russian economy palmed off to Russia by western market extremists, while more cautious economists then were branded as “brakemen”. The Chinese smelled the rat in time and escaped shock therapy. So it has all to do with the West, and that’s the lesson the Russians learned in the 90ies. And that’s the reason the Russians in fact choose Putin again and again.
Rubbish.
Poland had shock terrapy unlike Czech Republic.
Both countries were successfully in their own way.
Oligarchs are clear example of centuries of Russian history.
It has nothing to fo with the West.
Russians like Putin and his cronies looted Russia.
Pto Russia clowns like you just want to rewrite history.
You mean the Russians who saw life expectancy reduce by several years over that period?
Where did that wealth go? Under Putin’s mattress or Western banks and real estate?
I think you’ll find that the Russians looted themselves. The answer is the Russian oligarchs. Including Putin.
The Russians have no one to blame but themselves for the mess they’ve been in for the past 100+ years. That’s what happens if you are corrupt and keep electing/tolerating incompetent leaders.
Russia has only truly “chosen” one president and that was Yeltsin in the early 90s. So not only is Putin not a strong man he also wasn’t chosen by the Russian people.
Do ask some Russians whether they would prefer the “elected” Yelstin or the dictator Putin, and they will laugh at you for even asking the question.
The 90s was a golden opportunity for returning democracy to Russia. Instead, the whole concept was discredited in Russia, thanks to a tiny number of evil, corrupt Russians, and certain Western bankers and politicians who were stupid and short sighted.
Another nonsense post from you.
Russian leaders looted Russia.
How come China and former Soviet Block countries had mostly successful transition from Communism?
You seam to believe that Russians have no agency.
But if you study history of Russia you know what happened after Communism follows clear historical pattern.
Whether Tsarism, Communism or Putinism, it is always the same Russian imperialism.
You are slaves, but you can subjugate other nations.
Disgusting, sick puppies, the Russians.
China never transitioned from communism, unless you consider adding a dose of facism to the mix. It remains a completely state controlled economy and society.
Russians are incapable of a sustainable democracy. They prefer strongman, its all they have ever known.
If that is the case, they would be better off with one who has a more “internal” focus, and doesn’t invade Russia’s neighbors.
That Putin is “most clearly a ruthless totalitarian” is especially clear to the idealists. To the realists, the question remains open. This raises the question: Why would a person’s assessment of Putin be so closely tied to attitude and not so much to the raw facts. Or better, what causes the idealist mind to close while realist mind remains open? The realist can plainly see that there has never been a war that was prosecuted without relentless lying, but the idealist can see that lying only when coming from the mouth of a person like Putin. The answer, from some anyway, is that the idealist cannot accept what this relentless lying points to.
Further confirmation that the aim of the Neocon establishlent in the West is regime change in Russia, in order to get its resources on Atlanticist terms. Ukraine is just a die that’s being rolled, if it falls off the table another will be tried.
Explain how the neocon establishment persuaded Putin to start the war, please.
By extending NATO all the way to Russia, toppling a pro Russia government in Kiev, and refusing to act against the attacks against Russian civilians in East Ukraine.
I understand your confusion. This is the same establishment that attacked and broke up Yugoslavia for allegedly doing exactly what Ukraine was, with western weapons and training, in the Donbass.
When double standards and hypocrisy runs that deep, its difficult to understand basic concepts, such as Russia standing up for it’s interests in it’s own neighborhood.
Utter nonsense.
Yugoslavia, which I knew well, was Russia “mini me” which subjugated other nations (like Slovenians and Croats) which had no desire to be part of greater Serbia.
It was Serbia which attacked other components part of the country not some imagined “establishment”.
As to NATO extension, it is another lie of yours.
This countries suffered centuries of Russian genocidal imperialism so they obviously wanted protection against Russia.
Why do you think Finland and Sweden joined NATO?
You know it was the Croats who genocided others in WW2?
And what was the difference versus what Ukraine is doing in Donbass? You know, the region that Russia peacefully allowed to separate?
“Why do you think Finland and Sweden joined NATO?”
No good reason. Russia has no military interest or threat from that side. They could have happily stayed neutral, as they had done during WW2.
Does Russia have a god-given “right” to get its empire back, just because there are some Russians in Ukraine? After which Moldova, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Armenia..on and on? “Sadly” for Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, their empires were all overseas.. so no chance to get them back…not so Russia…
No.
