The Telegraph published a review of the book Overreach by the Moscow correspondent of The Spectator, Owen Matthews, who writes about the gloomy prospect of the strengthening of Russian chauvinism. Matthews lived in Russia for 27 years and during that time made a lot of contacts, although the number of people willing to communicate with him decreased significantly with the beginning of the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine. He describes an atmosphere reminiscent of the Cold War, when people are willing to speak openly only in parks or choose to flee abroad. The Telegraph describes Overreach as an outstanding achievement of the author, who was able to cover different opinions and views on the Russian-Ukrainian war. Matthews explores the roots of Putinʼs obsession with Ukraine, calling the full-scale invasion "the final triumph of old Russia over new" or the victory of "paranoid Soviet theoreticians over post-Soviet capitalists." It also follows from this opinion that the complete isolation of Moscow is beneficial to Putinʼs inner circle, which, after getting rid of the liberals, will retain power in its own hands. As for the regular Russians, they are used to suffering, so for a revolution to take place there, life in the country must become much, much worse. Moreover, Russiaʼs military defeat will only increase its dependence on nationalist fantasies, Matthews concludes ― because this defeat will happen “due to NATO”.
Insider writes about the metamorphosis of Sergei Shoigu ― from Putinʼs best friend to a scapegoat. The Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation is one of the closest people to Putin and for a long time was considered his “right hand”. The publication describes in detail the rise and fall of Shoigu, a man who shares responsibility for Russiaʼs invasion of Ukraine. He is the only one from Putinʼs close circle who was not his colleague at the KGB or an old friend from St. Petersburg. The minister is fond of medals and while working in the Ministry of Defense introduced hundreds of new awards for the Russian army, and he himself likes to appear in public with awards (despite the complete lack of combat experience). Shoigu reached career heights thanks to his personal friendship with ex-president of Russia Boris Yeltsin and a large PR team, the publication writes. Before the start of the large-scale invasion, Shoigu was so close to Putin that they went "bathing in extract from young deer antlers" together, according to the Russian media Proekt. However, shortly after February 24, Shoigu began to lose his position in the Kremlin: in March, he didnʼt appear in public for almost two weeks, and starting from August, Putin stopped involving the Minister of Defense in the strategic planning of the war in Ukraine. Analyst Mark Galeotti calls Shoigu “Putinʼs bulletproof vest”, which absorbs criticism, thus shielding the president from it. Because of this, Putin will dismiss the minister only as a last resort. And for now, Shoigu simply keeps in the shadows, avoiding public appearances.
Ann Applebaum urges the West not to give in to Putinʼs threats of nuclear war in an essay for The Atlantic. The author believes that Putin uses fear as a weapon, so the purpose of his nuclear blackmail is to provoke fear. This tactic is characteristic of the KGB, and Putin used it during his 20-year rule in Russia. The murder of journalist Anna Politkovskaya, the imprisonment of businessman Mikhail Khodorkovskiy, the murder of opposition strongman Boris Nemtsov ― these actions are not mass terror, but they fulfill the task of sowing fear and promoting passivity, writes Applebaum. In his speeches, Putin mentioned nukes for years: back in 2009, during military exercises, Russia simulated dropping a nuclear warhead on Poland. This tactic, unfortunately, works, the author writes ― and it is fear that prevents the West from giving Ukraine airplanes and advanced tanks. According to Applebaum, fear also prompts the West to underestimate the horrors of non-nuclear attacks on civilians and Russiaʼs mass violence in Ukraine. Western caution may even send a signal to Putin that support for Ukraine has limits and may end soon. However, the concept of deterrence, according to Applebaum, can, on the contrary, lead to a nuclear disaster. Given Putinʼs past decisions, it is expedient to increase support for Ukraine and reiterate that a nuclear strike will be the beginning of the end of his regime. Only in this way will Putin himself be more afraid, the author concludes.
The mid-term elections to the US Congress, which are taking place right now, will show not only the future of American aid to Ukraine, but also the future of the Republican Party of the USA, The Intercept columnist James Risen assures. He predicts that the Republicans will win as a result of these by-elections. And those Republicans who believe that aid to Ukraine is not in the interests of the United States, at the same time represent a group of so-called “Christian nationalists”. These are, according to Risenʼs description, “theocrats who don’t believe in the separation of church and state and who argue that the United States was founded as a “Christian” nation and needs to return to those origins. They despise Western secularist culture; fear white demographic decline; and deeply resent feminism, homosexuality, abortion rights, and even individualism, which they see as a modern concept at odds with a more traditional, hierarchal society.” These politicians, once representatives of the fringes, have rallied around Donald Trump and are gaining more and more power. And admiration for Putin, who expresses for them the struggle of the “white Christian” against everything reprehensible, logically fits into their worldview. These politicians love to spread Russian fakes and narratives ― for example, Arizona Senator Wendy Rogers, who called Zelensky a “globalist puppet of Soros and the Clintons.” Or like Marjorie Taylor Green, who promised “not a penny for Ukraine” and spoke at rallies where the audience shouted “Putin! Putin!”. In parallel with these republicans, there are also “classical” ones, uncompromising towards dictatorships and active supporters of even greater aid to Ukraine than the one that is available now. Risen concludes that the Ukrainian issue will be a litmus test for the Republican Party ― whether it is turning into a fascist organization that seeks to create a nationalist dictatorship.