I listened to Vladimir Putin's speech on Friday, and I understood: he is not fighting Ukraine, nor even NATO and the West, which he attacked throughout his words; I thought, he is now fighting reality itself.
With the exception of emotions and demagoguery, the speech contained one essential matter: his willingness to negotiate with Ukraine, although the annexed territories are not on the table. He said these things when the Ukrainians are advancing and the Russians are fleeing. Saying "we will not discuss the future of these territories" is possible when you are really in control In them, or you advance - and the enemy flees from you. Only then can conditions be set. Therefore, in my opinion, he is in conflict with reality, or at least tries to ignore it.
Putin during a conference call with the Russian Security Council, photo: AFP
Does Putin not understand the magnitude of the problem?
In the last two weeks, he declared his willingness to negotiate three times. Twice, in a conversation with Indian Prime Minister Modi and with Turkish President Erdogan, he did not even set conditions. That is, he presented his desire to stop the campaign, which means that he understands that his army is retreating and that victory is not in sight After all, in the past, when it seemed to him that he was winning, he rejected Zelensky's appeals for negotiations and set unfulfillable conditions.
And here, yesterday he again expressed willingness to negotiate, although this time, after the referendum, he set a condition.
But here too there is a nuance: the polls were held against Putin's wishes.
His main goal is to stop the war, and the polls get in the way because if he could first return territories he conquered, from the moment they were included in the Russian Federation - his room for maneuver was reduced.
Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, photo: Reuters
Erdogan and Putin, photo: Reuters
to boot Putin
How did the polls take place?
Because to Putin's surprise, the heads of the "republics" of Donetsk and Luhansk started to play an independent game.
A few days ago, the Kremlin announced that the polls were being delayed, and that the advisers sent to prepare the campaigns had left Kherson and Zaporizhzhia districts.
It has been said over and over again that the military problem needs to be solved, the Ukrainians' progress must be stopped, and only then deal with referendums and annexation.
That made sense.
Not two or three days passed and the legislatures of Donetsk and Luhansk addressed the heads of the "republics", Pushilin (Donetsk) and Peschanik (Luhansk), and publicly asked to hold referendums on joining Russia.
What happened is quite clear: Pushilin and Peschanik read the leaks from the Kremlin and realized that if the referendums were delayed, the Kremlin intended to get rid of them.
After all, they saw what happened near Kharkiv - the fleeing Russians left the collaborators behind - and decided to act.
It is possible that Pushilin and Peschanik had allies in the Kremlin - Turchak (Secretary General of Putin's Party), perhaps Petrushev (Head of the Russian Security Council), probably also Gromov (First Deputy Chief of Staff of the President), but at the base was their desire to save themselves Suddenly the hawks in Moscow realized that the move was in line with their expectations of increasing the stakes that would lead to escalation and bring Putin down, and they all together mounted a media-public operation in favor of the referendum.
The Kremlin fell into a trap.
What will they say?
We entered Ukraine to protect the residents of these regions.
If we forbid them to hold a referendum, then what are we doing there?
Refusal to hold referendums would have negated the legitimacy of the war.
The Kremlin had to agree, even though it was not in favor.
This is how you can understand the release of the prisoners from the Azov Regiment (the red sheet of Russian propaganda; Div) - it was an attempt to signal to Kiev that Putin is not so bad, that you can do business with him. Because Putin's goal is to reach negotiations quickly , otherwise he will lose the war.
And if he loses, he will lose power.
All his legitimacy is based on the assumption that he is strong and always wins.
And if it turns out that he has aged and therefore loses, no one needs him.
Ukrainian soldiers examine an abandoned Russian tank, near Kharkiv, photo: AFP
Ukrainian soldiers on an APC in the south of the country, photo: AP
change the narrative
And why was it necessary to attack the West and its values and speak against its "dictations"?
To change the narrative and obscure the fact that this is a conflict between Russia and the whole world.
Putin knows that Russian citizens do not want isolation because even the extremists know that it is impossible to win the fight against the whole world.
So he tries to change the picture and present Russia as the leader of most of the world, which is in conflict with the West.
It's an attempt to prevent depression, crying and nahi - because with a mentally crumbled base, how is it possible not to lose power?
There was no change in the content either, but the anti-colonial element was emphasized: Putin spoke as the leader of a third world country, for example he headed Senegal or Uganda.
This episode shows that he is weakening.
The events he started are out of his control.
Putin is no longer so much a leader as a led.
There are other decisions he makes on his own and creates an agenda, but in certain questions the events develop without regard to him and sometimes even against his will, and he cannot do anything.
Abbas Galiamov is a former speechwriter for Putin
Brought to light: David Baron
were we wrong
We will fix it!
If you found an error in the article, we would appreciate it if you shared it with us