And they didn’t start their fight to “get its empire back”.
The only reason Russia survived 1812 and 1941 was that those attacks started west of Ukraine.
Ukraine joining NATO and western missiles on Russian borders was a massive threat to Russia, and potentially fatal when – not if – NATO decided to make up some excuse to attack.
“And they didn’t start their fight to “get its empire back”.”
Oh yes they did. That is the sole plausible reason and the only thing about which Putin has personally obsessed over for decades.
“By extending NATO all the way to Russia,” <– NATO already extended all the way Russia.
That’s easy to see if one just stops framing all the other side is saying as “propaganda”. Ukraine War is American geopolitics to prohbit a Europe the United States cannot control, which would be a cooperative continent from Lissabon to Wladiwostok. So you apply a wedge strategy where it is most likely to work: in a country that is riven by a Huntingtonian conflict-of-cultures line, as former Yugoslavia was. Let Ukrainian right-wing extremists define cultural politics against Russian-speaking Ukrainians (as has been implemented in 2014 under Joe Biden as Obama’s Vice), then kick off a “anti-terror operation” against separatists rightfully pissed off by that politics (as has been implemented in April 2014 with, what else, aid of the CIA), then stall any reconciliation by lying about Minsk II, then close the door on possibly solving internal conflict by a law that forbids public use of Russian language (as implemented on 2019), then start a military buildup against Donbass including Nazi militia whose genocidal intentions are already proven, then stall all talks with Russia and finally threaten with nuclear re-armament of Ukraine as implemented in 2022 at the Munich security conference. Then you have the ingredients which by all Western moral standards would legitimately trigger a “responsibility to protect”. And if this sounds like a conspiracy theory for you, then because it has in fact been a conspiracy. That’s the way the United States have been acting for decades.
Utterly laughable nonsense.
Cooperative continent from Lisbon to Vladiwostok.
We can see how it worked out in Ukraine.
Still dreaming of Ribentrop-Molotov pact version 2?
If you want to laugh, I’ve got one for you:
Why there’s no color revolution in the United States?
Because in Washington, there’s no American Embassy.
Also no colour revolutions in Sweden, Finland, Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Iceland, the U.K, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and many more. They all have U.S. embassies. Got to be something else.
Why, USA’s got these countries already in their pockets, no need for regime change there.
Do you mean these countries are, as you word it, in the US pockets voluntarily, or against their will?
They had, of course, historical reasons for that being so. The question is: could they leave if they wanted to? American geopolitics implies they must not, and the United States provoked War in Ukraine to stop Europe from achieving a peaceful unity, I’m dead serious about that. A European-mediated (by Steinmeier, Fabius, and Sikorsky) compromise had already been mutually signed by Klichko and Janukovich in February 2014, when sharpshooters from Hotel Ukraina shot at both sides of the Maidan to deliberately drown that agreement in blood. This was an American attack on Europe, never to be forgiven. So you might contemplate what would happen if a new German government terminated NATO Status of Forces agreement (in due term of two years), implying a shutdown of Ramstein.
I must have missed the “nuclear re-armament of Ukraine” bit. Not a bad idea though. The Ukrainians were silly to give up their Soviet-era nukes.
Shocking that an Unherd reader needs to have the argument for Putin having been backed into a corner explained to him. The argument is that after the West’s support for a revolution overthrowing the democratically elected government of Ukraine and for starting negotiations to let Ukraine into the EU and NATO (having promised to Putin/Russia that this would NOT happen) that Putin felt he had little choice but to take this action; his warnings and complaints having been ignored.
Nothing was promised to Putin.
Whereas Russia is signatory to Budapest memorandum guaranteeing territorial integrity of Ukraine.
On January 31, 1990, West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher declared, “What NATO must do is state unequivocally that whatever happens in the Warsaw Pact, there will be no expansion of NATO territory eastwards, that is to say, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.” In February, Baker then told Gorbachev in Moscow that “there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Gorbachev then stated “any extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable.” Baker replied, “I agree.”
And? That probably was Bakers and Bush seniors intent. So what? New democratic governments are never bound by the verbal declarations of policy by their predecessors. If something is to be binding, it has to be in writing. Like the Budapest memorandum, where Russia agreed in writing to guarantee Ukraines borders, including Crimea.
