Split in the Kremlin due to withdrawal from Kherson |
|
|
|
Ukraine-Russia Negotiations: what’s possible now? |
|
|
|
Pentagon Announces Expansion of US Military Command for Ukraine |
|
|
|
-
A Necessary Organizational Change
-
Transitioning to the New Command
-
Significance for US Policy
|
|
|
|
Disinformation narratives and influence operations |
|
|
|
Split in the Kremlin due to withdrawal from Kherson |
|
|
|
The split in the Kremlin happened due to its propaganda, which was spreading disinformation about the military, social and political situations in "liberated" Ukrainian regions. But, when the difference between the information on air became so noticeable and you cannot replace "retreat" with "regrouping" anymore, even the most influential actors of the regime could launch a wave of nonconformity. The point of no return was the withdrawal of Russian troops from Kherson. It provoked an ideological split between the figures who publicly supported the war and Russian President Vladimir Putin, reports the Institute for the Study of War (ISW).
|
|
|
|
The public division between Russian elites |
|
|
|
On 30th of September Russian President Vladimir Putin, speaking at the ceremony of Russia's annexation of four regions of Ukraine, said: "I want the Kyiv authorities and their real masters in the West to hear me so that everyone will remember this - people living in Lugansk and Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhya become our citizens. Forever and ever". Besides, on the 9th of November the Russian authorities officially announced the surrender of Kherson, calling it a "withdrawal of troops." Kherson was the only regional centre that Russia has managed to conquer since the beginning of the invasion. Thus, an ideologue of Russian propaganda Oleksandr Dugin openly criticized Putin for failing to support "Russian ideology" in Kherson. He did not follow the Kremlin's "withdrawal of troops," but he urged that the city of Kherson surrender. Dugin stated that this "Russian ideology" determines Russia's responsibility to defend "Russian cities" such as Kherson, Donetsk and Simferopol, which are Ukrainian. The propagandist said that Putin must save his nation himself or face the fate of the "Rain King", referring to the book "The Golden Bough" by James Fraser. According to the plot of the book, the king was killed because he could not bring rain during a drought.
ISW informs, Putin's nationalist propagandists, such as Volodymyr Solovyov, increasingly demand that the Kremlin and the military high command fully "give in to their goals" in Ukraine, and Solovyov even called for the full mobilization and firing of incompetent officials after Russia's withdrawal from Kherson. At the same time, the field commander of the formation of the so-called "DPR" and writer Zakhar Prilepin
continues to assert that Putin was allegedly deceived by his subordinates many times. After the escape of the occupiers from Kherson, he urged them "to tell the truth", and compared the mistakes of the Russian president with the mistakes of Joseph Stalin, including in the Finnish war. "Direct criticism of Putin among the propaganda community is almost unprecedented, and Dugin's loud and ill-advised attack on Putin may indicate a shift among Russian 'nationalist ideologues,'" ISW said.
The abandonment of the city of Kherson undermined confidence in Putin's ability to deliver on his military promises. That is why the key actors of Kremlin propaganda broke the official line and started to criticize the Russian authorities. What is even more, the Russian political establishment, not the military. Russian propaganda convinced them that the Russian army is so motivated and well-equipped, so there was no reason for them to retreat.
Local collaborators claimed that the situation in the region was under the control of the Russian army and that it would conduct a counterattack soon. Saying that propaganda created a political background of retreat from Kherson and the issue of "political agreement" made directly by Putin. As a result, it undermines the unity of the Kremlin and somehow establishes freedom of speech of the Kremlin propagandists and media at least during the time of "withdrawal". What would that mean from a long-term perspective? See how it goes.
|
|
|
|
The success of the AFU on the battlefield creates a visible division between Russian elites. This may serve as a favour not only for Ukraine but also for the West. The bigger tension, the bigger chance that the division would create operational paralysis in decision-making. Therefore the Western allies of Ukraine should send even more modern weapons to Ukraine, and provide its soldiers with more exercises, especially for the West-type arms such as tanks or even F-16 aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Ukraine-Russia Negotiations: what’s possible now? |
|
|
|
In recent weeks, rhetoric about negotiations between Ukraine and Russia has intensified significantly. On November 4, U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan visited Kyiv. According to several media outlets, Sullivan suggested that Zelenskyy think about "realistic demands" to start negotiations.
Immediately after this unannounced visit, several American media published articles hinting that Ukraine should reconsider its approach to talks with Russia. According to an article in The Wall Street Journal, senior U.S. officials have begun pushing Kyiv to negotiate peace in case winter slows down the momentum at the front. Unexpectedly, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, spoke about the need for negotiations: "When there is an opportunity to negotiate when peace can be achieved, seize it. Seize the moment." At the same time, representatives of the Biden administration continue publicly declaring that Washington does not put pressure on Kyiv.
