Global News Insider

Did Vladislav Surkov lost support from the Kremlin? Who is Mr. S or Russian “Grey Cardinal“ and why he suddenly must leave the post? Who would be his successor and what are the consenquences for Ukraine?

We found out on 18 February that the person responsible for the Russian policy towards unrecognized Republic of Abkhazia and Republic of South Osetia as well as towards unrecognized pseudo-republics of Donbass – LNR (Luganskaya Narodnaya Respublika) and DNR (Donetskaya Narodnaya Respublika), Mr. Vladislav Surkov is no more the man in charge on Ukraine direction. Director of the Russian Center for Political Conjuncture Alexei Chesnakov told the media that the author of Novorossiya concept and chief negotiator of the Kremlin on Donbass issue within Normandy 4 talks, Mr. Surkov had to go, reportedly because the Kremlin is changing its policy towards Ukraine.

We have watched the work of Mr. S for many years and we must admit that the Russian “Cardinal Richelieu“ is an extraordinary person in many aspects. He is a poet, musician, writer, politician, hawk negotiator and author of many ideological concepts which influenced the political development of Russia during the Putin era. Many analysts can recall Surkov’s concept of “sovereign democracy“ which formed the political agenda of United Russia party for many years or the citizen movement “Nashi”. His dismissal is seen by many analysts as unexpected or mysterious. But there were many dismissals in his career before and he still managed to make comeback.

Mr. Surkov is known in Ukraine and by Western countries as an implacable defender of Russian interests in the regions of the former Soviet Union where the Russian influence is still prevalent. In case of Donbass, it was Mr. S who had a “carte blanche“ in forming the agenda and Russian policy towards the two unrecognized Republics (LNR, DNR). It was also him who delivered the Russian position at Minsk talks where the Minsk agreements were signed and it was him who under no doubt knew the real situation in Donbass in all details. As a curator of Donbass he was in charge of a distant management of the unrecognized republics and he served also a mediator between different interests of numerous stakeholders within Russian and Donbass. At the same time, he also took active participation at Normandy 4 meetings, including the meeting in December 2019, in Paris.

So does Mr. Surkov’s unexpected dismissal mean as it is largely reported that Russia is changing the agenda and its policy towards Ukraine? His responsibilities on this position were assumed by Mr. Kozak who is another iconic figure of the Kremlin. Mr. Kozak is known as the orchestrator of the plan which should have turned another former Soviet republic Moldova into a federation state. Although his plan of federalization was not implemented, the fact that a new coordinator of Russian policy on Ukraine in the past initiated federalization of Moldova,to our opinion, should raise questions about the real motives of Moscow by the replacement of Surkov by Kozak.

But if Mr. Surkov has always been seen as a very consistent defender of Russian interests, who was never ready to make concessions to already signed agreements, Mr. Kozak seems to us to be more flexible and ready for compromises. But it is only an unconfirmed speculation that one person in chargé of Russian policy to Ukraine could make any ultimate decisions whe it comes to Donbass. On the other hand, in case of Moldova it was only due to the Western interference into the process in the very last moment that resulted in the failure to implement the Kozak memorandum on federalization. Kozak managed to persuade leaders of irreconcilable parties in Moldova to sign the memorandum, which practically implied the establishment of a neutral federalized republic, the territorial integrity of which should have been guaranteed by the Russian military forces. From this point of view, we can assume that Kozak can demonstrate more diplomatic approach at talks on future of Donbass with parties concerned, while fiercely defending the interests of the Kremlin.

Following his reported dismissal Mr. Surkov told the Russian media that “Ukraine doesn’t exist any more.“ He also added that “the only historically proven effective method how to maintain normal relations with Ukraine is to make friends by force.” After such words it seems to us that the unexpected reshuffling of curators on the Ukrainian direction could be understood as a change of tactics, but not the strategy of the Kremlin. We understand that Surkov was not dismissed, he just changed the area of his responsibility. Such figures as Surkov just cannot leave the system. He is an extraordinary intelligent and importat figure for the Kremlin and we expect him to play even more “grey policy” behind the Kremlin walls. In Surkov’s latest interview to the Russian politologist Chesnakov, Russian “Grey Cardinal “said that it was his initiative to go away becasue the context in the Russian-Ukrainian relations has changed. At the same time, other media believe that the new Ukrainian government and President Zelenskyi see Surkov as a nonnegotiable person and that it is impossible to hold negotiations with him.