It has come to your attention that it was Ukraine that annexed Crimea, back in 1995, by sending troops to topple their President, because Crimea claimed the same right of secession Ukraine claimed on behalf of old Soviet Union? Crimeans in their great majority never wanted to be part of Ukraine. They’d preferred to be their own state, but in 2014, facing a looming threat of Ukrainian extremists, they took it for the lesser evil to join Russia.
Crimea was already inside the internationally agreed borders for Ukraine that Russia did accept and guaranteed in 1994. The Soviet Union was dissolved, and that dissolution resulted in many successor states on the ex-Soviet space, like Ukraine. Ukraine was not dissolved in 1995.
The right of self-determination is also part of international law, and the very core of Western regime change politics, not to forget the precedence of Kosovo secession, sanctioned in 2010 by the International Court of Justice. So your objection does not hold up.
And per self-determination, no part of Ukraine ever voted to be a part of Russia, when out from under Russian guns.
Get this through your head, Russia is nekulturny. No one wants to be a part of Russia ruled by the Kremlin, who is aware of the better alternatives.
Idiot, Crimea had been a part of Ukraine since the 1950’s. Kruschev redrew the boundary.
“Crimeans in their great majority never wanted to be part of Ukraine.” <– Nonsense. No part of Ukraine ever out from under Russian guns voted to be a part of Russia.
This is self-delusional NATO propaganda crap, but keep singing on, I know this tune already.
So what? That is no agreement let alone any treaty with Russia that they are free to reacquire their former empire of enslaved nation as they please.
The leader you speak of turned out to be a Russian stooge. It is no surprise that the Ukrainians wanted rid of him.
So if Russia decides Zelensky is an American stooge, they are within their rights to try and get rid?
No, because Russia is not Ukraine. Ukraine decided Yanukovych was a Russian stooge.
There was no legitimate government overthrown in Ukraine. Yanukovych fled the country when he could not stop the protests against his moves to bring the nation under Moscow’s control. Then quite per Ukrainian law, a new election was held. Putin had no legitimate warnings and complaints to make.
The instant Ukraine has pushed all killed or captured all belligerent Russians out of Ukraine, they should be admitted to NATO. That will end Russian revanchism.
Yes. Good thing too. What’s your point?
By that logic, the United States should be “decolonized” by rolling back the nation’s borders to the Appalachian watershed.
Who do you propose organises this?
How about a council of native Americans, under supervision of Russia and China? 🙂
What resources? What resources does Russia have that America does not have enough of? Oil? Gas? [Especially as we all supposed to believe that the gas of LIFE, C02, which is plant food, must be curbed, not increased.]
More (no doubt paid for) propaganda on behalf of the Western regimes’ war on Russia. It doesn’t change the reality that Ukraine is losing.
Zelenskyy is clearly pulling a publicity stunt. That suggests desperation and rolling the dice. Hopefully this long nightmare might finally be drawing to a close.
Why don’t you believe Ukraine has a right to self defense?
Even for this who have left religion aside, this inveterate campaign to dismember Russia is pure evil..Not the only evil, of course, But terrible. And we have to understand that the people who engineer this also treat us as mere pawns to be moved about, or cast aside.
It’s the degree of wishful thinking and self delusion which gives their game away. Confounding what they’d like to happen in Russia with what’s actually going on there is one thing. But when it’s actually European regimes and European society which is coming apart in this way, it’s macabre to try to displace that elsewhere. And diabolical..
We have to agree to disagree there. I for my part think Russia has to be broken and crippled, stripped of its remaining “Republics” (and hopefully Siberia as well, which can be split between an independent country and China).
As I keep telling my daughter, there is a difference between want and need.
The West*wants* to break up Russia go gain access to their resources.
They don’t *need” them, they could easily have them by extending cordial relations instead of pushing NATO forwards (which started before Putin, when the Russian military was non existent, incidentally).
Of course, that would need them to have less greed and more empathy.
For instance, your stated desire seems to leave out what’s best for *Russians*, and what would happen to their civilians if their country was broken up.
Quite telling, that.
Just repeating lies about pushing NATO forward does not make it true.
Countries like Poland and Baltic States had enough of centuries of Russian genocidal imperialism and wanted to join NATO.
You somehow have a problem with that?
Please tell us why Sweden and Finland joined NATO?
Clearly because Russia is such trustworthy and peaceful neighbour.
The Russian people, in supporting Putin, are the architects of their own misfortune. It is not possible to have “cordial relations” with a tyrannical warmonger like Putin.
