Falling tsar? Russians eye life after Putin

Hello and welcome to The Intelligence from The Economist. In New York, I'm John Fassman. Every weekday, we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world. Haiti is short on fuel and besieged by armed gangs. Many Haitians don't have enough to eat. The prime minister has asked foreign troops to help. But for many in a country that has seen more than its share of outside meddling, that's a tricky request. And it's not the world's biggest diamond. It can fit easily into the palm of your hand. But the Koh-i-Noor has become a symbol of Britain's colonial history. And many in India, where the stone was taken from, want it back. But first— After a grueling 8 months of war, Ukraine is still under siege. This week, wave after wave of missile strikes left large parts of the capital, Kyiv, without water or electricity. Blackouts are blighting the lives of civilians just as the cold winter weather arrives.

They want to make the people without heating, without water, without electricity in the winter. They want to freeze the whole population in our hometown. It's genocide. No other words.

Russia's President Vladimir Putin has caused widespread suffering among Ukrainians. But the damage inflicted on his own nation is also on display. Today, Russian troops are being forced toward their own border. The West is refusing to back down in the face of energy and nuclear blackmail. And Putin has decimated the Russian economy, driving hundreds of thousands of people out of the country. Few Russian leaders have done as much damage. And now, some close to the Kremlin are wondering: Is there life after Putin?

Putin ruled on the basis that he provided stability.

Arkady Ostrovsky is The Economist's Russia editor.

The deal was very simple: people don't get involved in politics and he doesn't get too much involved in their lives. He doesn't ask much of them, they turn up at elections when he needs them to, and the quid pro quo is that we don't have any war. Putin now brought this war to Russia, to Ukraine, of course, and he's unbalanced the whole construction, particularly with mobilization. He really moved everything out of sync, and Russia is now more brittle than it has ever been, I think, in the post-Soviet history.

Does that mean his standing as Russia's leader is in danger?

The chatter in Moscow, certainly amongst the elites, is that he's really made a massive mistake. There is no question in anybody's minds that that he's driving the country into a dead end. We've just had opinion polls showing that the majority of Russian people want change. People want change at the top, and most of all, people want for this war to stop. This war is not popular. A relatively small proportion of people, about 20% of the country, actually want to carry on. All conversation in Moscow now, from what we hear, is how does he go, who replaces him, how do we get out of this mess? So there is a complete consensus that this is really bad. At the same time, the people I talk to are saying, we can't see the mechanism of how it goes. There is no Politburo. This is not a collective rule of Russia. He talks to 5 or 6 people. He's very well protected by the FSO, which is the secret service. One thing that Putin cares about most is his personal security.

But autocrats the world over weather storms of discontent. Is there anything, do you think, that could push his people over the edge?

We believe that a defeat on the battleground in Ukraine, if Putin loses another 2, 3 cities, if Ukrainian army forces his way back to at least the lines of 23rd of February, the day before the war started, then he will not be able to survive this. That there will be some revolt by the army, there will be some revolt by the elite, the mistakes will become too apparent. And it's very hard for any dictator to hold onto power without any legitimacy at all.

If he were to go, how do you think it would unfold? What would the mechanism be?

The elites could revolt. We could see a palace coup. This has happened in the past in Russia. But short of that, I think my base scenario is that actually the country becomes ungovernable because Putin is increasingly ruling by executive orders. But there is a big question of how much of these decisions actually matter, whether anybody wants to fulfill his orders when Everybody knows he's losing this war. This is sort of what happened at the end of the Soviet rule. Russia's form of protest is sabotage. It's very hard for people to revolt in this dictatorial system. We really don't see it very often, and he has clamped down on opposition. Navalny is in jail and will not come out of that jail for as long as Putin is in power. He has clamped down on the media. He's increasing massively budget spending on internal security. There are very few ways in which the opposition can organize itself, but I think the sort of of sabotage and the country crumbling, as it were, becoming more of a failed state, unfortunately, is a more realistic scenario at the moment.

What do you think a Russia without Vladimir Putin would look like? Would it look radically different or would it be the same sort of centralized strongman rule?

