What had been rumored anxiously for some time by the supporters of Russia’s ‘Special Military Operation’ in Ukraine came true; the commander of the operation, Sergei Surovikin, announced that they would withdraw the troops from Kherson region to the left bank of Dnieper River. Civilians had already begun to be evacuated in mid-October, based on the intelligence that Ukraine could destroy the Kakhovka Hydroelectric Power Plant, causing flooding.
The Russian general staff seems to have decided that the troops in Kherson cannot rely on supplies coming through Dnieper. The Ukrainian general staff agrees: their army destroyed Russia’s logistic hubs, command, and supply systems, and therefore “the enemy had no choice but to resort to fleeing from Kherson.”
So, both sides are convinced that the Kherson issue is a military imperative. There is no doubt that this is one of the aspects of this matter. However, it is not difficult to predict that the issue will have far too political dimension and consequences, given that Kherson is one of the Ukrainian oblasts that joined the Russian Federation in a referendum last September and the “forever with Russia” billboards in the city are kept in mind.
Public reactions in Russia
In Russia, it is doubted that the left-wing and right-wing parties of United Russia have significant differences in their political stance toward Ukraine. It’s not possible to find a party in Duma against ‘Special Military Operation.’
However, the forces led by the right-wing Rodina and Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and the left-wing Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) are critical of the way in which the operation is conducted, and this is becoming increasingly political. In particular, the CPRF argues that the military issue cannot be resolved unless the operation is called ‘war’ and the economy is restructured accordingly. Russia’s left-wing also expected the Putin administration would carry out a ‘left turn’ with the Ukrainian war because of its nature. But the United Russian government continues following its way, ignoring calls from the left to nationalize the economy.
Another criticism is the fate of local people, now in the hands of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, in Ukraine’s oblasts next to Russia. One of the reasons for Putin’s leadership’s intervention in Ukraine was the liberation of the Russian-speaking people living in the east of the country from neo-Nazi pressure. Although it is now considered Russian territory, the lives of pro-Russian people are feared in Kherson, which has been abandoned to Ukraine. Indeed, Ukrainian troops’ posts shared on their Telegram account after entering the city reveal that this terrible expectation has become a reality.
The Russian media, on the other hand, exhibits a great deal of criticism and polyphony, contrary to our perception and that of the West. For example, an article in Russia’s most popular military news portal topwar.ru states that Kherson was handed over without a single bullet being fired, yet ‘sold’ and ‘shameless propagandists’ would legitimize it. The article remarks that what the Russian leadership calls a ‘Special Military Operation’ means war all over the world, and that Russia must now put aside ‘commercial interests’ and engage in ‘a real war’.
According to another website, Katyusha, if the withdrawal from Kherson is not due to a cunning strategy, this is the greatest defeat of the Russian army since 1991, and it is inevitable that the confidence of ordinary people in the leadership of the country will be shaken. Katyusha remains hopeful that the retreat is a trap, but it also does not rule out the possibility that the abandonment of Kherson was due to a backdoor diplomacy between the U.S. and Russia. Both publications suggest that the death of Deputy Governor of Kherson, Kirill Stremousov, who was reportedly killed in a car crash, was questionable, as he opposed the evacuation.
Domestic political conflicts in Russia
While the war continues and the cracking voices in the local public are rising, some polarizations in politics also emerge. Although it is not the first ring of Russian leadership, the polarizations in the second ring are getting deeper.
The most obvious example of this is the interaction between Yevgeny Prigozhin, the founder and owner of Wagner, and Alexander Beglov, Governor of St. Petersburg. Prigozhin and media outlets close to him had been claiming for some time that Beglov had established a ‘criminal organization.’ Prigozhin’s company Concord took another step and applied to the Prosecutor General’s Offices of the Russian Federation and the intelligence organization FSB to have Beglov investigated on charges of ‘high treason’. If we give the Latvian-based Meduza website the benefit of doubt, the reason Prigozhin has been waging war on Beglov is because the Governor of Petersburg interfered with some of Wagner’s founders’ business ventures. Finally, the business center Wagner wanted to build in St. Petersburg was denied by the governor’s office.
It should also be noted that Prigozhin’s side also includes Chechnya leader, Ramzan Kadyrov. The two were targeted by General Alexandr Lapin, the commander of the Central Military District, who left his post citing health problems and was replaced by Andrey Mordvicev, close to the Prigozhin-Kadyrov duo.
Kadyrov’s actions are not limited to this. The Chechen leader has long been criticizing the Russian army openly. After the defeat at Liman, Kadyrov blamed General Lapin and Prigozhin immediately joined him. Some believe that the Kadyrov-Prigozhin duo’s public criticism of the Russian armed forces stems from Wagner’s ‘private business relations.’
It’s clear that this issue is more intricate than it seems. The two are thought to be mainly aimed at Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu and the Chief of the General Staff, Valery Gerasimov. Several retired officers and columnists also responded to the salvos of the Kadyrov-Prigozhin duo, describing the pair’s behavior as ‘demotivating.’
Potential secret alliance with the United States
The media also voiced their suspicions that there might be a secret compromise between Moscow and Washington. The Kherson retreat is still more suspicious after Nikolai Patrushev, the secretary of the Security Council of Russia and Jake Sullivan, the United States National Security Advisor, allegedly held a secret meeting.
Sources close to Russia say the Putin leadership has decided to end the war by reaching a comprehensive agreement with the ‘Collective West’. The fact that both Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakharova and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said they did not exclude negotiations with Ukraine and the West could also be seen as a signal. Following the missiles that fell on a village in Poland, regardless of Kyiv’s and Warsaw’s call for the implementation of Article 5 of the NATO treaty, U.S. President Joe Biden’s refusal to blame Russia is also a sign that something has been ‘cooked’ behind closed doors.
The understanding that such an agreement is favored by the Russian leadership, as well as China, India, Turkey, Iran, and other Middle Eastern countries, is becoming widespread. In the West, the influence of the Kadyrov-Prigozhin duo, which comes from Russia and is thought to be a ‘hawk’, is not much exaggerated. The closest example of this is an article published on Carnegie discussing the influence of the Kadyrov-Prigozhin duo on the Kremlin. “They talk the talk, Putin won’t listen to them,” concludes the article’s author in a nutshell.
The weak Trumpist wave in the U.S. by-election also seems to have pushed the Russian leadership to seek a deal. Undoubtedly, the possible presidency of Trump, seen as the voice of American industrialists, will be preferred in Russia. But now that these hopes have been shelved, a need for contact with the ‘Collective West’ seems to have arisen. The meeting of U.S. and Russian spy chiefs in Turkey also speaks volumes more than nuclear fear.
