I’m now at the age where I can say that I have observed, from afar, two coups initiated against a Russian ruler. The first one was plotted against Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in August 1991. The second one happened just a few days ago. I was glued to my Twitter account and CNN for most of last weekend, trying to keep abreast of developments between Rostov-on-Don and Moscow.

President Vladimir Putin being at the center of the events unfolding in these crucial hours, I believed it would be pertinent to reach out to the author of the best biography written about him to seek some insights. Philip Short, author of the seminal Putin (Holt), a book on which he worked for 8 years. Mr. Short generously agreed to answer a few questions, despite being buried under requests.

Here is the content of our discussion.

_________

Mr. Short, thank you very much for the generosity of your time.

I have a feeling that every time Vladimir Putin is referred to in the Western media, the analysis goes in the direction of his downfall – either by a coup, cancer or slipping on a banana peel. Would you tend to agree that this is wishful thinking disguised as analysis?

I think we must recognize that we are in the middle of an information war that’s running parallel to the war on the ground in Ukraine. So, whether it’s wishful thinking or spin is arguable. Very often there are elements of both – added to which, western (and Russian) pundits have been pontificating very little hard information to go on, so there has been a lot of thumb-sucking of the ‘Putin’s finished’, ‘The end is nigh’, ‘Civil war beckons’, variety.

No one knows even exactly what Prigozhin was promised when he agreed to call off his mutiny. But certainly, the consensus in the Western media that Putin is severely weakened needs to be treated with skepticism. It’s just as plausible to make a case that his grip has in fact been strengthened because he found a way out which avoided the worst-case scenario of bloody fighting, and, to the elite, that is a signal that, even if he misjudged the situation early on, he hasn’t lost his touch, so ‘better to stick with the devil you know’.

What really matters is how that war will work out – in other words, what happens on the battlefield on the ground. That is going to be far more important than the curious events of the past weekend.

I suspect that when the dust settles, we will find that the importance of this episode has been exaggerated: it’s essentially a sideshow, a symptom of a greater malaise which stems from the war in Ukraine. What really matters is how that war will work out – in other words, what happens on the battlefield on the ground. Will Russia start gaining? Or will the Ukrainian offensive succeed? That is going to be far more important than the curious events of the past weekend.

Where do you think Putin will go from now on? Do you expect heads to roll in a Stalinian fashion in the coming weeks and months?

No. My guess is that he will seek to project an air of normalcy in the coming weeks. That doesn’t rule out heads rolling later, but he never wants to be seen as acting under pressure.

Putin is not a Stalinist – that’s simplistic.

Speaking of Stalin, I was fascinated to read the anecdote in your book about the young Vladimir Putin saving a portrait of the fallen vozhd. What’s his opinion about Stalin?

That would need a whole book! The bottom line is that, in Putin’s view, Stalin’s rule was part of Russian history, it had both good sides (industrialization and victory in WW2) and bad sides (the purges, the mass slaughter during collectivization, the nationality policy which created a federal system that would eventually collapse… and so on). Putin is not a Stalinist – that’s simplistic – but as his regime has become more dictatorial, the dark side of Stalin is increasingly passed over in silence.

Putin has become so identified with the Russian state that to attack one is to attack the other.

In your last chapter, you write “Many Russians were tired of Putin, but even more found it hard to imagine anyone else in charge.” Are Russians still behind him?

A Russian analyst, Alexander Baunov, who is no friend of Putin’s – far from it – recently wrote that in the minds of many Russians, Putin has become so identified with the Russian state that to attack one is to attack the other. I think that is broadly true. Much of the support for the war in Ukraine is based on the idea, ‘my country right or wrong’. Let’s say 10 percent of Russians really support the war, 15 percent are really against it,

70 percent or so support Russia and by inference, Putin’s regime, because it’s their country. So it’s not enthusiastic, gung-ho support for the most part, it’s tacit support – to which one should add that the great majority would just like the war to be over.

Vladimir Putin is a very complex individual, which is why I spent more than a quarter of a million words trying to figure out what makes him tick.

What are Vladimir Putin’s main strengths in your opinion?

I’m sorry, there’s no short answer to this or the following question. Human beings are complicated and trying to simplify doesn’t really help us. If I were to try to sum up in a few words, it would be dishonest. If any of your readers are really interested, I can only suggest they read my book – if they don’t want to buy it, get it from a library. I’m not trying to sell copies! But he’s a very complex individual, which is why I spent more than a quarter of a million words trying to figure out what makes him tick.

I’m always curious about the inner circle of world leaders. Who are the most influential players, and do you think Nikolai Patrushev played a determining role last weekend?

The Belarus leader, Lukashenko, was a bit player – the guy out front who took all the credit. The real work, I think was done by Patrushev, Putin’s Chief of Staff, Anton Vaino, and one or two others.

Do you think Yevgeny Prigozhin can and will be forgiven?

I don’t rule it out completely. It’s significant that Putin did not name Prigozhin in either of his speeches on Saturday and Monday – but what the significance of that is, we don’t yet know. The consensus is that Prigozhin will finish up with a bullet in his head. That is not ruled out either. I think Putin himself is probably keeping his options open and has not yet reached a final decision.

Kremlinology is, as Churchill understood, an almost impossible business. But knowing the Putin circle as you do, do you see anyone with the potential of succeeding him?

There are a few obvious candidates: Mishustin, the Prime Minister, a competent, well-like technocrat; Sobyanin, the Mayor of Moscow; or younger ones, like Patrushev’s son, Dmitry. But it will depend on how the succession takes place. Will it be orderly, with Putin withdrawing to anoint a successor? Or sudden and unpredictable? Again, this is not the moment to pose that kind of question. There are too many imponderables.

Thank you very much for your time and insights, Mr. Short.