Rout in Ukraine fuels debate in Russia: Ease up or double down?

Ukraine’s lightning offensive in Kharkiv last week recaptured a large swath of territory and humiliated the Russian army. And in doing so, it ignited a very public debate in Russia – perhaps surprisingly so – over how the “special military operation,” as they still call it, is going.

There’s been a spectrum of responses to recent events in Ukraine, but for convenience they can be thought of as two groups: “hawks” and “doves.” Both see the need for drastic decisions to correct the course of the conflict – though they have very different ideas how.

Those who believe the war is a misbegotten enterprise that needs to end have existed from the operation’s outset. Their voices have become more urgent in the wake of the Kharkiv debacle.

On the other end, nationalist critics have long complained that Russia is fighting with one hand tied behind its back, trying to defeat an ever-growing Ukrainian army that enjoys full Western military support, while Russia uses the same force that it invaded Ukraine with almost seven months ago. Though most of the hawks are careful not to directly criticize the Kremlin or the military command, their voices have become more open and insistent since the Kharkiv defeat. That loss, as they see it, proved their point.

“People had gotten used to the war, the fact that it goes on day by day without generating any big news,” says Abbas Gallyamov, a former Putin speechwriter and expert on regional affairs. “Then, suddenly, everything changed. The status quo is overturned, authorities are shocked, and even the army people were apparently not ready for it. There is a similar change in the public mood. Loyalists are angry and disillusioned, while the opposition is inspired and energized.”

“We committed a mistake”

The scope of Russia’s military setback in the Kharkiv region is a matter of intense discussion, but few dispute that it was serious and will likely lead to key changes in the way Russia prosecutes the war.

Though the Russian Ministry of Defense was slow to admit that its forces were routed in a few days, Russian war correspondents on the ground did report events fairly accurately in real time. That’s an important point for gauging the public response; any Russian with internet access can learn about the conflict’s realities.

The consensus of Russian military experts appears to be that the defeat was a limited setback brought on by the error of failing to sufficiently man the long front lines, leaving the Kharkiv sector relatively undefended.

“We committed a mistake. We moved forward without leaving reserves behind to defend the positions,” says Viktor Litovkin, military affairs editor of the official TASS news agency. “The Americans analyzed our weaknesses using satellite intelligence, and informed the Ukrainians. So, yes, they successfully delivered a blow at our most vulnerable point – and they can be pleased with themselves. But they did not split up our lines or destroy our forces as they may have hoped to do. We will learn from our mistakes and move on.”

For the doves, it’s a clear sign that the war is a fool’s errand and it’s time to step up efforts to explain that to the public. Their channels of communication are limited, as authorities move swiftly to shut down any overt criticism of the war, most independent media have been driven off the airwaves or out of the country, and the state’s pro-war information machine is going full blast.

It’s too soon to note any possible shift in public opinion. The majority appears to support the ongoing war effort to some degree.

Still, a small handful of local council members in Moscow and St. Petersburg were able to issue strong anti-war public statements via social media that were seen by millions of Russians. A group of deputies in one St. Petersburg district issued an open letter to Vladimir Putin, accusing him of treason for prosecuting a disastrous war.

“The municipal council of Smolninskoye calls on you to stop the bloodshed. Immediately withdraw Russian troops from the territory of Ukraine and resign!” it said.

Those deputies have been hauled into court and fined under legislation that proscribes defaming Russian army and leadership, but they are still speaking freely.

Reached by the Monitor, one of the deputies, Nikita Yuferev, says they calculated the risks carefully before acting and decided the moment demanded that they speak out. “I think that people in the West overestimate our heroism,” he says. “It was well worth it. We had already expressed our anti-war position several times. But the effect it had now was far bigger than in the past. People who live in Russia are surrounded by propaganda to convince them that they have to support the operation, and our actions have demonstrated to them that they are not alone.

“We were brought up by the generation of our grandparents who were witnesses of the Second World War, and they longed for peace,” he says. “Perhaps that’s why the military actions were officially called a special operation. Many Russians perceived it as a police operation, as if our police went there to set things right. In my view it should never have been started.”

Boxed in by “angry patriots”

But the loudest and by far most influential voice belongs to the hawks, who argue that it’s time to take off the gloves in Ukraine. Among those figures are Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who said he would demand “explanations” for the defeat from the Defense Ministry. Even former President Dmitry Medvedev often seems to be channeling the hawkish view from his perch in the Kremlin’s Security Council.

The leader of Russia’s still-powerful Communist Party, Gennady Zyuganov, also appears to have joined the hawkish choir.

“In my opinion, over the past two months, the special operation in Ukraine and Donbas has turned into a war,” he said on his official website. “This war was declared against us by the Americans, united Europe, and NATO.”

These “angry patriots” are the people who most worry the Kremlin, and limit its ability to maneuver, according to political journalist Ekaterina Vinokurova. They include many public figures, war correspondents, parliamentarians, and “overplayed” loyalists, she wrote.

Viktor Baranets, a former Defense Ministry spokesman who is now a military columnist for the daily Komsomolskaya Pravda, seems typical of that group.

“We have to create a new army, add weapons, and begin everything anew,” he says. “We’ll deliver blows against the most sensitive arteries of Ukraine and not allow them a moment of peace. After what happened in Kharkiv, we are making adjustments to the operation, in terms of tactics and our use of missile strikes against certain targets. Having this experience as a hard lesson, we’ll survive and show them what we are capable of.”

In recent days the Russian military has indeed begun striking targets that seemed formerly off-limits, including electrical stations in eastern Ukraine – which plunged much of the region into darkness – and a critical river dam in the southern city of Kryvyi Rih.

“If we cut off the enemy’s electrical supply, we deprive him of the use of the railways through which he transports Western arms and mercenaries,” says Mr. Baranets.

“Something is going wrong”

Andrei Klimov, deputy head of the Federation Council’s international affairs committee, says that military methods must change, but the priority should not be to destroy Ukraine.

“We should not be in a hurry,” he says. “We could have already finished this if it were not for the involvement of NATO. It’s a specific kind of war, not with Ukraine, but NATO.”

One fairly mainstream dove, former liberal Duma deputy Boris Nadezhdin, actually managed to make a tough anti-war statement, in reference to the Kharkiv defeat, during a live panel discussion on the pro-Kremlin NTV network.

“I don’t think this is some kind of turning point, because it’s clear that Russia has the resources to carry on and can enlarge its presence in Ukraine,” Mr. Nadezhdin later told the Monitor. “But for the first time, everybody has recognized that something is going wrong, not according to plan. From the very beginning, the purposes of this operation have been unclear, and now we can all see that the Ukrainian army is a real force. So, society is split. People who support the operation want full mobilization. People who were against it want peace.”