Putin’s response to this pressure, not unexpectedly, has been to double down. In his unusually short national address on 21 September, Putin announced partial mobilisation and support for hastily organised referendums in four Russian-occupied regions in eastern Ukraine (Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhia). Ominously, repeating his claims that NATO aimed to “weaken, divide and destroy Russia”, Putin warned that if Russia’s territorial integrity is threatened, Russia would use all the means at its disposal to defend the country and its people, adding “this is not a bluff”.
In announcing only partial mobilisation targeting trained reservists, Putin tried to balance the need to address Russia’s dire military personnel shortage in Ukraine without alienating wider domestic opinion.
That hasn’t worked, though, with the announcement sparking public demonstrations and a rush by potential conscripts to flee the country. And claims by Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu that the measure would yield an additional 300,000 soldiers are vague, not to mention the time it will take to retrain, equip and deploy the new troops to Ukraine.
The referendums are expected to lead to the annexation of Russian-occupied territories in eastern Ukraine. This is significant because it would enable the Kremlin to assert that these areas would be defended like any other part of Russia in the context of Putin’s bellicose threats to use all options (by implication, including nuclear weapons) to defend Russian territory.
In upping the ante by brandishing the nuclear threat again, Putin’s objective is essentially political: to signal that Moscow is in Ukraine for the long haul and to scare Ukraine’s Western backers into backing down; and to withhold support for Ukraine and put pressure on Kyiv to cut a deal with Moscow. Initial Western reaction suggests that’s not likely to happen.
Yet, while Ukraine’s recent battlefield success is heartening for its Western backers, it’s hard to see Russian forces being dislodged completely from eastern Ukraine (absent a complete collapse in command and morale).
So, as before, the answer to how this conflict might end essentially rests in Moscow.
Putin’s escalatory actions and rhetoric smack of defiance and desperation. The partial mobilisation brings the war home to ordinary Russians more than ever before.
But there’s no sign that Putin intends backing down. Nor can he afford to: he has portrayed this as a near-existential struggle for Russia. It certainly is for his leadership.