It will not be the same centralized rule. Vladimir Putin has really destroyed state institutions. What we see in Russia is effectively a vertical structure. It doesn't have real ideology. It doesn't have a party. It's a one-man mafia. When the Godfather goes, I don't think it's very likely that this regime will survive. They might do for a year or two. There might be a seizure of power by a junta, but I think it will be only a matter of time until it unravels. I think whoever replaces Vladimir Putin would have to end this war. He or she would have to turn to the West to normalise relationship. There would have to be some sort of a deal because Putin has really driven Russia to the edge of the cliff. The big question weighing on the minds of people in Washington, and I'm sure is weighing on the mind of Joe Biden, is how does this happen? How do you make it to that transition? Is there a danger that Russia actually unravels?

I think the chances of this war just ending without some sort of social strife Tell us about his possible successors, anyone else who might be waiting in the wings.

One possibility is that he gets replaced by somebody from the hardline circle. It could be somebody from the security services. The problem with security services is that they have the military resources to overthrow a tyrant, but they don't have political resources to stay in power. Those nationalists already have come too close to the Kremlin. They're already tainted by this war. And if the people's mood is that they want the war to end, that anybody coming to power would have to appeal to the public by saying, 'We can end this war.' So the people who I see as having more of a political resource, who would get the backing of the elite and would have the backing of the people, is somebody like Mikhail Mishustin. He is Prime Minister. He has not been so far much tainted by this war. He hasn't put the half swastika on his forehead as Dmitry Medvedev, former Russian president and Secretary of the Security Council, has done. Mishustin is a technocrat. He has a reputation as somebody quite efficient. I think the elites will be looking at somebody who is actually potentially quite weak. That was the logic in backing Khrushchev. Khrushchev was considered to be a clown in Stalin's court. Mishustin could be the head of the transition government. And what's more, he's got the advantage of having the title of the prime minister and he would inherit the post. The other person who has potential and the elites would actually rally behind is Sergei Sobyanin. He's the mayor of Moscow, he rules Russia's richest region, he's tough, he's not a liberal, he's quite ruthless, but he's seen as effective, he's seen as very reasonable, he is certainly not delusional in the way Putin is, he's not obsessed with history, he comes from Siberia, he has a reputation as a very good manager. There is one other man who has enormous resources in his hands. He's a quiet man, not often mentioned, and his name is Sergei Kiriyenko. Sergey Kiriyenko is a former prime minister of Russia in the 1990s. He is extremely ambitious, and his biggest resource is that he's built a big network of regional power. He's completely unideological. He's very deeply involved in this war in one sense, that it was him who was supposed to be in charge of annexing the territories, preparing the referendums. He's somebody who is effective, ruthless, completely cynical, but who could build coalitions to seize power and to make a deal with some of the security people.

Arkady, let me ask a slightly left-field question. Is it completely outlandish to imagine that somebody like Alexei Navalny could come to power? You know, could Russia become a democracy?

I think the system is so rotten to the core that the country would have to reset itself completely. Navalny has staked his life on this outcome, and he still has believed that whoever takes power after Putin will be only transitional. And what will have to happen will be complete relaunch of a country, not as an empire, but as a republic, as a nation-state. I think however outlandish that may look at the moment, the longer Putin stays in power, the greater the chances of Russia's disintegration and bloodshed. Given the scale of this war, given how transformative and civilisational it is, this is the war that's going to change security in Europe, transatlantic security, Russia-Ukraine for decades to come. I think the radical change that will have to come to Russia does not make it impossible for somebody like Navalny to come to power.

Thank you so much for joining us today.

Thank you, John.

Over the past 12 years, Haiti has endured earthquakes, hurricanes, and outbreaks of cholera, all while political crises have engulfed the country. The chaos has created a fertile breeding ground for gangs, which roam the island with impunity. The rates of murder and rape on the island are exceptionally high. To combat these groups, Haiti's leader, Ariel Henry, has looked outside the country for help. But that has proved controversial. Thousands of Haitians hit the streets demanding that Mr. Henri step down and that the international community stay out of Haitian affairs. But the country's 11.5 million people need some change, and fast.

So at the start of October, the Haitian Prime Minister Ariel Henry asked the UN for help.

Sarah Burke is Bureau Chief for Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean.

He requested that they send a small force to combat violent gangs on the island who outgun the police and are basically running riot. And on October 21st, the UN Security Council responded with a resolution after various debates and interventions.

So what did the UN Security Council decide to do?

