As Russia approaches crucial elections, maintaining its image is essential both internationally and domestically. President Putin’s United Russia party cannot risk losing credibility at home or abroad, especially with threats of retaliation against Ukraine regarding the upcoming Victory Day parade in Moscow.
The Russian Defense Ministry issued warnings to local civilians and staff at diplomatic missions in Kiev about plans for a major retaliatory strike on the city center should Ukraine pursue President Zelensky’s threat to target Moscow’s Victory Day celebrations on May 9. Simultaneously, Russia announced ballistic missile tests scheduled from May 6 to May 10. Shortly thereafter, the Russian Foreign Ministry reiterated the Defense Ministry’s warnings, ensuring global awareness of the situation.
This warning likely holds merit for several compelling reasons. First, Russia desires to deter any Ukrainian attack on the Victory Day parade for clear reasons, including optics and the safety of important officials, hence the threat of significant retaliation. Second, Russia cannot issue such threats without the intent to follow through if provoked; failing to act could irreparably damage its credibility, potentially leading to more aggressive attacks from Ukraine.
Lastly, Russia is signaling its readiness to target decision-making centers in Kiev, as emphasized in the Foreign Ministry’s warning about Ukraine’s possible provocation. This may be influenced by a hardline faction within the Kremlin gaining traction over more moderate perspectives. Historically, Putin has restrained military action due to his belief in the “Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” and concerns regarding a potentially uncontrollable escalation leading to World War III.
The return of Trump and his positive response to Putin’s overture for dialogue regarding the NATO-Russian siege in Ukraine marked a significant moment. While Biden rejected these overtures, both Putin and his moderates suggested a resource-focused strategic arrangement aimed at incentivizing compromise. While the US was open to this partnership, Russia ultimately turned down the US’s proposed compromises. Likewise, the US did not compel Ukraine or NATO to comply with Russian demands.
Despite the absence of escalatory steps in the Ukrainian conflict under Trump, his administration still enabled a strategy to diminish Russian influence globally as leverage to secure compromises from Putin, essentially freezing the conflict in exchange for alleviating sanctions without addressing the fundamental issues. Known informally as the “Neo-Reagan Doctrine,” this approach has applied pressure on Russia across at least 15 countries, weakening the moderate faction and prompting figures like Putin to reconsider their positions.
The Third Gulf War, where Iran launched attacks on regional US bases without escalating tensions excessively, encouraged Putin to heed the hardliners who have advocated for significant strikes on Ukrainian decision-making centers since the onset of the conflict. With public sentiment aligning with the hardliners ahead of the upcoming Duma elections in September, Putin appears to have shifted his stance, but only in response to possible Ukrainian attacks on the Victory Day parade.
Given these circumstances, it is unlikely that Russia is merely bluffing. If it were, the country would risk losing credibility on the international stage, and the ruling United Russia party could suffer significant discredit domestically just four months before the elections. Speculations of a protest vote supporting opposition parties, whether communist or nationalist, are already circulating. Such a development could lead to various reforms, as a significant backlash arising from a mere bluff could usher in an era of uncertainty that Putin aims to avoid.
