The Muscovite activist has organized several crowd-funding events to buy clothes, equipment and medicine for Russian troops. He also co-founded a social media project that provides original reporting and analysis on developments on the battlefield in Ukraine. Earlier this month, he traveled to Russia’s Belgorod region to interview soldiers stationed near the border. Sikh supported the Kremlin’s decision to invade Ukraine because he saw no option to protect Russians in Ukraine’s eastern Donbass region. But he readily admits that Russia’s military campaign is not going according to plan – contrary to President Vladimir Putin’s assessment. Ukrainian soldiers repair a Russian tank captured during a counterattack near the Russian border in Kharkiv [File: Sofiia Gatilova/Reuters] According to Sikh, Russia has failed in several ways. Moscow did not deploy enough troops, failed to target vital Ukrainian infrastructure early in the conflict and did not prepare staggered defenses in occupied territories, he said. “Russia likely acted on false assumptions, primarily underestimating the enemy’s capabilities and willingness to resist,” he said. “There was no collapse of the Ukrainian government and consequently no collapse of the Ukrainian army.”
Patriotic critics
Sikh is part of a growing group of “patriotic” critics in Russia who support the war but worry about Moscow’s handling of it. They generally avoid directly criticizing Putin and instead often target Russia’s top military officials for perceived incompetence or indecisiveness. For now, they oppose peace talks with Ukraine, saying it is too early for a ceasefire and calling on the Kremlin to pursue victory through mobilization, large-scale airstrikes and sweeping military reforms. But these critics are hard to lump into a single group. They include war correspondents and military bloggers, novelists and historians, longtime activists and political neophytes, and Russian soldiers and mercenaries fighting on the front lines. Putin supporters, as well as members of the nationalist and communist opposition, have also come under attack in recent weeks. What unites this otherwise eclectic movement is the belief that Russia must make serious adjustments to its military strategy or risk losing the war in Ukraine. Since the start of the conflict last February, these groups have set social media channels on fire, amassing hundreds of thousands of followers. Among them are an open-source analyst group called Rybar, Igor Strelkov, a retired Russian soldier who commanded Donbas rebel forces in 2014, and Vladlen Tatarsky, who currently serves as a fighter in Donbas and whose real name it is Maxim Fomin. . Gray Zone and Starshie Eddie are two other popular accounts that work on Telegram, VK and YouTube. With detailed reporting and analysis of the situation at the front, their feeds have become the preferred source of information for many Russians. And their relative editorial independence is also attractive in today’s climate. While state media presents an optimistic picture of the battlefields, pro-war commentators on the Internet question whether Russia had enough manpower to hold a 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line and openly comment on the shortcomings of the Russian military – which lacking, for example, sufficient quantities of drones and other essential equipment. Their criticism grew after the Ukrainian counteroffensive began in Kharkiv in early September, a move that forced the Russian military to withdraw troops from the entire region. Ukraine’s subsequent gains in the east and south in the following weeks further alarmed patriot critics. “Almost all members of Russian patriotic civil society warned of a possible Ukrainian attack on Kharkiv months before it happened,” said Shikh. “We couldn’t imagine that anyone could not see that this was going to happen, but it turned out that the Russian armed forces were completely unprepared for this discovery.” So far, the Kremlin has shown a surprising level of tolerance. There have been no visible attempts to silence criticism from pro-war commentators, despite new legislation that threatens up to 15 years in prison for “discrediting” the Russian military. Instead, state media gradually began to adopt some of the rhetoric pioneered by patriotic critics. During a recent fiery monologue, TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov accused Russian military officials of concealing the true state of the country’s armed forces. “Too many fraudsters lied from top to bottom,” he said. “And not one of them was shot or even taken by the ear!” Even more surprising, there are signs that the Kremlin is listening for hints about military strategy. People gather at a tram stop in front of a board with a slogan that reads: “Glory to the heroes of Russia! [File: Anton Vaganov/Reuters] In September, Putin announced the “partial mobilization” of 300,000 military reservists in an effort to replenish Russian combat power in Ukraine. On October 10, Russia launched a massive airstrike campaign against Ukrainian energy facilities. Patriot critics have been arguing for both of these moves for months. Denis Volkov, head of the Levada Center, Russia’s top independent polling agency, told Al Jazeera that the data showed committed hawks and opponents of the war each represented about 15 to 20 percent of the population. The majority of Russians, he explained, largely supported the war but tended to remain in line with government decisions. So what explains this trend? Volkov said the Kremlin knows the public needs an outlet to let off steam, and the hawks are considered politically loyal. “Patriots’ anger tends to be directed at generals and mid-level bureaucrats, while those calling for direct peace negotiations tend to blame the central political leadership and oppose Putin personally,” he said. Sikh had a different explanation. He argued that the war and its grim reality forced the Kremlin to recognize the value of feedback from observers outside the political system. “Russia has a very accommodating regime and it became clear in September that we could no longer afford not to mobilize society,” he said. “The government has been forced to welcome the contribution of patriotic civil society because mass mobilization requires you to accept the fact that there is no unnecessary help.”
