Russia’s withdrawal from Kherson undermines confidence in Vladimir Putin’s commitment and ability to deliver on his military promises, the Institute for the Study of War says in its latest assessment of the conflict in Ukraine. Russian philosopher Oleksandr Dugin indirectly blames President Vladimir Putin for the failure in southern Ukraine, hinting at his absolute power, and draws a parallel with the customs of archaic societies, when rulers were killed if they could not help their people.

Russian pro-war ideologue Oleksandr Dugin openly criticized Russian President Vladimir Putin, whom he called an autocrat, for failing to support Russian ideology by handing over Kherson.

Dugin stated that this ideology “determines Russia’s responsibility to defend ‘Russian cities’ such as Kherson, Belgorod, Kursk, Donetsk and Simferopol.”

Some Russian military bloggers have previously criticized Putin for his failure to respond to the attack on the Kerch bridge on October 9, while others have noted that Putin has not supported the ideology of Russian supremacy since 2014.

Direct criticism of Putin among the pro-war community is almost unprecedented, and Dugin’s blistering attack on Putin may signal a shift among Russian nationalist ideologues, according to ISW.

Dugin pointed out that the autocrat was responsible for saving his nation himself or else he would suffer the fate of the “rain king”, referring to Sir James Fraser’s book The Golden Bough, in which the king was killed for failing to cause rain. in the midst of a drought.

“Limit reached”

Dugin also downplayed the role of Putin’s advisers in the failure to protect “Russian peace” and stated that the commander of Russian forces in Ukraine, Army General Serhiy Surovikin, is not responsible for the political decision to withdraw from Kherson.

Dugin noted that the autocrat cannot correct this deviation from ideology with public speeches alone, noting that “power in Russia cannot refuse any more” and that “the limit has been reached.”

He also accused the president’s administration of espousing a “false” ideology for fear of giving in to the “Russian idea.”

Dagin also referred to the use of tactical nuclear weapons, which he vaguely said would mean “the end,” and noted that Russia’s belated changes to its military campaign did little to change the course of the war.

However, he also suggested that Russia should commit to the Russian idea, and not continue the “stupid” use of nuclear weapons.