Posted at 11:00 a.m.
(St. Petersburg, Russia) A profound political, economic and cultural change, a real revolution set in motion from above, has been taking place in the country for four months.
The range of opinions expressed publicly has widened considerably in the media since the attack of February 24, which plunged political, intellectual and economic elites into a state of shock. Today, it is no longer the Kremlin’s decision to use military force against its neighbor that is in question. It is the economic, scientific and technological blockade of Russia that creates a patriotic feeling, even among those who would not have approved a priori the deployment of troops in Ukraine.
But even staunch supporters of military action, including popular radio and television commentators like Mikheyev and Solovyov, voice criticism of the armed operation. They may relate to the inability to destroy at the border even Western weapons entering Ukraine through Poland. Others blame the armed forces for not using their control of Ukrainian airspace to stop the parade of senior Western officials in Kyiv.
It is not only the range of opinions that has widened, but also the terminology. A recent article published in the prestigious Moscow journal Russia in Global Affairs was titled The first great war of the XXIe century. The word “war” was once officially banned in favor of “special military operation”. But the article deserves attention, and not just because of its “bold” title.
The author, Vassili Kashin, of the Graduate School of Economics, argues that this conflict is distinct from all military conflicts since World War II in that there is no overriding advantage of a side, as in the American invasion of Iraq. He points to the excessive number of airborne units in relation to the “heavy” ground forces and asserts that this imbalance compromises the effectiveness of operations in Ukraine. Even harsher words are reserved for “the bloated, expensive and antiquated navy”, the concept of which (and a good number of ships) were inherited from the Soviet Union. The Air Force is not unscathed either. It is considered inadequate to carry out operations such as the American bombardments on Iraq in 1991 or Yugoslavia in 1999, because it constitutes only 15% of the American aviation deployed in these two theaters.
Similar criticisms are leveled at the lack of drones and communications equipment, as well as intelligence-gathering problems that prevent the effective use of superior artillery. The personal medical kits of Russian soldiers are simply described as “miserable”. Implicitly, the criticism is not aimed so much at the country’s military as at the political level which set the objectives of the operation in defiance of the real state of the armed forces. “From the beginning, Russia never had the forces necessary for a quick victory, and they don’t have them now. »
This type of frank analysis is accompanied by the rallying of otherwise pro-Western elites behind the Kremlin. One of the reasons why the Russian military operation was prepared in such secrecy would be the resistance that was expected from the largely globalized Russian business and intellectual circles.
Yet some of those who lamented the outbreak of the military conflict are defending their country now that the Western powers and their allies in Kyiv have declared their goal of weakening, if not dismembering, Russia.
A good example is political scientist Dmitry Trenin, director of the Carnegie Center in Moscow before the Russian government closed it in April. A noted pro-Western, he wrote in May that “Russia’s very existence is in danger.” More recently, in an interview with New York Times, he defines “strategic success in Ukraine” as his country’s most important objective. He pleads for a reorientation of the country towards a more efficient economy and greater social justice.
The director of the famous Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg, Mikhail Piotrovsky, in stating that “we are indissolubly linked to Europe”, recalls that other European countries have waged many wars throughout history. Like many Russian intellectuals, he calls for closing ranks and pursuing calm and normal work as the country enters a new era.
Their unprecedented severity makes Western sanctions appear as a means of destroying Russia. This perception is widely shared among the elites and explains their growing identification with the state and its fate. These are connected and informed people, not victims of official propaganda. While some prominent Russians have left the country and speak out against his actions in Ukraine, much of the country’s elite has rallied behind the tricolor.