Putin’s Aggression Against Ukraine Arose from the Same Impulse as His Destruction of Federalism at Home, Lea and Taskin Say

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Aug. 11 – Convinced that Russia cannot survive without a single powerful leader, Putin dismantled federalism within the country and then turned to attacking democracies along that country’s peripheries in the hope of surrounding Russia with “a belt of authoritarian states,” Aaron Lea and Boruch Taskin say.

            In fact, the two Israeli analysts of Russian origin argue, Putin’s war against Georgia and then against Ukraine “is not an anomaly but rather a continuation of the same policy in a different theater, one intended to extend what he had done at home to these countries as well (kasparovru.com/material.php?id=6A7B0050D9BBB).

            While the two do not make the point that the only way to ensure that a Russia in the future will not be engaged in aggressive action against its neighbors more or less forever is to ensure the creation and rooting of genuine federalism inside the borders of that state whatever they turn out to be.

            If that does not happen – and the two suggest that the personalist dictatorship Putin offers is congruent with what most Russians think and support – then the future of the world as long as a Russia without a federation in place will be bleak indeed, full of wars designed to transform other countries into something like Russia itself.

            The myth that Putin has promoted and that many Russians accept that autocracy is “a natural necessity” for Russia is currently costing the country its freedom, its blood and approximately 10,000 US dollars annually in income. Indeed, that figure is “the true price of the destruction of federalism and the deathonomics Putin has created.”

            Putin says Russia must be run by a single all-powerful leader or it will disintegrate, Lea and Taskin say; but that is nonsense, however widely it is believed by Russians themselves or even by others beyond the borders of that country implicitly or even explicitly.

            “Counties of comparable size and ethnic diversity – India, Brazil and the United States – exist as stable federations unthreatened by the prospect of disintegration,” the two write. And presumably Russia could exist as a federation however much Putin and his ideologues insist otherwise and however much people accept his words as gospel.

            But, Lea and Taskin says, the survival of Putin’s power vertical is very much in doubt because it is “vulnerable at the very point where any physical process breaks downs. The masses are not disillusioned by logical arguments. Indeed, sanctions, losses and isolation merely reenforce his ‘besieged fortress’ narrative.”

            “Yet that narrative could instantly dissolve in the face of economic paralysis, the disappearance of its arbiter or disillusionment with a war that yields no victory,” the two conclude.” Because that is so, what genuine Russian federalism could look like and how Putin’s approach could be reversed merit more attention than they are receiving.

‘Only Desert in Europe’ Spreading Across Southwestern Russia, Experts Say

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Aug. 11 – In northern Dagestan, Kalmykia, and adjoining Russian, “the only desert in Europe” is rapidly spreading as a result of global warming, growing human consumption of water, and poor agricultural practices, experts at the Moscow Institute of Oceanology and the Institute of Land Sciences of the Southern Federal University say.

            Tragically, instead of launching a full-scale attack on the problem, the people in the region have done little because the government has not funded programs that do exist to the necessary level and private entrepreneurs have not acted on their own, Aleksey Baliyev, a Stoletiye commentator says (stoletie.ru/ekonomika/vmesto_zemli__pesok_106.htm).

            The desertification of this enormous territory, he says on the basis of the research at the two Russian academic centers, is not only reducing agricultural production across the once-rich region and even forcing the outmigration of residents who no longer have access to sufficient potable water to survive but contributing to the dying of the Caspian Sea.

            Water flowing in the rivers from the north evaporates or is absorbed by the newly desertified territories and so does not replenish the water of the Caspian now being lost by evaporation and filtration. Because of these broader consequences, any serious anti-desertification effort must be led by the government.

            For background on desertification in Russia in recent decades, see windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2026/02/conflicts-over-water-intensify-in.html,  windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2025/08/climate-change-and-official.html and  windowoneurasia2.blogspot.com/2024/11/because-of-global-warming-550-square.html.

Migrant Workers Forced to Change Places of Residence Frequently and Thus Face Xenophobic Russian Attitudes More Often, ‘Russian Migration’ Survey Finds

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Aug. 10 – Eight out of ten Russian employers of immigrant workers don’t help them to find and keep housing, and as a result, 37 percent are forced to constantly change where they live, something that exacerbates attitudes both among them and among xenophobic landlords, according to a new survey by the Russian Migration organization.

            In response to this situation, the survey by a group that seeks to defend immigrants found, 43 percent of migrants rely on friends and relatives, something that reenforces their tendency to form ethnic enclaves, or turn to Internet listings, where they like other Russians are often subject to manipulation and exploitation (akcent.site/novosti/45675).

            What this means is that the Kremlin’s effort to reduce the number of immigrants by means other than the use of visas infuriating both non-Russians who are experiencing these aspects of Russian life and ethnic Russian residents who are thus more likely to come into contact with immigrants than would otherwise be the case.

