Putin’s Delayed Response to Kursk Attack May Strain Backers’ Patience

One year ago, President Vladimir Putin stood in the Kursk region, celebrating the 80th anniversary of a significant World War II victory for the Soviet army. The Battle of Kursk was hailed by Putin as “one of the great feats of our people,” while he addressed an audience that included soldiers who had recently returned from fighting in Ukraine.

As Russia now approaches the 81st anniversary of that historic battle, the region finds itself in the spotlight once more, but for starkly different reasons. Ukrainian forces launched an aggressive offensive on August 6, swiftly capturing villages, taking hundreds of prisoners, and necessitating the evacuation of tens of thousands of civilians. Caught off guard, Russian authorities have reportedly begun drafting conscripts to fend off some of Ukraine’s most experienced troops.

Throughout his time in office, Putin has often been slow to respond to crises, and he has largely downplayed the recent attacks. However, the state of affairs is markedly concerning for Russia, especially given that he initiated a war in Ukraine to eliminate an alleged threat to the nation.

During a televised security meeting on August 12, Putin appeared visibly uncomfortable as he cut off the acting regional governor after he began recounting the towns captured by Ukrainian forces. Officials opted to refer to the situation in Kursk as a “situation” or a “provocation,” attempting to downplay the severity of events.

In state media coverage, the narrative has also shifted. Coverage has focused on evacuees receiving aid and offers of blood donations rather than framing the situation as a significant military encounter, marking one of the largest attacks on Russian territory since World War II.

Putin has built a reputation over 24 years as the figure who can secure Russia’s safety and stability, yet this perception has been tarnished since the war commenced. Russian cities have faced drone attacks and artillery shelling from Ukrainian forces. Notably, Yevgeny Prigozhin, the chief of a prominent mercenary group, staged a brief rebellion last year aimed at displacing military leaders. In another distressing event, gunmen attacked a concert hall in Moscow, resulting in the deaths of 145 individuals in March.

In a move indicative of turmoil within the military, the Kremlin has implicitly endorsed a significant purge of Defense Ministry officials, with many of them contending with corruption allegations. Low-ranking officers have also faced arrest on charges of fraud, including Lt. Col. Konstantin Frolov, a decorated airborne brigade leader. In a moment captured on camera, he expressed a wish to be in Kursk rather than being escorted in handcuffs to a police station in Moscow.

The environment in Russia is shifting swiftly, with authorities pursuing criminal cases against other high-ranking officials and seeking to confiscate valuable properties from some of the wealthy elite in a luxurious district near a residence of Putin.

While state television continues to display a facade of strong support for Putin amid the Kursk incursion setbacks, gauging the attitudes of essential constituencies—such as Russia’s elites—proves to be more complex. Analysts maintain that Putin’s reliance on their compliance is crucial. The perception among these elites, as noted by Ekaterina Schulmann, a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, is one of weighing whether the current landscape benefits them or not.

The war has created a challenging environment for the elites, including Putin’s close allies and influential bureaucrats, diminishing their advantages. While some have profited from the ongoing conflict, they have fewer venues for their wealth due to imposed Western sanctions. There is a constant question in their minds regarding whether their support for Putin remains advantageous or whether he has become a liability.

This sentiment might be described as “unhappy compliance,” according to Nigel Gould-Davies, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. The elites seem discontented with the current situation while also wary of the implications of any leadership clash.

Some analysts suggest these elites could be hoping for a repeat of past behavior from Putin, where he initially hesitates in crises but eventually manages to reclaim control. This pattern dates back to Putin’s early tenure when he responded sluggishly to the 2000 sinking of the nuclear submarine Kursk, which garnered widespread condemnation for his delayed action.

Currently, as the Russian military grapples with the fallout of Ukraine’s continuing offensive, Putin appears committed to maintaining his schedule, even undertaking a trip to Azerbaijan without addressing the situation. He did briefly mention his intentions to hold accountable those responsible for actions taken in the Kursk region.

With dissent suppressed domestically and the media firmly under his control, Vladimir Putin can afford to turn a blind eye toward the turmoil in Kursk. Nevertheless, some experts maintain that the overall effect of these setbacks is unlikely to diminish his grip on power since many within Russia’s political fabric are complicit in both the war and its resultant crises.

However, as the Ukrainian offensive persists, the associated military and political dilemmas continue to escalate. Reports indicate that Russia is struggling to find suitable personnel to respond effectively to the Ukrainian challenges, even employing conscripts less trained than previously promised.

With manpower shortages becoming apparent, different strategies are being considered, including enticing citizens to join the military with substantial financial incentives and recruiting convicts. The pressing question remains: what might unfold if Russia’s elites conclude that the conflict has become “unwinnable” or that it will continue indefinitely as long as Putin is at the helm?

In the town of Sudzha, now under Ukrainian control, the conditions for civilians provide a stark contrast to the intended celebratory discourse about Kursk. Images of damage, suffering residents, and destruction echo the hardships witnessed throughout Ukraine during the last two years.

At this juncture, it remains uncertain whether the second battle for Kursk will mirror the significance of its predecessor in shaping the trajectory of the war Putin initiated. However, this situation, compounded with other ongoing challenges, cultivates a perception that the current circumstances are spiraling downward.