In recent days on Wednesday (13/05), the Russian Parliament voted in favor of the right to invade foreign countries under the pretext of mistreating Russian citizens. A few days earlier, after the Victory Day parades, dedicated to the USSR’s victory over Nazi Germany in World War II, had ended, Putin resorted to a cryptic statement, declaring that “the question [] is coming to an end.”
What can explain the change of positions and approaches of the 73-year-old head of the Kremlin? Is this a tactical maneuver able to buy time for the attacking soldiers, who seem to be stuck on the battlefields? The total change of course, based on the exigencies imposed by both military and economic circumstances?
In an effort to answer the aforementioned questions, and in light of the recent developments, “To Vima” spoke with the Finnish Institute of International Relations (FIIA).
Some, sticking to Putin’s recent statements, saw the beginning of a change of attitude in the Ukrainian. Others talk about tactics. What is your opinion?
We should not believe that the Russian president and his staff have changed their minds, despite the negative developments in the operational field. Despite the individual proposals, Putin at his core remains the same. One difference is that at this year’s May 9 military parade in Moscow, commemorating the USSR’s victory over Nazi Germany, Putin omitted to mention the Allies’ contribution to the final victory, which was the case in previous years, even after the seizure of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine. This means that he himself will intensify the ideological attack against the West, in his attempt to convince of the just purposes of the war and the need to continue it. That is why Europe must invest in its defense, in which many member states have under-invested in previous years.
Does the Russian public support Putin and the war? What image do you have?
It is difficult to come to firm conclusions. There are changes recorded in a series of investigations, mainly due to the situation at the front, but as everything shows at the moment two distinct blocs have formed. The first consists of those who oppose the war and are estimated at 20 to 25%. Several of them have left Russia since the war began, while thousands of other citizens who expressed anti-war views were arrested. The other camp concerns those who are in favor of war and will not settle for anything less than victory. They even criticize the Kremlin for being soft, a parameter that limits the room for maneuver for Putin. Between the two camps lies the great mass of the Russian population.
In all this it should be noted that for the first time in Russian history the country relies on a mercenary army. Many are ranked because of the fat pay, as salaries and signing bonuses have increased significantly, especially for residents of low-income districts. So I would say that Putin has managed to successfully manage his relationship with Russian society, offering on the one hand an ideological narrative of encirclement of Russia by the West and on the other a tangible, material exchange. The combination of these two elements is sufficient for the great majority of the country.
In a recent article you argued for the need to hold elections in Ukraine for the sake of democracy and political stability. How feasible is this in the midst of war?
Elections have been held for seven years. The reluctance of the Ukrainian president to discuss the possibility of elections during the war, he is trying to maintain the status quo. The Ukrainian people have rich electoral experience and are not happy with what is happening, especially after the corruption scandal against Andriy Yermak, the former chief of staff of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was remanded in custody in May 2026. There are of course technical problems and obstacles of a constitutional nature, but I believe that reaching an agreement on the date of the elections is absolutely useful. In another case, there will justifiably be disappointment and, in the second phase, anger on the part of society.
The role of the West here can – or rather should – be twofold. One task is to explain to Kyiv the political feasibility of holding elections. A second task stems from the understanding that organizing elections in wartime is a costly undertaking, a logistical conundrum and a security nightmare. Here, the West can provide legal expertise and the necessary financial resources.