British Defence Minister Ben Wallace, Dutch Defence Minister Kaisa Ollongren, and Latvian Defense Minister Artis Pabriks urged no pressure on Ukraine on talks with Russia. The official Moscow issued another statement on its readiness for negotiations. Kyiv insists that Ukraine will sit at the negotiating table when the conditions are met. United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres believes dialogue between Ukraine and Russia is necessary. But any peace is not suitable - it is possible only under the condition of the full restoration of the integrity of the territory of Ukraine within the internationally recognized borders. On November 15, Russia fired roughly 90 missiles on the territory of Ukraine.
|
|
|
|
Ukrainian successes on the battlefield |
|
|
|
Negotiations between Ukraine and Russia took place shortly after the start of the full-scale invasion. In addition to the cessation of hostilities, Ukraine's main demand at that time was a return of the borders as they were on 24 February. But the dialogue stopped after the liberation of the Kyiv region, where Russians carried out massacres of civilians. Accordingly, the conditions have changed. Kyiv's new position is the full de-occupation of the territory of Ukraine – the liberation of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and the return of Crimea. After the release of Izyum and the finding of mass graves of civilians tortured by Russians, the possibility of peace negotiations sharply decreased. Current relations between Ukraine and Russia are reduced to the exchange of prisoners of war.
In principle, Kyiv has never refused to negotiate with Moscow but insists on its positions. And this is logical. Now Ukraine is winning on the battlefield, and the liberation of Kherson gives new hope for victory. Negotiations with the Kremlin now mean giving the Russians an operational pause to restore their troops and accumulate resources for further war. Kyiv will not go for this. “Ukraine should not offer compromises with conscience, sovereignty, territory, and independence. To end the war, Russia must confirm the territorial integrity of Ukraine, withdraw troops from Ukrainian territory, and pay compensation for losses”, Zelenskyy said during a speech at the G20.
Several reasons have caused recent discussions about the talks: high financial costs of the war, change in the political configuration in the United States, fears of a complete defeat for Russia, and a change in Putin's regime. In the case of the Russian collapse, even more, radical personalities such as Chechnya's leader Ramzan Kadyrov, criminal authority Yevgeny Prigozhin and former president and now deputy chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev may come to power in the Kremlin, who can turn the world into "radioactive ash."
For this reason, negotiating with Putin is being considered to prevent tyrants from coming to power. However, such a policy, on the contrary, will only encourage the Kremlin dictator to continue his aggression in Ukraine. And he won't stop.
|
|
|
|
Sooner or later, this war will end in an agreement,
whether de jure or de facto. However, it is too early to sit at the negotiating
table at this stage. Mass rocket attacks by Russians do not demonstrate an
interest of the Kremlin in peaceful dialogue. Ukraine and its partners must use
Russia's weakness (after the Kherson defeat) to punish it for its aggression.
Putin's regime shouldn't be allowed to strengthen again in no case. Especially
through negotiations. Otherwise, all previous efforts can be levelled. The best
policy for the United States and EU partners is to send Ukraine all the weapons
it needs to de-occupy the territory within its internationally recognized
borders, support it financially, and increase sanctions pressure on Russia.
|
|
|
|
Pentagon Announces Expansion of US Military Command for Ukraine |
|
|
|
The Pentagon has announced a new, permanent military command headquarters dedicated to supporting Ukraine. Located in Germany, and operating under the umbrella of the US European Command, the Security Assistance Group-Ukraine (SAG-U) will replace the temporary command hastily established in the wake of the Russian invasion. SAG-U is intended to streamline assistance efforts which had already begun before the Russian invasion, and in some cases even before the unlawful annexation of Crimea. Importantly, the Department of Defense has emphasized that SAG-U is geared towards providing “short-term assistance, but also long-term assistance to Ukraine.” It was accompanied by $400 million in security assistance (including refurbished Czech T-72B tanks, air defence missiles, and "sustainment" funding).
|
|
|
|
A Necessary Organizational Change |
|
|
|
Until this change, US security assistance to Ukraine was still overseen by a makeshift, emergency operation under US European Command. Responding directly to the Russian invasion, the US deployed the 18th Airborne Corps unit to Germany just four days after the war began. For months, this unit was responsible for bolstering NATO forces in the region and coordinating the assistance efforts of the US on the ground. This included many programs which had been active for some years: training programs for Ukrainian soldiers, the organization of joint exercises with NATO and EU allies, and the transfer of supplies. The major difference triggered by the Russian invasion was the scale of US efforts.
