Sergey Radchenko, a Siberian scholar at the Johns Hopkins School of International Relations, has studied the intrigues and plots in the Kremlin for the past hundred years. An exciting subject. Thus, Stalin died of a heart attack after twenty years in power without contestation: he had 98 of the 139 members of the Central Committee who had elected him in 1934 executed. It's essential to them." And he sees similarities to the atmosphere that led to the overthrow of Nikita Khrushchev in 1964.
Does Putin preserve the perception of reality?
There is no evidence to the contrary, but he is being deeply myopic about strategic goals. He has gotten himself into a situation out of his control and every time he tries to strengthen his position, he only deteriorates it.
Does the Russian president maintain popular support that led him to win elections?
Obviously, Putin has a large base of support, but we don't know how extensive it is and, above all, how firm it is. When Putin decreed the militarization of reservists, the protests have reappeared because this time it directly affects citizens. They didn't care about Putin because he let them live their lives. That has changed because now their lives can end in war.
Any sign of discontent in the Kremlin circle?
It is very difficult to know because it is very closed and it is quite dangerous to express any contrary opinion. Putin has always valued loyalty, first and foremost, more than anything else. It is the basis of his power. To date, we haven't seen any discrepancies among the top brass but that's not to say they can't exist behind the scenes, especially where the war is concerned. I am sure that is the case.
Was it easier to kill the leader in the Soviet era?
No, I don't think there are fundamental differences. It was always very difficult to speak against him. Stalin ruled almost twenty years without suffering a single coup attempt but, of course, he was an extremely able man to face his lieutenants. A teacher. After Stalin, the situation changed markedly. His successor, Nikita Khrushchev, ruled from 1957 to 1964 thanks to the economic stability and the fact that the USSR did not get involved in any senseless war.
But his comrades made his bed...
He was overthrown for various reasons, such as handling the 1962 Cuban missile crisis but more importantly for domestic reasons: top officials were fed up with him, conspired and fired him. It is not something that he currently excludes. There are parallels even if they are not exact. Brezhnev then served his term without anyone trying to remove his chair and he died in bed in 1982. Turbulence followed. When there is turbulence, people try to take advantage of it and in the case of Gorbachev he suffered the 1991 coup attempt that failed but opened up great instability. Yeltsin won the fight. Whenever there is economic and political turmoil, opportunities are created for those around the leader. We don't see it currently but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Gorbachev suffered in 1991 a coup attempt with the army involved. Is a weakened army off the board or dangerous for Putin?
The role of the army is crucial and its role central. To carry out a coup in Russia you have to have the support of the army. I'm thinking back to 1993 when Boris Yeltsin took over: if he hadn't had the army and the tanks on his side he wouldn't even have tried to take power anymore. In 1964, Brezhnev could not have struck against Khrushchev without the support of the intelligence services. And before that, in turn, Khrushchev prevailed thanks to the support of Marshal Zhukov in 1957. Military participation is essential to overthrow the leaders of Russia, even if they have never done it on their own.
The Russian army seems to be going through very low hours...
Obviously, the prestige and image of the army among the population has decreased with this war, but I don't think public opinion is important either. It has never been, except in Yeltsin's coup against Gorbachev because then there was freedom of the press, people are very politically mobilized and it was reflected in the streets. The situation now is very different. What people think of Russia, it does not matter to hit.
In his recent article in Foreign Affairs, he lists five potential successors to Putin. All very loyal.
That is why they were appointed by Putin, but loyalty is a very relative concept in environments conducive to betrayal. And if they staged a coup, all of them would distance themselves from Putin and, above all, from his mistakes in Ukraine.
Russia's Vietnam?
Russia has a lot of human strength, it is a bigger country than Ukraine and it can mobilize a lot of people but that has made it excessively optimistic. Russia has the ability to correct military mistakes as long as the political situation is under control. I don't see Russia taking its hands off Ukraine but Russia is going through a very dangerous moment because there is a feeling that things have gone off the rails. If Putin overcomes this, it is foreseeable that he will continue his war for months and years.
Russia is a master at disseminating hoaxes against the West, will fake news serve to quell internal discontent?
This is, paradoxically, a weak point for Putin. One of the bases of this propaganda is to sow doubt about the truth and put everything under suspicion. There is no truth in official circles, they said about Europe, and it has worked for them. But now, with many Russians caught up in this propaganda, it's harder to believe the Kremlin's own narrative. When Moscow says that it is a war for the survival of Russia, many Russians believe that it is fake news and there is no truth in any state, not even ours. Putin is a victim of his own propaganda.