For what insane reason would you want to give China access to the vast resources of Siberia? Instead we should have been looking to bring Russia onboard and, at least, make a Russia-Sino alliance unnecessary. However America decided that it wanted to be the only major power in Nato/the West and so has forced Russia and China together.
Russia will never come to terms with the West as long as it believes it can be a major strategic power on its own. The defeat of Russia and the toppling of Putin is more likely to achieve your desired outcome than their success. Germany and Japan didn’t become fully integrated members of the West until their Imperial pretensions were thoroughly defeated.
Exactly!
I wouldn’t give them the whole of Siberia, but I know that they have long desired land in that region. The reason I would do it is that China contributes to the world, and one can do deals with its leadership. Russia, on the other hand, is just a rogue state.
So how come this “pure evil” peacefully withdrew from East Europe, allowed states like Ukraine to separate (with a lot more dignity than the EU reaction to Brexit), left Ukraine alone till 2022?
What changed in 2022, and what was the contribution of the “good” nations – which had spent the previous 30 years bombing various countries, incidentally, with far more civilian destruction than the pure evil did in Ukraine?
Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022 – do you not read the news?
And the West invaded (by means of money, propaganda and, in some cases, air and missile warfare and even on the ground soldiers: Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Iraq, Afghanistan etc..
Some of these might have been justified morally and/or geopolitically but we must not forget they happened and that the ‘other side’ might have their own morals and geopolitical needs.
Why I’m under the impression you started reading the news not earlier than 2022?
Think you may have missed the point here. The ‘pure evil’ is the NeoCon ideology installed in the Washington beltway mainly by disciples of Leo Strauss (who would have made him turn in his grave ). According to different variants, Russia is either the proximate or ultimate target. The urgency is increased to the extent any Russian government tries to establish any economic sovereignty, but in a belated tribute to the British geographer Mackinder, Europe and Russia must in any case be kept apart. That’s evil in the banal geopolitical sense, but as we saw during the ‘War on Terror’ neo Straussians are capable of ramping up total war to bolster the extension of idealised American space whatever wherever, it’s that totalising nihilism masquerading as a positive ideal which justifies designation as ‘pure evil.’ As we see in the notion that we should be ‘defending Ukraine’ while it’s being disfigured, expropriated and destroyed as a weapon of war on Russia.
I would make two comments in relation to that. 1) Ukraine simply has the misfortune to be on Russia’s borders, and is thus “first in line” for its military attentions. 2) Ukraine’s people have shown themselves to want to be “like the West” rather than “like Russia”, so they are worth helping.
It was the Yeltsin generation that wanted to be “like the West”, because then the West was still shining, and Russia was a wreck. That has changed since the West (as latest as 2014) more and more gives the impression that it does not hate Putin, but Russians. Just read the comments of the jingoistic braggards in this forum about Russian “slave mentality”. And it was Bloomberg that not long ago reported that half of the emigrants that left Russia after February 2022 are already back disillusioned. They now grudgingly see Putin as the lesser evil.
Russia withdrew because it was bankrupt trying to compete with the West.
Anyone with knowledge of Russian history knows it is pure evil.
Russia (Britain, France, USA) guaranteed Ukraine’s security in 1994, in return for Ukraine giving up nuclear weapons then on its territory… some guarantee!
92% of Ukrainians, including most Russian speakers, voted for Ukrainian independence, after break up of USSR. Putin says Ukraine does not exist…
Lenin created the Ukrainian SSR precisely because he knew that Ukraine did exist.
Not sure why so many people, living comfortably in the west, want Russia to get its old empire back… not sure that is such a popular idea in the countries of Eastern Europe… Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania etc.
Because Communism was collapsing under its own contradictions, and Russia at that time had an enlightened leader (Gorbachev) who was prepared to allow the “satellite states” to be free. Thereafter, it had a drunken buffoon of a leader (Yeltsin) who wasn’t up for any military adventures. It is only now that Russia (again) has a tyrannical leader that it has again become a problem.
Not quite true. Gorbachev felt it was a terrible idea to allow the “satellite states” to leave the Soviet Union. He could simply not understand why they wanted to and tried to convince them to remain in the Soviet Union. He was not willing to be violent however. Yeltsin made the political move to have Russia itself leave the Soviet Union, which he had no love for and saw its dissolution as inevitable. For him it was enough to rule Russia.