A recent Congressional Research Service report noted that the US has contributed $20.3 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since 2014. Of that, $17.6 billion was committed just since the Russian invasion in February. That means that over 86% of all US security assistance in Ukraine for the past eight years has come in just the last eight months. While the management of these funds and the transfer of physical munitions from US stockpiles could be handled for a short time under this hastily structured command, it is not the most efficient system in the long run. Given that Congress has already proposed some $15 billion in proportions for security assistance for Ukraine in FY2023, a larger operation needed to be organized (that figure will certainly change, but it roughly demonstrates the magnitude of support that can be expected).
|
|
|
|
Transitioning to the New Command |
|
|
|
SAG-U will technically replace the existing operation, but it will be doing essentially the same work with a more systematic approach and greater resources. Dr Colin Kahl is the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the chief advisor to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on all matters of security policy, particularly those matters that require coordination with US allies. Kahl spoke about the establishment of SAG-U at a recent press event: "We just see this as a continuation of what we've been doing with the Ukrainians since 2014. It got dialled up as a consequence of Russia's further invasion of Ukraine back in February, but, really, it's kind of just institutionalizing what we've been doing since then." He characterized this as an expansion and a streamlining of existing operations, with the 300-person SAG-U taking over the growing workload of the 18th Airborne Division. According to the New York Times, their formal structure will be modelled after "U.S. train-and-assist efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past two decades."
|
|
|
|
Significance for US Policy |
|
|
|
The move not only signals the ongoing commitment of the US to supporting Ukraine, but also the expectation of a drawn-out conflict. If military officials in the US and among its NATO/EU allies expected the war to conclude within the next six months, SAG-U may not have been considered a worthwhile investment. Even if the war with Ukraine comes to a close in the coming years, the US may be anticipating a need for a more permanent presence in Europe as a counterweight to Russia.
|
|
|
|
Disinformation narratives and influence operations |
|
|
|
Kherson retreat confuses Russian propagandists |
|
|
|
On October 5, after a series of illegal referendums held in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin signed laws that claimed four regions of Ukraine as Russia's territory. Earlier on September 30, he proudly announced that “People living in Luhansk and Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia are becoming our citizens. Forever.” However, no word has been spoken by Putin when, following the November 9 order of Defense Minister Sergi Shoigu, the Russian troops retreated from Kherson city to the east of the Dnipro river, leaving the only capital of the region occupied since their 2022 invasion to Ukrainian control.
The retreat, assessed as Russia's most significant setback of the war after invading Ukraine, has forced the Kremlin's backers to put on a brave face over Russia's withdrawal from the key city. The Russian state media and propaganda mouthpieces rushed to push the narrative that withdrawing from Kherson was, in fact, "a clever trap for NATO”. Other Russian propagandists, though, have been struggling to come up with more convincing arguments in support of the decision, with one Russian TV pundit, Andrey Norkin, even complaining that under Russian law, any position, both approval and disapproval of the decision, would see him imprisoned for “several years.”
|
|
|
|
Putin’s ally Prigozhin admits to interfering in US elections |
|
|
|
Powerful Russian Oligarch, the founder of the mercenary Wagner Group and a close Vladimir Putin ally Yevgeny Prigozhin has admitted to interfering in US elections on the eve of a midterm vote. Asked by a journalist whether Russia was interfering in the U.S. midterms on November 8, Prigozhin answered: “Gentlemen, we interfered, we interfere and we will interfere,” further adding that Russia has interfered in US ballots in the past, and plans to continue doing so in the future as well, "carefully, precisely, surgically and in our way, as we know how," - Prigozhin said.
The U.S social media analysis firm last week said that suspected Russian operatives have used far-right media platforms to criticize Democratic candidates in the lead-up to the midterm elections. Even though Prigozhin was charged in the U.S with operating a covert social media campaign aimed at dividing American public opinion ahead of the 2016 presidential election, until now, the Russian Oligarch had denied Russian interference in U.S elections. Also, on November 8, another Kremlin-associated individual, propagandist Vladimir Solovyov greeted his audience by wishing them a "Happy Interference in the U.S. Elections Day."
|
|
|
|
Russia could not destroy a single HIMARS in Ukraine |
|
|
|
Shortly after Washington supplied Kyiv with sophisticated High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) that enabled Ukrainian troops to cut the supply lines of the invaders and wear Russia's army down by attrition, HIMARS has become a traditional target of Russian state propaganda. Up until today, Russia's army speaker, Igor Konoshenkov, daily announcing military losses inflicted on Ukraine, numerously claimed, without providing evidence, that the Russian side destroyed several HIMARS operated by Ukraine.
At one point, while showing a video allegedly demonstrating the destruction of HIMARS, the Russian MoD released footage of a precision missile strike against the second floor of a three-story office building, a rather unconvincing hiding place for truck-based rocket launchers. Some propaganda accounts on social media have even claimed about Ukrainian officials selling HIMARS. Such claims have been assessed by fact-checkers and OSINT analysts as baseless, and according to recent reports, a Defense Department official has told Politico that Moscow has not been able to destroy even a single HIMARS launcher provided by the US to Ukraine.
|
|
|
|
This newsletter is supported by the European Cultural Foundation
|
|
|
|
|
|
In collaboration with experts from Information Defense Hub
|
|
|
|
|
|
Itai Abraham – Dmytro Filonenko – Mariam Lashkhia
|
|
|
|
If you would like to give us feedback or suggestions, please contact Kremlin Watch project coordinator |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For comments. suggestions or media inquiries, please contact Kremlin Watch analyst |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- You can support us by clicking to donate money via our website,
- transfer your money to our transparent bank account
2300405420/2010
- or simply by scanning the QR code within your
internet banking app.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS NEWSLETTER |
|
|
|
|