Anatol Lieven asserts that the resilient power of Vladimir Putin’s regime is evident through the unsuccessful Wagner coup

Much of the analysis from the West regarding the recent events in Russia has criticized Vladimir Putin for being weak in handling Yevgeny Prigozhin and the Wagner group commanders. Critics argue that by allowing them to leave peacefully for Belarus and letting the rank-and-file either join the Russian army or retire, Putin displayed his weakness. However, if Putin had crushed the revolt by force and executed its leaders, these same commentators would have used it against him, citing his brutality and the violence of the Russian national tradition.

These conclusions are biased due to the dislike towards Putin, and they do not provide an objective analysis. It is possible that Putin handled the situation well over the weekend, despite being responsible for the mess initially. In his address to the nation on Saturday morning, Putin showed determination and resolve. He made it clear that he would not surrender to Prigozhin’s demands and warned that any continued revolt by the Wagner leaders would be considered treason and could result in execution.

Given that there was no mutiny in support of Wagner within the regular army, Prigozhin was left with two options: launch an attack on Moscow that would likely lead to the deaths of his men and his own, or surrender. In this scenario, seeking violent revenge would have done more harm than good for Putin. It would have caused significant casualties among Russians and undermined the ongoing Russian war in Ukraine. Displaying magnanimity allowed Putin to emerge as the winner.

Furthermore, one of the reasons Putin did not act sooner to suppress Prigozhin and resolve the feud with the Russian high command was because Russian domestic propaganda had elevated the Wagner fighters to the status of military heroes over the past year. Killing them would not have been well-received by ordinary Russians.

The events in Russia last weekend provide two broader lessons. First, throughout history, many coups and rebellions were not intended to overthrow the ruler and seize power. Instead, they were demonstrations by local elites to pressure the monarch into addressing grievances and granting favors to the rebel chiefs. If the monarch resisted, the rebels would often apologize, pledge loyalty, and stand down. If the monarch yielded, they would pocket their gains and vow loyalty, although this could lead to subsequent revolts and the downfall of the ruler. In Russia, Putin stood his ground.

The second lesson relates to the strong aversion in Russian society towards Russians shedding the blood of other Russians. This fear is rooted in memories of historical revolts and the chaotic aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution and the 1990s. Putin’s words about the events of 1917 in his speech on Saturday resonate deeply with many Russians, as they are determined to prevent history from repeating itself.

One of the biggest mysteries surrounding the fall of the Soviet Union is why the Soviet army did not fight harder to hold it together and why the coup against Gorbachev in 1991 quickly collapsed. The events over the weekend offer some insight into this mystery, as they highlight the historical inhibitions and fears of civil war within Russian society.

Ultimately, the fate of the Putin regime will be determined by the situation on the battlefield in Ukraine, rather than internal conspiracies within the Russian elite. If the Russian army can maintain its position, Putin will claim victory against what he has portrayed as a united Western attempt to destroy Russia. However, if the Ukrainians break through, Putin may be forced to resign or escalate towards nuclear war. The blow to Putin’s prestige from the Wagner revolt may push him to directly retaliate against the West for its support of Ukraine, posing dangers not only to his regime but also to humanity as a whole.