The empire version proposed by Vladimir Putin proves to be unviable, rapidly approaching its denouement, while the Russian Federation is paying for the effects of a major strategic error: the invasion of Ukraine. Behind the scenes, the new tsar at the Kremlin is forced to navigate through increasingly acute factional disputes, in an environment where oligarchic elites and those from security services are vying for influence, watching for signs of his weakness, write analysts Andrei Piontkovsky and Anton Eremin, in Kyiv Post.
A subtle but extremely valuable indicator of these internal tensions is the show “The Great Game” from the First Channel of Russian television, a controlled space, but revealing for the movements behind the scenes of power in Moscow. Moderated by Dmitri Simes, a legendary figure associated with Soviet intelligence interests and practiced in the conservative-realist analytic environment in the US, the show brings together regime loyalists such as Dmitri Trenin, Karen Shahnazarov, Mikhail Khodarenok, or Evgeny Bujinsky. Although their loyalty to the Kremlin leader is beyond any doubt, these influencers cannot remain blind to the realities on the front and in the economy, trying to suggest – with utmost caution – course corrections to save the imperial idea they share.
The Rhetoric of Climbing and Decisional Paralysis
The dynamics of recent months betray a rift between the aggressive rhetoric of propaganda and the prudence of the Kremlin leader. In mid-April, after the Ministry of Defense in Moscow published a list of potential targets on the territory of some NATO member states – armament factories supporting Ukraine -, voices from the plateau of the “Great Game” openly called for a transition from threats to action. “The limit of verbal warnings has been exhausted,” was shouted on the air.
However, the response of the tsar from the Kremlin was one of glacial sobriety, conveyed even through the show’s moderator:
“Launching blows without considering the consequences is, to put it mildly, not a sign of state wisdom.”
This reaction indicates that Vladimir Putin is not willing to take major risks that could jeopardize his own survival or personal stability, despite the bellicose rhetoric he cultivates. On the other hand, the Russian leader categorically refuses to end the conflict, and this paralysis of political will is beginning to leave its mark on his public behavior, generating a deep sense of unease among the attentive observers of the Kremlin.
Details, HERE