You could equally well ask how this “pure good” occupied and suppressed the countries of Eastern Europe for over 40 years against the will of those people. Including repeated invasions in 1956 (Hungary) and 1968 (Czechoslovakia).
They had no business being in Eastern Europe in the first place.
Explain to us why all the other European empires have been dismantled – quite rightly – but Russia is immune from this process. Russia is the last great white European empire hiding in plain sight. Do you see any Asians or Muslims in the Russian government for instance?
We see here on of the key NeoCon ploys, imposing an ideal order on the world willy nilly. The Russian Federation is not contradiction free. But it’s a model of transparency and mutual interest compared with the trans national Empire Washington would impose on us all.
Russia is by far less an Empire than the United States are, which hide their’s truly in plain sight – Daniel Immerwahr’s “How to Hide an Empire” from 2019 is not about Russia. In fact the Soviet Union terminated Russian imperial overstretch before terminating itself in 1991, while the USA only doubled down on their’s since then.
Russia’s never actually been a force for good in the world.
It has by far never been a force for good in Russia.
I spent several years overseas, some of that time working in totalitarian states. Westerners who have never had first-person experience in an authoritarian state are easily swept up in the delusion that disaffection among the general populace automatically leads to overthrow of the regime. Eric Hoffer correctly explained how when an autocrat loosens his grip, he opens the way for his own downfall (think Gorbachev). Putin knows his history very well, and will not be making that mistake.
No doubt true, but sometimes the autocrat does end up “against the wall”, like Ceausescu.
Gorbachev was not an autocrat, which is part of the reason the oligarchs and the security chiefs were able to oust him and take over under cover of the hapless Yeltsin.
Gorbachev was the only good leader Russia had in the entire 500 years of its existence (with the possible exception of Catherine the Great, who was in fact German).
Gorbachev was murdering citizens in the Caucasus who wanted independence even as he was celebrating “Glasnost”. But you’re right, he’s about the best of the worst.
The wider problem remains: the war is no closer to being won or being lost by either side. A Ukrainian thrust into Kursk is no more a strategic gain for Ukraine than Russia’s earlier thrust into Kherson.
A gain of 1000sqkm sounds impressive but this is a move in the front line of about 30km. I do not deny this is a fillip for Ukraine but the lines of fighting are as static as those in France in first world war. This is still a war of attrition. Ukraine cannot crush Russia and decapitate its leadership and Russia likewise cannot do the same to Ukraine.
The only apparent route to Ukrainian victory is the Russian enemy conceding defeat and walking away from its gains in Southern Ukraine. Really, how likely is it that the strongmen that remove Putin are the type that will just give up Crimea? Unlikely.
Similarly, the only apparent route to Russian victory is the Ukrainian enemy conceding defeat and ending all claims on its former territories in the East. With the US humbling Russia and democracy suspended in Ukraine, this also seems a remote prospect.
If the likelihood is low that either side wins or either side concedes, then Ukraine and Russia will most likely remain trapped in a war of attrition for another year. My country, the UK, is pledged to support this status quo. This comes with the price tag of the decimation of Ukrainian lives. Is that pledge self interest or in the interest of Ukrainians; is this what Ukrainians want? We’ll never know because apparently the defence of the democratic West depends on not asking the ordinary people what they want to do next.
The strategic advantage to Ukraine of their incursion into Russian territory is as a bargaining chip in “peace” talks. Whether that proves an effective strategy or not remains to be seen, but only those directly involved will be in a position to make that judgment.
Well, the Ukrainians seem to be continuing the fight, so I imagine it is what they want. Still, they know that to give up the fight will bring them rape, torture and murder, so their attitude is not surprising.
It may have escaped your notice, but we had an election in the UK last month. This clearly indicated that the public supported supporting Ukraine (all major parties did so). I don’t recall any widespread public demand that we stop supporting Ukraine during the election.
Of course, if you feel that’s not the case and you (and a majority of British people) are not being represented here, but can stand yourself and put your theory to the test. But you’ve missed your opportunity for a few years now.
It’s difficult to dissent even mildly from the reigning media orthodoxy – that has Russia permanently in the world’s naughty corner – without being denounced as a Putin apologist. But it always leaves me thinking: Vladimir Putin may be a paranoid autocrat and a failing military strategist but when he talks about people in the West who want to “destroy [its]traditional values and impose their pseudo-values… which would corrode [it] from within” you surely have to ask yourself if does have a point? https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/invasion-of-the-virtue-signallers
And Putin doesn’t want that for Russia.
