Welcome to Email News: Was the Rebellion Good or Bad for Putin?

View this email in your browser

Insights, analysis and must reads from CNN's Fareed Zakaria and the Global Public Square team, compiled by Global Briefing editor Chris Good

Seeing this newsletter as a forward? Sign up here.

June 30, 2023

Was the Rebellion Good or Bad for Putin?

After the weekend's stunning rebellion in Russia, the Global Briefing has examined expert views on potential danger to Russian President Vladimir Putin's rule and on what will come next for Russia. Today, we look at a similar but slightly different question: Has Putin been weakened or strengthened?

The Economist announces "(t)he humbling of Vladimir Putin." Plenty of commentators have noted that Yevgeny Prigozhin's rebellion cracked a façade of total control Putin has maintained; The Economist writes that Prigozhin's aborted "mutiny also encapsulates the rottenness of the state that Mr Putin has created," as Prigozhin railed "against Mr Putin's misconceived war, the incompetence of the Russian army and the losses it was suffering in Ukraine. For all Mr Prigozhin's brutality, it was a truth that cut through the Kremlin's empty propaganda. … Having created one-man rule, Mr Putin also seemed unable to command loyalty."

But a minority of analysts suggests Putin may have been strengthened, in a way. After all, he remained in power, and Alexander Gabuev writes for The Atlantic that while the mutiny may have exposed flaws, "The steps the Kremlin is taking in reaction to the mutiny may fortify the regime's foundations. … In taking down (Prigozhin's) Wagner (private military group), Putin will have removed one of the most potent threats to his rule … Furthermore, conspiracy among Putin's top lieutenants remains unlikely, because all of them were handpicked by Putin and owe their careers to him, distrust one another, and are implicated in a criminal war against Ukraine. If anything, the president is likely to respond to the mutiny with more repression against the elite and the further injection of resources into the FSB (federal security service) and the National Guard."

Heady Times for the Western Alliance

Together, the US, Europe and NATO face a crossroads. With an important summit in Lithuania looming next month, NATO will discuss whether to admit Ukraine—and The Economist notes that the US is an outlier, more skeptical of enlarging the alliance.

At issue will be what steps toward NATO membership the alliance is willing to consider for Kyiv—and what kind of security assurances it can offer. Observers are voicing hope that NATO avoids the half-measures, proven insufficient by recent history, of guaranteeing (as the US, UK and Russia did) Ukraine's security in 1994 if it relinquished its Soviet-era nuclear weapons and of promising NATO membership in 2008 without following up to make it happen.

In a Foreign Affairs essay, Radek Sikorski—a member of the European Parliament's defense subcommittee and a former Polish foreign and defense minister—writes that Europe must coalesce around a vision for its own security. The European Union has infamously labored without much success to create an effective military force, as Sikorski details; its fragmented nature as a bloc of 27 countries has stood in the way, as it does in many areas of policy; and with the Pentagon no longer maintaining a goal of America being able to fight two wars at once, Europe faces a difficult and frightening future if war were to break out with China.

In the next war to affect it, Sikorski writes, "Europe might be on its own. … Europe's post-Cold War illusion of having reached the plateau of eternal peace has sadly been shattered. … To survive and prosper in a world of battling giants, Europe must transform itself from a militarily weak confederation into a genuine superpower."

Britain's Inflation Nightmare

If you think inflation is bad in the US, take a look at Britain. Bloomberg's editors write: "The Bank of England surprised financial markets last week by raising its policy rate half a percentage point instead of the expected quarter. The bigger surprise was that so many investors and analysts were surprised. With inflation stuck for a second month at 8.7%, much higher than in Europe or the US, the central bank's new policy rate of 5% is still substantially negative in real terms. If the UK is to get inflation back down to its 2% target, this latest move is unlikely to be enough."

While the US Federal Reserve paused its rate hikes this month, and while the European Central Bank raised its own by .25 percentage points, Britain is stuck in a Groundhog Day of inflation, The Economist writes.

It's been said that Britain has faced the worst of both worlds, inflation-wise: an energy-price shock like continental Europe, coupled with labor shortages à la the US. Complicating that picture, The Economist cites more reasons, writing: "Inflation, unlike much else, is made in Britain. Old excuses that it is imported, because of war, snarled-up supply chains or high global food prices, no longer wash. … The culprits behind Britain's problems are many. … Demand is strong … because policymakers have long been trying to rev it up. Consider fiscal efforts. Britain stands out for the stimulus it gave to the economy in the pandemic and then, last year, during the energy crisis." The magazine cites "belated" monetary tightening, while suggesting higher taxes might be in order.

War With Mexico?

At The Atlantic, David Frum writes that in the US, support has grown among some elected Republicans for opening the door to authorizing special-forces operations in Mexico, to fight drug cartels that have long been the bane of the Mexican and US governments.

Of Fox News host Greg Gutfeld's exhortation last year to bomb Mexico's drug cartels, Frum writes: "Probably very little of this talk is meant to be taken literally. Much of it functions as a rhetorical escape from the political dilemma that Republicans and conservatives face" in American opioid deaths. But it's dangerous, Frum writes, in that it can fan anti-American sentiments, as Mexicans might point out that American demand for drugs is a problem for them; such public opinion can make it more difficult for Mexican governments to partner with the US; and some of the rhetoric risks "radicalizing" GOP voters.