            And what that means is obvious: the means the Russian government has adopted to try to ensure that migrants won’t cause social problems or engage in violence of any kind are not solving that problem but in fact making it worse either directly inside Russia or in the homelands of the migrants if they are forced to return there. 

Increasing Immigration into Russia from Beyond Soviet Space May Lead to Ethnic Conflicts, Shustov Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Aug. 11 – To reduce danger of ethnic conflicts, Moscow has succeeded over the last two years in reducing the number of migrant workers from CIS countries; but at the same time, it has allowed the number of workers from countries beyond the Soviet space to increase who may also cause problems, Aleksandr Shustov says.

            The number of migrants in Russia from CIS countries still numbers in the millions with the reduction only in the hundreds of thousands, the Russian analyst says, while the number of migrants from “the far abroad” is much lower and the increase miniscule in comparison (ritmeurasia.ru/news--2026-08-11--trudovaja-migracija-iz-dalnego-zarubezhja-v-rossiju-rastet-a-iz-sng-sokraschaetsja-89558).

            But despite that and despite the fact that the new immigrants are far more educated and qualified than those who have come earlier and now are being pressed to leave, Shustov argues that the experience of other countries in the region who have made this shift still are experiencing changes in the ethnic composition of their populations and conflicts as a result.

            In the year ending July 1, he says, the number of migrant workers in Russia fell from seven million to 6.4 million because the number counted as leaving the country exceeded the number entering. That was “the direct result of those measures taken to control migration,” Shustov adds.

            But Moscow could not impose visas on CIS countries lest that lead them to reorient themselves to the West and it could not afford to dispense with all migrant labor because of Russia’s deteriorating demographic situation. Consequently, it used administrative means with CIS countries and allowed more workers to come from beyond the borders of the former USSR.

            The latter category increased by the tens of thousands, he says, even though those involved had to get Russian visas and they were especially beneficial to Russia because in contrast to the largely untrained immigrants of the past, a third of the new immigrants were skilled professionals.

            Many assume that because of those qualities, such immigrants don’t pose any challenges, but that is not the case, Shustov insists. He points to the problems Kyrgyzstan has had as it has admitted more workers from South Asia and warns that if Russia continues to admit such people, it may face “a new sharpening of inter-ethnic contradictions,” that is, conflicts.

            The commentator does not say how Russia will cope if it shuts down both flows of migrants from abroad, but his words suggest that at least some in the Russian leadership aren’t happy about having immigration from beyond the borders of the former Soviet space even if they can regulate it more or less easily by a visa requirement.

‘Gabyshev Went Looking for an Enemy but Returned with Understanding of How to Live without One,’ New Book Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Aug. 9 – People around the world have been following the saga of Aleksandr Gabyshev, the man originally styled himself as a shaman but has now rejected that status, since he announced in 2019 that he would walk from Sakha to Moscow in order to expel the Kremlin “the demon,” universally understood to be Vladimir Putin.

            That is the conclusion of a new book by anthropologist and film maker Mikhail Bashkirov entitled “Lightning Illuminations” published earlier this year in Russian by the émigré publishing house Babel according to Gasan Gasanov in a review for RFI Russian (rfi.fr/ru/россия/20260809-семь-лет-пытке-шамана-габышева ).

            Gasanov, a philologist from Azerbaijan who studied and taught in Moscow until leaving for the West a decade ago, says that in his view, Bashkirov’s book is “one of the most important written in Russian over the course of the last decade” and deserves the closest possible attention from Russian audiences and from all concerned about Russia’s future.

            As Homer’s Odyssey teaches, Gasanov says, “the most important thing doesn’t happen when the hero goes on the road as the beginning of the journey is almost always an unrealistic promise. The  real story begins with a return” – in Odysseus’ case to Ithaca and in Gabyshev’s to Sakha.

“Unlike Odysseus, with whom Bashkirov compares his hero,” Gasanov writes, “Gabyshev returns not the winner. He did not reach Moscow, did not exorcise ‘the demon’ and did not overthrow the government. He was stopped on the road, put in a car, taken to Yakutia, and sent for psychiatric examination.”

And yet, Gasanov continues, “it is precisely the return and not the campaign which seems today to be the main event of the story” and contains the most important lesson for Russia and Russians about how they can escape the cyclical experiences of the past once they get beyond Putin.

            Following his detention on the road to Moscow and his return to Sakha, the philologist says, Gabyshev could have admitted he had been defeated. “But Gabyshev himself proposed another way to understand that defeat: he compared himself to a hobbit who returns home and having done so finds new strength.”

            According to him, a hero “is not determined by victory but rather by the ability to survive the fall and then return.”  Instead of starting off again after being put in a psychiatric hospital, Gabyshev changed course.  He denied he had ever called himself a shaman, and he talked instead about pride and humility and his earlier mistake in not recognizing that.

Specifically, he said “revenge is a sin; forgiveness is necessary”—and that is a new and unexpected challenge to Russia because “the question of revenge arises whenever a vengeful cruel regime ends.” What is to happen to those who weren’t the main culprit but nonetheless collaborated with him?

