General Ivashov challenges President Putin, part one
Brian M Downing
Vladimir Putin is riding high. Oil prices are way up. His alignment with China is posing trouble for the US around the world and restoring Russia’s prestige. His position at home looks solid. A recent event, however, suggests disquiet in a powerful institution.
Leonid Ivashov, a well-connected retired general and staunch nationalist, has criticized his president. In an open letter he stated that the Ukraine has the right to independence and self-defense; Putin’s threats have brought strong responses from adjacent countries, and war with the Ukraine would cause considerable casualties and suffering. The general even said war might endanger Russia’s existence, then called for Putin’s resignation – something he’s done before.
Astonishing. Unexpected. What’s behind this? Is it a passing news story or is there significant opposition in the military?
The military
A Russian journalist or politician who spoke so critically would fear swift punishment through exile, imprisonment, or assassination. Ivashov may have no such concern. He has considerable standing in the public, military, and security bureaus. An attempt to arrest him might be repelled, perhaps violently.
The general’s assassination would cause serious trouble with Putin’s army, state, and subjects. Russian soldiers have rebelled in the past: the Decembrists after the near-disaster of the Napoleonic invasion and widespread mutinies late in the First World War. Putin undoubtedly has loyalists in key positions and spies throughout, as did Stalin, but Ivashov‘s audacity suggests confidence.
The general leads the All-Russian Officers’ Assembly, a political action committee of sorts comprising thousands of retired officers, mostly of a staunchly nationalist bent. He likely speaks for, and has the support of, a substantial portion of his caste.
Opposition to Putin resonates with others who seek change. But Ivashov is no latter-day Decembrist who wants liberal reforms. He supports autocracy and hard-nosed foreign policy, just not the same way Putin does. Stauffenberg and Rommel were as authoritarian and nationalist as anyone in the Wolf’s Lair. They just thought Hitler was endangering Germany and wanted him gone.
Ivashov’s opposition is based in part on personal resentment and ambition. But more importantly, he’s concerned with Putin’s concentrated power and geopolitical strategy.
Concentrated power
Putin has restored his country’s economy, military, and prestige since the Soviet Union’s fall (1991). Russians, most of them, now feel better about their lives and nation than amid the despair and anomie of the nineties. Reliable polling show he’s very popular, though survey firms are less free now.
Putin has consolidated his power, acted forcefully at home and abroad, and placed himself alongside Ivan IV, Peter the Great, Nicholas I, and Josef Stalin in the pantheon of great leaders (vozhds). He has also taken on some of their failings, ones readily identified by historians and politicians burdened with the task of carrying on after the vozhds’ reigns ended.
Putin has acted arbitrarily, cruelly, one might say despotically. Opponents in politics and industry live in fear. Many have been stripped of positions, some have been imprisoned, a few have been killed. He stages publicity stunts: finding underwater treasure, riding bare-chested and armed across the countryside, and feigning piety before brightly-appointed Orthodox elders.
These are not the actions of a stable leader. They are reminiscent of Stalin, who purged the CPSU and Red Army of suspects and executed scores of them. So sweeping were his purges of generals that the military performed poorly at the outset of Barbarossa. So appalling was his judgment in world affairs that he trusted Hitler and disbelieved his remaining generals for days when they said the Reich had invaded.
Generals want stability, sound judgment, and process rather than whim, pettiness, and stunts.
In the aftermath of Ivashov‘s broadside, Putin may want to scrutinize his senior officer corps for disloyalty to him – and sympathy for Ivashov. He doesn’t want to go to war and confront the West with disquiet in the ranks. The former general might have already gauged his support and even welcome an attempted purge.
Succession has been a recurring problem. Ivan IV left no responsible heir. A power struggle, civil war, and foreign invasion followed. Peter the Great left a vacuum behind and a string of scheming, short-lived monarchs followed. Catherine II’s successor was assassinated – with foreign complicity. Stalin’s death was celebrated by many and afterward, lesser figures vied for his position. Beria was assassinated, others such as Molotov and Kaganovich were sent off to remote regions. (The latter died just a few months before the Soviet Union did.)
Putin has no heir apparent. There is no party machinery to carry on after him and his offspring have no standing. This presents the strong potential for a tumultuous succession upon his departure, with a slew of industrial barons fighting for control, probably against the military. The generals want orderly process, stability, and national security. But after Putin there might well be a deluge.
©2022 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who’s written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs. Thanks as ever to fellow Hoya Susan Ganosellis.