Well, the UN rhetoric was strong, but its actions were very short of an intervention and what was being discussed beforehand. The Secretary-General had come out in support of a rapid action force, but instead of sending anyone onto the ground, the actual resolution that came out was a sanctions regime, which was the second part of what was being discussed. This included a targeted arms embargo and a travel ban on those involved in the violence in Haiti, and it specifically cited one gang leader, Jimmy Chérizier, who's known as Barbecue, who really is the sort of most powerful man on the island in terms of causing And the hope is that this regime weakens the gangs by going after not only them, which is obviously quite hard to do, but also their backers.

Sanctions are at their most effective when they are targeted specifically towards bad actors and allow humanitarian aid to reach civilian populations. The resolution we adopted today accomplishes—

The US representative to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, called this an initial answer. But it doesn't seem like it's going to be enough.

So Sarah, why are things coming to a head now in Haiti?

So Haiti has a long history of problems, but the situation has really deteriorated since July last year when the then-president Jovenel Moïse was assassinated in office. And this came on top of COVID So you had increased economic issues, a political vacuum, and this all drove up gang membership and violence. Then in September of this year, the prime minister ended fuel subsidies as his government could no longer afford them, and young Haitians took to the streets in protest about this. They had no work, they couldn't afford anything, there was no security. And then the gang decided in protest to block a major fuel terminal. So the island now has no fuel, or a shortage of fuel at least. It's very hard to move food and other goods around, and so you have millions going hungry. We spoke to some people on the ground in Haiti, and they were telling us how it's been affecting them. One man we spoke to, Robinson Dormezil, said he hasn't worked for a month because the construction site where he works has been closed. So he has no income and now eats once a day if he's lucky, as opposed to when he used to eat 3 normal meals a day.

These sound like huge issues. Will the measures proposed by the UN actually make things better?

Experts and diplomats worry that the crisis in Haiti is too broad and deep for sanctions to really make an impact at this point. And it's also pretty hard to enforce them on certain individuals, such as the gang members themselves. It's better than nothing, but further actions have been slowed down because you need to to bring the UN Security Council on board, and that's difficult to do. It was hard enough for the US and Mexico, which backed this resolution, to bring China and Russia to vote with them after initial objections.

And what do Haitians themselves think about these sanctions, and would they welcome foreign intervention?

So it's very controversial. Haiti's UN ambassador welcomed them, and I think most people on the ground seem to be pretty open to them as well. But foreign intervention is a whole other matter. I've seen a lot of meddling in Haiti, a lot of foreign shoots. There's been two UN missions, the US occupation. The most recent UN mission, which was from 2004 to 2017, did stabilize the situation, but the peacekeepers inadvertently introduced cholera to the country, which killed nearly 10,000 people, and some were found to have sexually abused girls. Today though, the situation is so bad that you do hear voices among some Haitians saying that they would welcome outside help, but it's unclear how many are in favor and how many not.

So given that, and given the Security Council's reluctance to send troops, what might countries do instead?

The US is getting more involved in boosting the Haitian National Police. So on October 15th, the United States and Canada delivered some armored vehicles, which it should be said the Haitian police had paid for, and this was a delayed delivery. Mr. Biden's administration also says it will up its training and equipping, and it's going to block visas for those involved in funding or supporting gangs. It's also sent a Coast Guard vessel to patrol Haitian waters. But this seems to be more about concerns about Haitians migrating than actually going to do anything about the situation on the island. But this is obviously still a long way from getting anyone on the ground, which may be what is needed to stabilize the situation. But obviously, with midterms looming in the U.S., Biden is very cautious about acting. It seems like a bit of a poison chalice. The U.N., when it was discussing this, the U.S. was proposing that someone other than them was going to do the intervention.

GHION.AI] And so let's set aside the question of foreign help for now. Is there any prospect of a domestic solution to Haiti's troubles?

I mean, this is why it's so tricky at the moment. It seems that a domestic political solution is unlikely. The country has had no parliament, no president, and no elections since Mr. Moïse died. And Mr. Henry has a very weak democratic mandate and very little support. There's an opposition group that has tried to suggest a transition period because no one thinks that you can hold elections in Haiti in its current situation, the violence, the insecurity. But he's dismissed those plans for a transition that was proposed by this group of civil society figures. They've also been given short shrift by the international community. They may look again at these people and what they're proposing, given the situation. But many believe at this point that really there's no political solution. There's not necessarily a military solution. It's very hard to see what can be done. Things just seem like they're going to get way worse, at least before they get better.