You might have a point if Russia actually had traditional values. Russia is one of the least religious countries in the world, has very low marriage and birth rates, and among the highest rates of alcoholism, addiction, and abortion in the world. Every “decadent Western country” is better than Russia on those metrics. Merely persecuting gay people doesn’t make you a paragon of traditional values.
Yes, but agreeing with Putin about idiocies being advocated in the West doesn’t mean we wish him to succeed in Ukraine.
Two different issues.
This is why the managerial class in the west hates Russia (and Hungary and other conservative countries) so much. Russia stands as the last frontier of traditional values. World war 3 won’t be fought over religion or even economic ideas. It will be the Marxist woke vs the traditionalists.
See above. Hungary actually has traditional values. Russia does not.
Russia’s perennial unprovoked aggression and general barbarity are not traditional values.
They are to Russians.
Traditional values like … imperialism ? .. war crimes ?
I lived in the former Soviet Union and I am a Christian, or at least trying to be which is what is required. And if you think Russia has any semblance of “Traditional values”, then you can keep them. Unless you think being immeasurably cruel and callous is a traditional value, then you’re spot on.
Speaking for myself, yes I would very much like to do as Putin fears. Still, I would be happy enough to just ensure that Russia is a pariah state that nobody trades with.
Invading a peaceful neighbour was no remedy for preserving Russia’s so-called values.
Many would say that invading a peaceful neighbour is a central Russian value.
You surely have to agree they have no point whatsoever. Because helping Ukraine resist Russia’s imperial onslaught on it, is not evidence of the West’s attempt to destroy [Russia’s] traditional values and impose their pseudo-values… which would corrode [it] from within”
Indeed so ridiculous is that claim, who else but a Putin apologist could possibly come up with it?
You surely have to agree it has no point whatsoever. Because helping Ukraine fend off Russia’s imperial assault on it, in no way constitutes an attempt by democracies to destroy Russia’s traditional values and impose their pseudo-values… which would corrode from within. Indeed, who else but Putin apologist could come up with that?
No sane informed person thinks Putin has any point at all. The traditional values of the West which are valuable and distinct from those common to the rest of the Oikumenene — as opposed to ones better discarded — are an awareness of the paramountcy of individual inherent liberty. The awareness since the most recent culmination of the Enlightenment in the years 1775~1789, that liberty is the greatest social good.
He has no point at all.
As a military history pedant, I’ve been having a field day with casuals all week over this; the largest tank battle wasn’t Kursk in 1943. It was in Brody (in Ukraine) during the initial German invasion in 1941, with over 4000 tanks deployed by both sides across the front.
You might want to fact check that. Battle of Kursk involved approximately 6,000 tanks.
The general consensus is that the Battle of Kursk was the largest battle ever in the history of warfare.
Russia seems to be something of a soufflé- very, very soft in the centre. If I recall, the Wagner uprising was less stopped than stopped itself. It seemed to find it very easy to travel North and wasn’t it the case that there really wasn’t a lot of opposition?
Ukraine would be very well advised to spread as much love and care as they pursue this adventure, certainly to the point that they don’t create the kind of visceral hatred I think they’re capable of inspiring.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
It’s the Michael Kranz ‘propaganda machine’ that is failing, not the Putin one.
Here’s the truth from yesterday morning’s New York Times about the Liberal West’s war against Nationalist Russia:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/16/world/europe/russia-ukraine-pokrovsk-kursk.html?te=1&nl=today%27s-headlines&emc=edit_th_20240817
In essence, Russia is about to capture the entire Donetsk region. The Kursk offensive was meant to divert Russian forces from doing this. It’s failed. So much for the Kursk offensive being a ‘significant challenge’ to Putin. It’s nothing of the kind.
Truth isn’t a word normally associated with The New York Times.
That’s why this report stood out for me. The NYT quotes directly from the governor of Pokovrsk, telling that key city’s inhabitants to leave their city as soon as possible before the Russians take it over completely. This is what the Kursk offensive was supposed to stop happening. The Russian military have not taken the bait.
Ukraine has been losing this war that the West engineered from the start. It’s why Zelensky was ready to make a deal two months after it began. Joe Biden and people like him can claim “unprovoked” all they want, but that does not align with the facts.
