On August 11, 2016, the Russian military held naval war games on the Black Sea, and placed its troops in Crimea on "combat alert." Russia's military escalation immediately followed Kremlin allegations that Ukrainian commandos had killed 2 Russian servicemen in Crimea. As the Russian Defense Ministry recently expanded Russia's Black Sea military deployment to 40,000 troops, many Western policymakers have expressed concern about further Russian territorial annexations in Ukraine.
Predictions of imminent Russian territorial expansion are premised on a misinterpretation of Russian foreign policy conduct. Based on my extensive research on Putin's strategic thinking, there is compelling evidence that Russia's military escalation is primarily motivated by domestic political consolidation, rather than empire-building.
My doctoral research at Oxford focuses extensively on the changing foundations of popular legitimacy for Putin's government. One major conclusion of my research on the domestic drivers of Putin's foreign policy is that Russia's recent economic decline has caused Putin to rally the Russian public around a belligerently anti-Western foreign policy. Putin's aggressive conduct has cultivated great power status perceptions amongst the Russian public. These status aspirations have caused Russia to assume a leadership role in international crises to highlight Russia's diplomatic influence on the world stage.
In the context of the Ukraine crisis, Putin has emphasized Russia's leadership role in resisting the Ukrainian government's belligerent efforts to recapture Crimea and Donbas. In his recent speeches, Putin has argued that the Ukrainian government's sponsorship of "anti-Russian terrorism," and refusal to hold free elections in Donbas necessitate a Russian military response. This argument has expanded domestic and international support for Russia's conduct in Ukraine and has entrenched Putin's authority in four main ways.
1) The Linkage Between Putin's Military Escalation in Ukraine and Sanctions Relief
Even though EU sanctions were imposed against Russia for its aggressive conduct in Ukraine, Putin's recent justification of Russia's military efforts on defensive grounds is a covert attempt to undercut the EU's rationale for anti-Russian sanctions. Putin is seeking to rally normative support for his arguments on Ukraine from German business elites opposed to EU sanctions against Russia, and from European countries at odds with the EU establishment, like Greece and Hungary.
The Kremlin views the increased willingness of some European policymakers to consider the removal of sanctions against Russia, as evidence that Putin's "small-scale" military escalations on Ukrainian soil have been successful. Statements from former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and a recent Belgian Parliament resolution on lifting sanctions against Russia have been widely praised in the Russian state media.
Cordial rhetoric from some European policymakers towards Moscow has convinced Putin that a military escalation in Ukraine can highlight the security threat posed by the Ukrainian government's conduct to EU officials without risk of blowback. Putin has also used EU leaders' statements to convince the Russian public that sanctions relief on Moscow's terms is a realistic option.
If Russia can regain access to European investments without conceding Crimea or Donbas to Ukraine, Putin believes that public confidence in his leadership will dramatically increase. Rising pro-government nationalist sentiments could counter discontent created by Russia's anemic economic performance enough to prevent a repeat of the 2011-12 election protests during the 2018 presidential election cycle.
2) Putin's Ukraine Campaign Guarantees the Loyalty of the Military Establishment Putin's aggressive self-defense policy in Ukraine has appeased members of Russia's military-industrial complex, who fear that Russia's deteriorating economic conditions could result in defense cuts. As Olga Kryshtanovskaya and Stephen White noted in their 2003 article on civil-military relations in Russia, the siloviki security establishment make up 25% of Russia's political elites.
The extensive influence wielded by Igor Sechin and FSB head Nikolai Patrushev over Russian decision-making demonstrates that the siloviki faction's loyalty to Putin is vital for his retention of power. Adopting an interventionist foreign policy in Ukraine reassures members of siloviki faction of their continued influence in Russian policymaking, and strengthens Putin's domestic position considerably.
3) Putin's Defensive Justification for Military Intervention Keeps Russians in Civilian Industries from opposing him
Even though Russia's military modernization efforts fly in the face of traditional economic logic during a period of economic recession, Putin's uptick of Russian military activity in Ukraine strikes a delicate balance between the interests of the military and civilian sectors. As the defense sector remains the leading growth engine of the Russian economy and is an increasingly important source of employment, many Russians view Putin's military buildup in Ukraine favorably.
To Russian workers in civilian industries frustrated by cuts to social welfare programs, Putin has used the NATO threat to justify high levels of defense spending. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Senior Associate Eugene Rumer noted in our recent interview, Putin has rallied the Russian public around his belligerent policies by emphasizing that Russia's military spending the minimum necessary to ensure Russia's security interests are maintained.
4) Putin's Ukraine Campaign Rallies Moderate Russian Nationalists Around his Rule
Putin's emphasis on the defensive nature of Russia's military buildup distinguishes his policies from those of extreme Russian nationalists, like Alexander Dugin. Since the mid-2000s, Dugin has called for a complete Russian military annexation of Russian-speaking regions of Ukraine as a prerequisite for a full-scale push for Kiev.
By distancing himself from Dugin's support for unilateral aggression, Putin has been able to co-opt Russian middle class moderates into his coalition. Even though Putin retains firm control over the Russian electoral process, Putin's United Russia Party needs to appeal to moderate Russian nationalists to achieve durable electoral success and prevent middle class Russians from defecting to liberal nationalist parties.
In short, Russia's role in the recent escalation of the Ukraine conflict should be analyzed through the prism of domestic politics. As Russia seeks to rally nationalist sentiments around Putin's government and present a more rational image of Russian international conduct to the international community, Putin's alternation between dialing up or defusing tensions in Ukraine will remain an enduring feature of Russian foreign policy for years to come.
Samuel Ramani is a DPhil candidate in International Relations at St. Antony's College, University of Oxford, specializing in post-1991 Russian foreign policy. He is also a free-lance journalist. He can be followed on Twitter at samramani2 and on Facebook at Samuel Ramani