All right, Sarah, thanks so much for joining us today.

Thanks, John.

As Queen Elizabeth II was laid to rest, an old controversy surrounding the Koh-i-Noor diamond was brought back to life. The 106-carat stone that sits among the Crown Jewels is seen as a symbol of British colonial brutality. The Koh-i-Noor, as one Victorian observed when it was taken, is a historical emblem of conquest in India. And now some in India want it back.

As soon as Elizabeth II's death was announced, and then again when Charles III's coronation date was set, Demands for its return to India began trending immediately on Twitter.

Catherine Nixey is The Economist's Britain correspondent.

The Koh-i-Noor diamond has a complicated history. It was taken from its last Indian owner, the 10-year-old Maharaja Duleep Singh, by the East India Company in 1849. And lots of the things that people think about it aren't true. So it's not, for example, the world's largest diamond. In international gem league tables, it currently sits at about 90th place. Position. It's sort of second division gem.

What is the origin story of this gem?

Um, well, it's pretty complicated. So the Koh-i-Noor diamond is surrounded by numerous myths and legends. Most myths about the Koh-i-Noor diamond are easy to dispel. So it became associated with, and some people thought it was, this diamond that was found by the god Krishna. And it's pretty easy to dispel that idea, as it is easy to dispel the idea that it was stolen by a lion that was then slain by a bear. But other ideas about it have kind of hung around a bit longer. So the idea that it curses any unworthy male owner really lingers, and it's persistent enough that only British queens and not British kings have worn the diamond.

I'm concerned for my fellow unworthy males. What do you mean cursed?

Well, many of its male owners have had a pretty rum time of it. So one of the most famous was this man called Ahmed Shah. So he was an 18th-century Afghan ruler, incredibly charismatic, but he developed a facial tumor so severe that he had to cover it with a jewelled mask, although contemporaries considered that the effect was slightly spoiled because maggots dropped from behind it. And then there was another owner who had his skull smashed in so badly that his brain spilt onto his sheets. And there was another man who encountered it who had a jug of molten lead poured onto his freshly shaven head. And this, thinks Anita Anand, broadcaster and writer who's written a book on it, She thinks it inspired a scene in Game of Thrones. And she also has said that the diamond doesn't really bring out the best in people.

And are there any conversations in Britain about actually giving it back?

Well, there are starting to be. I mean, Britain is kind of well-practiced in this area. It's used to rancorous debates over old stones. But it's less used to debates over the Koh-i-Noor diamond. Many Britons seem to have reacted to those demands that came after the death of the Queen and the announcement of the coronation. Not so much with the usual, oh, we won't give it back. Lots of people in Britain just hadn't really heard of it. One of the things about British history is that Britons are quite badly informed about it, and they're particularly badly informed about parts of British history that happened overseas. And so that's perhaps one of the reasons why people haven't really heard of the diamond. They don't know about its history in India. They don't know about how the English took it. They particularly don't know about how its kind of shameful final chapter when it was taken from this 10-year-old boy. But India is very much aware of the history of this diamond, and the diamond, which is so small it can fit into the palm of the hand, has been the thing into which much of Indian anger at British colonization has been distilled.

Now, you mentioned earlier that the cries for returning it have grown louder since Charles's coronation date was announced. Why is that? Will we see it at his coronation?

It was considered possible that Charles's wife Camilla could have worn the crown in which the Koh-i-Noor is now set. Now, the Queen never wore it, but previous queens have worn it, and there was a thought that Camilla, as Charles's consort, might wear it. But India's ruling BJP party has said that any plan to do so would bring back painful memories. It's not yet been confirmed one way or another whether she will wear it. The palace will have heard the recent debate and the recent cries for its return. But at the moment, it seems unlikely that the stone is going to be returned in the near future.

All right, Catherine, thanks so much for joining us today.

Thank you for having me.

That's all for this episode of The Intelligence. Let us know what you think of the show. You can get in touch at podcasts@economist.com, and you can subscribe to The Economist at economist.com/intelligenceoffer. The link is in the show notes. We'll see you back here tomorrow.