            That matters now and not just in the future: If such people know that “after defeat, they will have the opportuitty to step aside” because people will recognize that the amnesty they will receive “will not be an act of weakness but a strong tool to end the war” all have been a part of in the past.

            By taking this position, Gabyshev did more than he may even have been aware, Gasanov says. If today’s siloviki “know that after the fall of the current regime, they won’t be automatically punished but only those really responsible will, with the rest able to return to normal life, they will have something that no sermon gives: the possibility of choice.”

            An authoritarian system works not just by instilling fear about the possibility of punishment now but about the certainty of it if the regime falls, Gasanov continues drawing out the meaning of Gabashov’s words, because someone can hate those in power but still defend them “if he is sure that after the chief falls, he will die himself.”

            Only if that is understood as Gabashov did can Russia escape from another round of conflict and authoritarian rule given that those defeated now will want to take their revenge rather than repenting and returning to a peaceful life. If Russians pay attention to that, it will give the former shaman a greater victory than any other he might have had. 

Moscow Still Leaving Russian North with Less Food than Its Residents Need and at Prices Few of Them Can Afford

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Aug. 8 – Because much of the Russian Federation is located in northern regions which can’t produce enough food to support their populations and lack highway and rail links to the south, Moscow has a system known since Soviet times as “the northern delivery;” but it isn’t managing to deliver the food residents of the north need and at prices they can afford.

            After the demise of the USSR, this highly centralized system collapsed, given that prices were no longer controlled and much of the distribution system was privatized. According to an EchoFM report, the situation reached “a critical point” in the so-called Pevek Crisis of 1921” (echofm.online/stories/neft-dovezut-yabloki-kak-poluchitsya-pochemu-severnyj-zavoz-ne-spasaet-arktiku-ot-dorogoj-edy).

            At that time, more than 20 vessels became trapped in the ice in the eastern Arctic. Officials decided to prioritize the escort and unloading of vessels carrying industrial cargo, leaving those ships carrying food supplied to the north “trapped in the ice for days” and the people they were supposed to deliver the food to without.

            That spurred Moscow to take action. In 2023, the Duma passed the first-ever Northern Delivery law; and in 2025, the Kremin named Rosatom Arctic as the single maritime operator for a 15-year term. But neither of those actions solved the problem. Rosatom continued to give priority to oil, gas and coal that could be exported leaving Northern consumers in the lurch.

            Last year, in fact, food accounted for only six percent by weight of the cargo carried by ships involved in the Northern Delivery. Many locations did not get the total amount of food they had been promised, and both they and others saw prices rise to levels where many of the North’s residents could not afford to buy what was on offer.

            EchoFm convincingly argues that one of the reasons for these continuing problems is “the inherent conflict” of priorities in Rosatom’s business model. Carrying food and related goods to the north is far from its most important task, and not surprisingly, the people of the North are short-changed.

            Unless that changes or unless Moscow imposes tighter control on Rosatom, these problems are likely to continue, accelerating the flight of population from the north, and making it impossible for Russia to develop this region in support of both the Northern Sea Route and the development of the natural resources across this region. 

By Donating to Ukraine War-Related Causes, Russians Accused of Various Crimes Now Getting Off without Punishment, ‘Novaya Gazeta Europe' Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, Aug. 10 – A prominent feature of the Russian legal system since the start of Putin's expanded war in Ukraine in 2022 has been that Russians incarcerated for various crimes, including the most serious, have seen their sentences mitigated or even voided altogether, if they agree to go to fight in Ukraine, an arrangement clearly set up to fill the depleted ranks of Russian forces. 

            But now, according to a report by Novaya Gazeta Europe journalist Dariya Talanova, this system has expanded in a new and even more disturbing way. In recen ttimes, those who are accused of crimes can often get off without punishment not by agreeing to serve but rather if they make contributions to Ukraine-war related causes (novayagazeta.eu/articles/2026/08/10/donat-vmesto-sroka).

            That practice, the media journalist says, has grown out of a Russian judicial tradition of reducing sentences in cases where the accused shows remorse by making contributions to charitable causes related to the crimes he or she is accused of such as making contributions to orphanages when these crimes have cost children their parents.

            But in the last several years, she continues, this long-standing practice has expanded to allow those accused of various crimes to have their sentences reduced or voided if they give money to support the Russian fighters in Ukraine or to humanitarian efforts intended to help those who have suffered from the conflict.

            The journalist provides examples of such transactions although admits that she does not know how widespread it is. But if it spreads and becomes more widely known, it is likely to outrage those who have suffered from the crimes people are escaping punishment from simply by giving money to the front.

            Not only will such a development harm the reputation of Russian prosecutors and judges, but it will exacerbate class antagonisms, given that only those with money will be able to buy their way out of punishment. Those without such cash in contrast will either have to accept prison or service in the front lines.