Russian Nationalists’ Support of Putin Grows Volatile After Military Setbacks in Ukraine

Russian President Vladimir Putin with Russian-installed Leaders of Ukrainian Separatist Regions (Wikimedia Commons)

The Russian government’s increasingly thorny relationship with Russian nationalists seems to have recovered following Russia’s strikes against Ukrainian cities and infrastructure on October 11th. However, the possibility of further military setbacks endangers that recovery.

Due to military setbacks in the fall, relations between nationalist commentators, those in Ukraine in favor of Russia’s takeover, and the Russian military have turned chilly. Tensions reached a head following the Russian defeat in the Battle of Izyum, after which Russian nationalists publicly criticized political and military leadership. 

In one representative post, Igor Strelkov, a prominent nationalist commentator and former Minister of Defense of the unrecognized Donetsk People’s Republic, responded to State Duma speaker and Putin ally Vyacheslav Volodin. Strelkov commented on Volodon’s claim that the Ukrainian counteroffensive had “disappointed” Western officials. 

Strelkov sarcastically asked whether the next such “defeat” of Ukrainian forces would come in Kherson or Mariupol, and suggested renaming recently lost cities for Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. This public anger marked a stark departure from the nationalists’ previous lockstep support for the war and its prosecution.

Even Russian president Vladimir Putin personally faced the rage of nationalists over his presence at Moscow City Day celebrations as Russian units around Kharkiv retreated. 

Ramzan Kadyrov, leader of the autonomous Chechnya region and a prominent commander, threatened to “explain the real situation on the ground” if Russian military “mistakes” did not lead to a “change of strategy”. Kadyrov’s public criticism was unusual for a close Putin ally, a further indication of festering internal tensions.

In a reversal of its de-escalatory measures, Russia began a nationwide mobilization and the annexation of four occupied Ukrainian regions within days of the defeat in Izyum. For a moment, this mollified the nationalists, some of whom were featured at a rally celebrating the annexation of much of southeastern Ukraine. 

This calm, however, proved brief, as a series of setbacks including the defeat of Russian forces in Lyman and a truck bombing of the Crimea Bridge reignited nationalist fury.

The capture of Lyman in the northern Donetsk region provoked a new wave of intra-elite fighting. Kadyrov raged on Telegram and called for escalation, including the rapid deployment of new troops and the potential use of nuclear weapons. This criticism was echoed by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a prominent oligarch and commander of the mercenary Wagner Group. 

In response, Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov rebuked Kadryov and stated that Russia’s “basis for using any nuclear weapons was set in the country’s law,” signaling even further tension among Putin’s close allies. 

The bombing of the Kerch Bridge, a symbol of Russian rule over Crimea, triggered further nationalist condemnation of Putin. One commentator threatened a failure to decisively respond would be taken as indicative of “weakness of the President himself,” a stark criticism of Putin reaching even beyond the charges of ambivalence made after defeat in Izyum.

Faced with pressure, the Russian government escalated its war. Putin appointed Sergey Surovikin, former commander of Russian forces in southern Ukraine, to command the entirety of the “special military operation”. Shortly after his appointment, Russian forces attacked Ukrainian infrastructure with cruise missiles. 

Nationalists greeted both Surovikin and the airstrikes with enthusiasm, with one describing Surovkin as “not only treated with respect, but fear” and that his appointment represented a cutting of “the Gordian knot” of command problems. The missile strikes were also welcomed with even relatively strident critic Igor Strelkov celebrating the strikes’ effect on “the state of the front and the Armed Forces of Ukraine”. This serves as an indication that the escalation was unifying nationalists and softening their attitude towards Russian military leadership.

Despite this change in policy, continued Russian setbacks seem likely. Ukrainian forces have advanced towards Kherson, and the Russian-installed administration of the city announced a total civilian evacuation. If Ukrainian forces liberate the city, a deeper rift between the Russian military and its nationalist supporters is inevitable.