Events in Moscow and Kiev could shape the outcome in Ukraine

While public and media attention remains focused on hostilities in eastern Ukraine and the tragic crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 that resulted from the fighting, the fate of the conflict may not be decided in the border zone between Ukraine and Russia. Rather, it will be decided hundreds of kilometers away in Kiev and Moscow. Recent events in both capitals could give clues as to how this highly volatile and dynamic conflict will evolve.

In Kiev, the Ukrainian parliament on Tuesday approved a decree by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko to conduct a partial mobilization, calling up thousands of reservists to join Ukrainian forces in the conflict against pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Ukrainian forces have been gaining ground, retaking the rebel stronghold of Slovyansk the first week of July after separatists abandoned their positions there. Since then, Ukrainian troops have advanced from Slovyansk toward the major population centers of Donetsk and Luhansk in the east, recapturing towns such as Dzerzhynsk, Rubizhne and Soledar in the process. US involvement in training and intelligence likely has played a significant role in the successes Kiev has had so far in its offensive. Kiev is hoping that the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner — if found to be the doing of pro-Russian rebels, as Kiev suggests — will increase international pressure on the Kremlin to stop supporting the rebels, shifting the battle decidedly in the government’s favor.

However, Kiev still has many hurdles to overcome before it can claim an all-out victory over the rebels. The closer Kiev’s forces get to surrounding Donetsk and Luhansk, the more difficult the fighting will become. Both cities are major urban areas that play to the advantage of the defending rebels. Compounding this advantage is the fact that Kiev’s security forces have thus far been averse to inflicting major civilian casualties, which could undermine political support for the operation. Luhansk’s proximity to the Russian border — much of which is porous and beyond Ukraine’s close control — also makes it a difficult environment.

But the largest obstacle might come from Kiev itself. The Ukrainian parliament has so far held together since the uprising against former President Viktor Yanukovich and passed major decisions on issues such as accessing a $17 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund and signing a free trade agreement with the European Union. But the parliament’s continued coherence and functionality should not be taken for granted. The parliament is split among nine different factions, three of which consist of Yanukovich’s Party of Regions and its splinter parties. These groups collectively have significant voting power and were a major reason Tuesday’s mobilization measure passed (by a thin margin: 232 of 450 votes). At the same time, the country is facing rising economic issues and increasing pressure from Russia on energy matters.

The prospect of continued stability is no more certain in Moscow. The uprising against Yanukovich represented a strategic reversal for Russia in a country that is of fundamental importance to Russia’s strategic interests. Moscow acted quickly to seize Crimea and then helped foment a rebellion in eastern Ukraine to undermine the new government in Kiev. While Crimea was an easy victory for Russia, eastern Ukraine has been far more challenging; a widespread public uprising against the Ukrainian government has not emerged as Moscow had hoped. With the rebels losing ground and Moscow facing strong condemnation for its support of the rebels in the wake of the Malaysian airliner crash — possibly including stronger sanctions from the Europeans — Russia has to worry that its position in eastern Ukraine may be slipping away as well.

It is in this context that Russian President Vladimir Putin chaired a National Security Council meeting in the Kremlin on Tuesday. In opening remarks that were made available to the public, Putin took a decidedly defensive stance not only on Ukraine but also in the international arena. In a thinly veiled reference to the West, Putin stated that “attempts are clearly being made to destabilize the social and economic situation, to weaken Russia in one way or another or to strike at our weaker spots.” Regarding the airliner crash, Putin said Russia would ensure a comprehensive and transparent investigation but, again referencing the West, he said, “Nobody should interfere in our internal affairs.”

Clearly Putin is under tremendous pressure over Moscow’s position on and actions in Ukraine. But to Putin, there’s a deeper fear: Events in Ukraine demonstrate the West’s encroachment not just into Russia’s sphere of influence but also into the Russian heartland itself. And with an economy that was stagnating before the Ukrainian crisis and could be at risk of significant decline, Putin cannot be sure of the strength of even his own position. His popularity is high now, but the combination of economic weakness and problems in the foreign arena has often proved disastrous for previous Russian leaders.

Thus, activity in Moscow and Kiev must be watched as closely as the battleground in eastern Ukraine itself. Things are quieter in those capitals than on the battlefield, but they are equally intense. And it is in those capitals that the broader conflict could be decided.