Putin’s Future – USA Gov Policy

Russia is adept at running public disinformation campaigns, misdirecting foreign officials, and controlling the narrative through propaganda. This week, however, the tenor in the Kremlin appears to be changing. There are a number of Russian officials and insiders with knowledge of President Vladimir Putin’s health admitting that his condition is worsening, and that he may be close to leaving office amid his failing war effort in Ukraine. Such rumors have swirled around Moscow for months, although some are believed to have been planted by the Kremlin chief himself. Russia’s poor military performance in Ukraine, coupled with Putin’s health issues purported to be from Cancer and Parkinson’s disease, provide greater validity to the notion that the country is getting closer to seeing a new leader in power. Putin has refused to acknowledge, so far, if he is running for re-election in 2024.

This week marks 11 months since Putin’s forces invaded Ukraine. He has been unsuccessful in capturing Ukraine in what was originally expected by the Kremlin to be a very short, special military operation. His efforts to divide the democratic West over its support for Kyiv have also failed. That does not mean the war will end anytime soon. Most of the potential successors of Putin’s are “all cut from the same cloth,” according to one military analyst in Washington, and “unlikely to give up the Ukraine campaign.”

In response to requests from Kyiv, this week President Biden agreed to send enough 31 M1 Abrams tanks to Ukrainian forces. That is enough to arm a battalion. The announcement comes only 24 hours after Germany made public that it intends to provide 14 German-made Leopard 2 tanks. Other allies, including Poland, are also sending Leopard tanks. Warsaw’s ultimate goal is to send Ukraine 88 tanks, enough for about two battalions. Patrick Tucker, a technology editor at the publication Defense One, says that “Combined with promised deliveries of US Bradley Fighting Vehicles and other countries’ tanks, light tanks, and other armored vehicles… Ukrainian forces will soon receive “hundreds” of armored vehicles of various types. Putin’s war, according to analysts, must be wearing him down as Ukraine’s friends in the West continue to supply the country with the materiel its needs to fight for its sovereignty. Already half of the US and Netherlands promised 90 T-72 tanks are arriving in Ukraine this week.

Help is arriving just in time as Putin is expected to make a major push in the coming weeks. The shipments are critical to Ukraine’s defense effort. Tucker points out that France announced it is sending their Amx-10 [RC] light tanks along with 40 Marders armored vehicles from Germany, and Sweden says it is sending CV 90s. “So, you’re going to see hundreds of armored vehicles, exceptionally capable vehicles, and tanks arriving in Ukraine,” according to Tucker. Analysts are certain Putin recognizes the significance of the US shipment of Abrams tanks and that it represents a long-term commitment by Washington.

The New York Post reported last week that “The 70-year-old Putin, whose health has been the subject of intense speculations for many months now, was described as “withdrawn, terse, not meeting virtually with anyone in person, and generally deeply preoccupied,” according to the Telegram channel General SVR, which is said to be run by a former Russian intelligence officer.” Not much is expected to change if he resigns from office this year or decides not to run for re-election.

There are three crucial issues to examine in 2023. Putin’s plans for running for office again in 2024 is the first. The are also two other areas of concern to Western leaders. There is a growing schism among Russian political elites, with the hawks preferring an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. The Carnegie Endowment for Peace says this emerged as “an issue after Russia’s withdrawal from the Kharkiv region and relinquishing of the key city of Kherson, and was fueled by Ukraine’s strike on the bridge to Crimea, the referendums held on annexing occupied parts of Ukraine, and the authorities’ subsequent ambiguity on what Russia’s official borders are.” The hawks, who also support restructuring the country’s political and economic system, are opposed by a group roughly labeled as “pragmatists.” These are mid-ranked career officials and technocrats intend on rethinking the war effort and devising a more realistic approach given Russian losses and its limited military capabilities. It portends a year of internal strife in Russia as Putin intensifies his suppression of opposition voices and the pragmatists reach out to the Russian populace and non-military elites to call for an end to the war.

The third major challenge facing Russia this year concerns the reshuffling of government personnel. Although political analysts are not openly predicting who will be out in senior positions, what they are certain of is that Putin will be searching for dynamic and effective leaders. Tatiana Stanovaya, a Russian expert at the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, says that “Putin’s inclination to invite technocrats into the government may grow further, with senior figures in the cabinet, the presidential administration, and the power structures all aged and exhausted by the war and military failings forcing Putin to look for new ideas. Another is the coming presidential contest, given the historical record: reshuffles have preceded all but one of Russia’s presidential elections.” Putin enjoys hyper-secrecy and feels no need to explain his behavior. He still needs, however, to balance his leadership team for it to remain stable and innovative in a period when senior personnel are dissatisfied with each other. This year could prove a turning point for Russia, not only in its war in Ukraine, but also in Moscow as the next generation of leaders prepares to take over. It looks unlikely, however, that the forces of moderation will succeed in assuming the reins of power.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Putin meets with Dmitry Medvedev and other government officials (Russian Government official site)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.