Ian Daniells

Retired Russian General Leonid Ivashov has delivered a devastating assessment of Vladimir Putin’s leadership, Russia’s war against Ukraine, and the deteriorating condition of the Russian state. Ivashov is no ordinary Kremlin critic. He is a retired general, professor, and geopolitical analyst with decades of experience in Russia’s military establishment. He publicly opposed the invasion of Ukraine before it began, warning that the consequences could be catastrophic for Russia itself. Now, nearly four years into the full-scale war, Ivashov argues that his worst predictions have come true. After watching Putin’s lengthy televised appearance, he described a president increasingly detached from the reality experienced by ordinary Russians. “I saw neither a leader, nor a commander, nor a defender of the people. I saw only a man living in a fairy tale, while the rest of the country is trying to survive on 16,000 rubles a month.” His assessment of the war was equally severe. According to Ivashov, Russia has failed to achieve meaningful military success while suffering strategic defeats that extend far beyond the battlefield. He described an economy under growing pressure, industries in decline, a collapsing education system, and scientific institutions struggling to survive. Healthcare, he warned, is deteriorating as regional governments reduce medical spending. Rising prices are steadily impoverishing ordinary Russians, while declining food quality adds another burden to households already struggling to make ends meet. But perhaps his darkest warning concerns Russia’s demographic future. Ivashov portrayed Russia as a country experiencing a profound population crisis, with the war accelerating the loss of working-age men and worsening an already dangerous demographic trajectory. He was equally dismissive of the Kremlin’s claims about Russia’s international partnerships. North Korea and Belarus, he argued, cannot provide the economic or strategic support Russia needs. And China, despite Moscow’s constant declarations of friendship, should not be mistaken for a genuine military or political ally. Having worked with Chinese officials for many years, Ivashov rejected the Kremlin’s portrayal of Beijing as a dependable strategic partner. His ultimate warning was stark: a strategic defeat in Ukraine could threaten not merely Putin’s political future but the territorial and institutional integrity of the Russian Federation itself. What makes these remarks particularly significant is their source. Ivashov is not a Western politician, a Ukrainian official, or an opposition activist speaking from exile. He comes from the Russian military establishment and opposed the invasion before the first Russian tanks crossed Ukraine’s borders. His conclusions are sweeping and controversial, and the specific quotations attributed to him require verification against the original interview. Nevertheless, his longstanding opposition to the invasion illustrates something the Kremlin has repeatedly tried to obscure: criticism of this war has also emerged from within Russia’s own military circles. The central question is no longer simply what Putin hopes to achieve in Ukraine. It is how much more Russia will sacrifice in pursuit of those ambitions.