In the US, we’re told it’s about ‘defending democracy’ by the same people whose party has corrupted its own nominating process for three election cycles. We’re told some ragtag group of Ukrainians engineered the Nordstream explosions. Then again, we’re also told that ‘women with penises’ are a real thing and people buy that, too.
Ah, yes. I knew “trans people” would come up in this discussion at some stage. If only the West could get rid of “woke-ism”, the Ukraine War (and probably Gaza too) would sort itself out.
How is the invading force of multi Language speakers going to get back to Ukraine?
? Please explain what you mean?
Contractors
Does he or you believe the forces in Kursk are mercenaries? And even if they were, why would they have a problem going back to Ukraine?
We periodically encounter these stories about Putin losing control of the narrative and having to confront internal popular resistance. That is a mistake born from a false conflation of Western social/political/media dynamics with the Russian version of that. Their history is quite different from ours and has shaped their response to threat and turmoil. They are far more inured to catastrophe. What would cause a Western European to shriek about existential crises and howl in protest to their leaders only elicits a shrug from a Russian.
These are the descendants of a people that endured almost 6 million military deaths in WW II (over 20 million in the entire USSR), not counting civilians, and an invasion all the way to Stalingrad without surrendering or displacing their leadership. They are hard-wired for endurance and it is wishful thinking that a few square kms lost (for now) on their border will lead to Putin’s undoing. The Russian people were well aware that they were being flagrantly lied to by the Soviets and yet played along for decades until Gorbachev threw open the doors encouraging protest briefly during glasnost and perestroika. Putin’s current level of support in Russia exceeds that of any current Western head of state and will not soon drop sufficiently to interfere with his plans. It may be smart for Ukraine to gain Russian territory as a bargaining chip in the event of negotiations or strategically to draw Russian assets from the Donbas, to push their air assault resources farther away, or to disrupt supply routes; but predicting it will influence Putin’s action by popular disillusionment is unlikely.
That is unfortunately true. Russia is mostly a cold and miserable place where life is hard, and nothing looks good unless one has a belly full of vodka. Throw in governments that lie to the people, steal from them, and feed them into the meat grinder in various wars, and the attitude of the people can probably be understood.
That sounds awful like the UK to me!
The UK can get a bit chilly, but it is not often -40C. Plus, the British drink gin, not vodka.
The good old days of USSR misinformation. Russia must be incredibly incompetent not to be able to defeat pesky Ukraine.
Luckily it is incredibly incompetent.
I guess a legitimate question with this piece is, given its wording and lack of strategic analysis, might be: ‘Does Mikal have a dog in this race?’
Something puzzling to me, since February 2022, is the identity and clout of the pro war nationalist bloggers. Just as influencers in the west, do they really reflect the opinion of majority Russians? Why does west media give them so much attention? Is west media clutching at straws to find some internal criticism of putin? Does it really believe these bloggers can move or remove Putin? Can media assure these bloggers are not Putins propaganda troops? Just seems media is lazy and needs a new stalking horse.
The West follows them because, despite being pro-Russian, they tend to truthfully report military events.
What chance of civil unrest ever unseating Putin though ?
Small, but not zero. It would more likely be “Kremlin insiders” that brought him down.
“Russians are of course no strangers to being deceived and treated with contempt by their own government. But, when the safety of their own children is at stake, their veil of tolerance will inevitably begin to break down. This is especially the case given that the story they’ve been sold for year“
I read this and thought you could insert “Americas” for Russians in this statement.
I love how we in the West talk about Russias war in Ukraine from some morally superior soap box. As if the West isn’t fighting a proxy war against Russia. As if we didn’t cross any red lines and bring NATO to the Russian doorstep. As if the U.S. and its allies haven’t waged unjust wars across the world over the last 60 years, killing hundreds of thousands (even if they’re simply casualties of war). As if the U.S. isn’t trying desperately to get into another war, whether it be Ukraine, or Iran. It’s interesting that we don’t ever say anything provocative against China, though. The morally corrupt calling the morally corrupt immoral. Well done.
China is useful. It makes stuff.
Good grief. Where are UnHerd’s serious essayists?
“Influential voices are furious…”
The solution to this problem is simple and time-honoured. You don’t have a lot of influence when you’ve been purged. In Russia, keeping your fury to yourself has always been a survival skill.