However, there are lingering questions about the partnership’s sustainability. Volkov noted that the Russian government still has plenty of means to punish commentators who “get too far out of line.” As an example, he pointed to the recent suspension of state media anchor Anton Krasovsky, who sparked mass controversy after suggesting that Ukrainian children be drowned or burned. Shikh warned that the Kremlin has long had a complicated relationship with Russian nationalists, and there was no guarantee that the current downturn would last in the long term. “The Russian government has always been more wary of the patriotic opposition than the liberal opposition because the former group is in a better position to represent the will of the people rather than simply copying Western political trends,” he said. “For now, the Russian government is seeking to expand cooperation with the patriotic opposition, but it could well reverse course when doing so is no longer appropriate. Everyone from our side who is going for this partnership needs to understand that.”
title: “In Russia Patriotic Critics Speak Out About The Failures Of The War In Ukraine News About The Russia Ukraine War " ShowToc: true date: “2022-11-20” author: “Mary Arroyo”
The Muscovite activist has organized several crowd-funding events to buy clothes, equipment and medicine for Russian troops. He also co-founded a social media project that provides original reporting and analysis on developments on the battlefield in Ukraine. Earlier this month, he traveled to Russia’s Belgorod region to interview soldiers stationed near the border. Sikh supported the Kremlin’s decision to invade Ukraine because he saw no option to protect Russians in Ukraine’s eastern Donbass region. But he readily admits that Russia’s military campaign is not going according to plan – contrary to President Vladimir Putin’s assessment. Ukrainian soldiers repair a Russian tank captured during a counterattack near the Russian border in Kharkiv [File: Sofiia Gatilova/Reuters] According to Sikh, Russia has failed in several ways. Moscow did not deploy enough troops, failed to target vital Ukrainian infrastructure early in the conflict and did not prepare staggered defenses in occupied territories, he said. “Russia likely acted on false assumptions, primarily underestimating the enemy’s capabilities and willingness to resist,” he said. “There was no collapse of the Ukrainian government and consequently no collapse of the Ukrainian army.”
