Raids help ‘destabilise’ Putin’s regime but risk undermining Kyiv’s claim it is acting purely defensively
As Ukrainian forces gear up for a long-planned counter-offensive to retake territory captured during last year’s invasion, two “volunteer” groups have been accused of conducting short cross-border raids into Russia under the direction of Kyiv.
- SEE MORE Cradle to Kremlin: how Putin’s childhood casts a shadow
- SEE MORE Vladlen Tatarsky: who killed pro-Kremlin blogger?
- SEE MORE Why won’t Vladimir Putin cut his losses in Ukraine?
The Russian Volunteer Corps (RVC) and the Freedom for Russia Legion are composed of ethnic Russian fighters, including Russian citizens who oppose Vladimir Putin’s regime, who say they are working to liberate their homeland.
The BBC reported that “Kyiv denies being directly involved” in the cross-border raids. This follows recent Ukraine denials regarding high-profile assassinations of Russians and a drone strike on Moscow last month.
“To distance itself from the most controversial attacks, the Ukrainian government frequently attributes them to amorphous anti-Russian groups, shadowy elements of their intelligence and security services, or other groups operating outside of their command and control,” said Newsweek.
“It’s how [Ukraine’s President Volodymyr] Zelenskyy leaves open the possibility of Ukrainian involvement while maintaining plausible deniability of the Ukrainian leadership.”
What did the papers say?
“The operations of Russian citizens, carrying Ukrainian military ID, wearing Ukrainian uniforms and attacking from Ukraine, remain officially opaque,” said CNN. Kyiv is “oddly coy about admitting that it has sent troops, fired artillery, and flown drones into its neighbour’s territory”.
Yet in many ways taking the fight on to Russian soil makes sense for Ukraine. Deutsche Welle (DW) said attacks in recent weeks by self-proclaimed “volunteer groups” in the Russian border region of Belgorod “were widely perceived by observers as an embarrassment for the Kremlin, and raised concerns that front-line territories in Russia could be vulnerable to attack”.
In its daily assessment of the fighting in Ukraine, the US-based Institute for the Study of War (ISW) said raids and border shelling are “increasingly becoming the current focal point” for criticism of the Russian military leadership.
Abbas Gallyamov, a political analyst and former Putin speechwriter, wrote on Telegram that the recent attacks on Russian territory could have an impact on the public’s perception of the Russian leadership and the war. “The raids in Belgorod completely destroy the myth of Putin’s invincible army,” he said.
UK intelligence sources quoted by Insider said this has created a “new dilemma” for Putin, “over whether to use weapons to defend its own soil or in its faltering invasion of Ukraine”.
“In Ukraine, it suits Kyiv to have Russians invade Russia on its behalf,” said CNN. “The tactical results may be limited,” it added. “But the desired effect of destabilization in Russia is achieved.”
What next?
This strategy does not come without risks for Ukraine.
“Some members of the groups are known to be Russian neo-Nazis or to harbor other extremist views,” reported The Washington Post, something the Kremlin could use as justification for its process of “de-Nazification” in Ukraine. Were Putin to successfully link Russian dissident militia groups operating on Russian soil to Ukraine it could also galvanise public support for the war back at home.
More importantly, it could make Western governments think twice about continuing to support Ukrainian operations that have moved from purely defensive to offensive.
That is why, “with violence bleeding into western Russia and even Moscow, the Ukrainian government is shrewdly calculating which attacks to claim and which to disavow”, said Newsweek.
“Especially when attacks inside Russia risk evoking international controversy that could undermine Ukrainian support, the Zelenskyy government has been denying Ukrainian involvement,” said the magazine. This PR strategy is “essential for Ukraine, given its reliance on international military support and the costs of losing it if Ukraine appears unrestrained in a way that could expand the war”, it added.
Up to now, The Washington Post said, “US and Western officials have insisted that Ukraine carefully track the billions of dollars’ worth of weapons that have flowed into the country”. But Kyiv’s backers have also “largely barred Ukrainian forces from using Western weapons and equipment for attacks on Russian soil”, said the paper. Yet the recent raids into Russia “underscores how materiel can change hands in unpredictable ways, creating oversight challenges that few in Washington and Kyiv appear willing to acknowledge”, it added.
In response to questions about the use of US equipment for cross-border attacks, a US State Department spokesperson stressed: “The United States does not encourage or enable attacks inside of Russia. We have been clear about how we don’t support the use of US-made equipment being used for attacks inside of Russia.”
This appears to be a “red line Washington won’t cross”, said The Atlantic – “yet”.
