The dangers of putting Putin under pressure
Moscow has already changed tack to work on destabilising institutions in the US and Europe, writes Peter Apps
How will Vladimir Putin respond to t he growing challenges against him? The Russian president, who turns 65 in October, might presently look unassailable — but maintaining that grip will get harder every year.
Compared to British Prime Minister Theresa May or US President Donald Trump, the Russian president faces scant internal opposition. Recent anti-corruption protests, however, provided him a reminder that no leader can remain in power forever.
Mr Putin will almost certainly win the March presidential elections. His poll ratings remain high, and Russians have little appetite for the chaos that his fall might bring.
But that doesn’t mean there are no rivals waiting for him to stumble.
Most obvious for now is opposition Progress Party leader Alexei Navalny, whose success in getting thousands of demonstrators out on the streets concerns Mr Putin and those around him. Russian officials have tried to slow Mr Navalny down by bringing multiple legal challenges against his right to run for president; he was sentenced to a 30-day jail term after being arrested ahead of this month’s protests.
If history is any guide, Mr Navalny’s path to any place on a presidential ballot could get even tougher. The anti-corruption activist lost much of his eyesight after unknown assailants threw a caustic liquid in his face earlier this year. He must be painfully aware that many critics of Mr Putin have died in suspicious circumstances in recent years. Others have ended up in jail or exile.
For now, the 41-year-old Mr Navalny might prefer to wait. Mr Putin has no natural heir and even if he clings to office in the manner of Zimbabwe’s 93-year-old Robert Mugabe, the Russian leader’s power will wane with age.
Mr Mugabe has survived in part because few have been willing to risk a confrontation when they felt they could let nature take its course. He has struck deals with senior supporters and opposition leaders, all of whom have been positioning themselves for years to move fast once he is gone.
It’s an example increasingly discussed among Russians and Russia-watchers. Such a long-term strategy could work for Mr Navalny. That could also be the plan of 51-yearold Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, who held the presidency while Mr Putin sat it out under Russia’s term-limit laws to re-qualify for another presidential run.
Once regarded purely as a powerless protégé of Mr Putin, Mr Medvedev is now seen as having his own powerbase among modernisers and moderates. Many of those around Mr Putin may owe their power and wealth to him, but few are simply slavish acolytes. They all have their agendas — and those who are younger will need to survive after the Russian leader has gone.
Even without an immediate threat, Mr Putin must be feeling the pressure. And history shows that when he is under pressure he is more likely to be ruthless about striking out at real and imagined enemies both at home and abroad. That danger might be aggravated by the unpredictability of the Trump administration and the growing number of situations where US and allied forces are in increasingly close proximity to those of Russia.
Monday’s shooting down of a Syrian jet by the US Navy, for example, has further ratcheted up tensions between Moscow and Washington. A close aerial confrontation between Russian and US aircraft over the Baltic on Monday is widely suspected to have been a response to Washington’s actions over Syria.
For now, most Russia watchers believe Mr Putin’s priority has been to reassert Russia as a geopolitical heavyweight that can pitch itself in the same league as countries like the US and China. Ultimately, though, he is likely to put maintaining domestic power ahead of international stature.
Until the uprisings of the “Arab Spring”, which Moscow blamed heavily — although not exclusively — on the Obama administration, Mr Putin and the wider Russian establishment appeared mostly happy to work within the Western-built, globalised and largely democratic world. Certainly, they took advantage of its trade and banking opportunities to enrich themselves and boost Russia’s state coffers with energy sales and business deals.
Now Moscow has shifted focus to destabilising and delegitimising the institutions of the US and Europe. US and European sanctions following Russia’s annexation of Crimea may have accelerated this trend — although most analysts believe Mr Putin and those around him still want to maintain at least some access to Western financial systems.
Moscow’s alleged interference in elections in the US, France and elsewhere are clearly part of this destabilising trend. So is the Russian intervention in Syria, designed not just to prop up Bashar al-Assad but show the rest of the world — including Russians — of the dangers when people rise against authority.
If Mr Putin feels threatened at home, he may be tempted to pick more fights outside of Russia’s borders.
There is no shortage of places. Western
Monday’s shooting down of a Syrian jet by the US Navy, for example, has further ratcheted up tensions between Moscow and Washington.
countries worry about direct military or covert action against the Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, formerly part of the Soviet Union but now members of Nato. Countries like Ukraine and Georgia, which lean West but lack Nato membership, may be even more vulnerable.
This year has already seen posturing by Russia and Nato in the Baltic, with more large military exercises planned by both for this year.
Some Western officials suspect Moscow may choose to leave troops in its ally Belarus after its large “Zapad” drills in September. That would leave the country under Russian military domination, the Baltic states more encircled and the rest of Europe deeply unsettled.