Patriotic critics
Sikh is part of a growing group of “patriotic” critics in Russia who support the war but worry about Moscow’s handling of it. They generally avoid directly criticizing Putin and instead often target Russia’s top military officials for perceived incompetence or indecisiveness. For now, they oppose peace talks with Ukraine, saying it is too early for a ceasefire and calling on the Kremlin to pursue victory through mobilization, large-scale airstrikes and sweeping military reforms. But these critics are hard to lump into a single group. They include war correspondents and military bloggers, novelists and historians, longtime activists and political neophytes, and Russian soldiers and mercenaries fighting on the front lines. Putin supporters, as well as members of the nationalist and communist opposition, have also come under attack in recent weeks. What unites this otherwise eclectic movement is the belief that Russia must make serious adjustments to its military strategy or risk losing the war in Ukraine. Since the start of the conflict last February, these groups have set social media channels on fire, amassing hundreds of thousands of followers. Among them are an open-source analyst group called Rybar, Igor Strelkov, a retired Russian soldier who commanded Donbas rebel forces in 2014, and Vladlen Tatarsky, who currently serves as a fighter in Donbas and whose real name it is Maxim Fomin. . Gray Zone and Starshie Eddie are two other popular accounts that work on Telegram, VK and YouTube. With detailed reporting and analysis of the situation at the front, their feeds have become the preferred source of information for many Russians. And their relative editorial independence is also attractive in today’s climate. While state media presents an optimistic picture of the battlefields, pro-war commentators on the Internet question whether Russia had enough manpower to hold a 1,000-kilometer (620-mile) front line and openly comment on the shortcomings of the Russian military – which lacking, for example, sufficient quantities of drones and other essential equipment. Their criticism grew after the Ukrainian counteroffensive began in Kharkiv in early September, a move that forced the Russian military to withdraw troops from the entire region. Ukraine’s subsequent gains in the east and south in the following weeks further alarmed patriot critics. “Almost all members of Russian patriotic civil society warned of a possible Ukrainian attack on Kharkiv months before it happened,” said Shikh. “We couldn’t imagine that anyone could not see that this was going to happen, but it turned out that the Russian armed forces were completely unprepared for this discovery.” So far, the Kremlin has shown a surprising level of tolerance. There have been no visible attempts to silence criticism from pro-war commentators, despite new legislation that threatens up to 15 years in prison for “discrediting” the Russian military. Instead, state media gradually began to adopt some of the rhetoric pioneered by patriotic critics. During a recent fiery monologue, TV presenter Vladimir Solovyov accused Russian military officials of concealing the true state of the country’s armed forces. “Too many fraudsters lied from top to bottom,” he said. “And not one of them was shot or even taken by the ear!” Even more surprising, there are signs that the Kremlin is listening for hints about military strategy. People gather at a tram stop in front of a board with a slogan that reads: “Glory to the heroes of Russia! [File: Anton Vaganov/Reuters] In September, Putin announced the “partial mobilization” of 300,000 military reservists in an effort to replenish Russian combat power in Ukraine. On October 10, Russia launched a massive airstrike campaign against Ukrainian energy facilities. Patriot critics have been arguing for both of these moves for months. Denis Volkov, head of the Levada Center, Russia’s top independent polling agency, told Al Jazeera that the data showed committed hawks and opponents of the war each represented about 15 to 20 percent of the population. The majority of Russians, he explained, largely supported the war but tended to remain in line with government decisions. So what explains this trend? Volkov said the Kremlin knows the public needs an outlet to let off steam, and the hawks are considered politically loyal. “Patriots’ anger tends to be directed at generals and mid-level bureaucrats, while those calling for direct peace negotiations tend to blame the central political leadership and oppose Putin personally,” he said. Sikh had a different explanation. He argued that the war and its grim reality forced the Kremlin to recognize the value of feedback from observers outside the political system. “Russia has a very accommodating regime and it became clear in September that we could no longer afford not to mobilize society,” he said. “The government has been forced to welcome the contribution of patriotic civil society because mass mobilization requires you to accept the fact that there is no unnecessary help.”
However, there are lingering questions about the partnership’s sustainability. Volkov noted that the Russian government still has plenty of means to punish commentators who “get too far out of line.” As an example, he pointed to the recent suspension of state media anchor Anton Krasovsky, who sparked mass controversy after suggesting that Ukrainian children be drowned or burned. Shikh warned that the Kremlin has long had a complicated relationship with Russian nationalists, and there was no guarantee that the current downturn would last in the long term. “The Russian government has always been more wary of the patriotic opposition than the liberal opposition because the former group is in a better position to represent the will of the people rather than simply copying Western political trends,” he said. “For now, the Russian government is seeking to expand cooperation with the patriotic opposition, but it could well reverse course when doing so is no longer appropriate. Everyone from our side who is going for this partnership needs to understand that.”
