Friday 30 June 2023

As Putin's Kremlin circle grows smaller and smaller, the ultimate outsider Sergei Shoigu keeps holding on.

Extract from ABC News

ABC News Homepage

In the game of thrones currently unfolding at the Kremlin, one man has clung firmly to his seat.

Sergei Shoigu, Vladimir Putin's longtime defence minister and close confidant, has so far held onto his position and survived an all-out mutiny staged by one of his most powerful opponents.

When Yevgeny Prigozhin commanded his Wagner mercenaries to march on Moscow over the weekend, he singled out Shoigu as the "scumbag" ultimately responsible for Russia's failures on the battlefield in Ukraine.

Demanding that Shoigu and his top commander stand down, Prigozhin's troops waltzed across the border into Rostov-on-Don on Saturday morning, taking control of the city.

"We have arrived here, we want to receive the chief of the general staff and Shoigu," Prigozhin said in a video from Russia's Southern Military District HQ.

"Unless they come, we'll be here, we'll blockade the city of Rostov and head for Moscow."

Shoigu went to ground, while Putin stood by him, delivering a stinging rebuke of Prigozhin's "betrayal", indirectly accusing the Wagner head of treason.

"Those who organised and prepared the military mutiny, who turned weapons against their comrades-in-arms, have betrayed Russia, and will be held accountable for that. And those who are being pulled into the crime, I'm calling on you to not make this crucial, tragic, unrepeatable mistake," he said.

But by late Saturday evening, it was all over.

Prigozhin is now in exile, under the watchful eye of another Putin ally, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko.

And while the Wagner boss has since declared he acted to protect the president and hold Shoigu to account, his nemesis remains at the top of the negotiation table — for now.

How a Kremlin outsider became Putin's best friend

In Russia, they call it the "siloviki", which roughly translates to "people of force" or "the strongmen".

The small elite circle that makes up Putin's siloviki all hail from similar backgrounds.

Vladimir Putin surrounded by a large group of men, and one woman with a blonde bob and dressed in a grey fur coat
Most of the people in Putin's inner circle hail from his hometown of St Petersburg — except Shoigu (second from right). ()

Like Putin himself, most are ethnic Slavs who rose through the ranks of power in his hometown of St Petersburg.

But Shoigu was born in a small village near the Russian-Mongolian border to a Ukrainian mother.

His father was part of the Tuva community, an ethnic group indigenous to Siberia.

Right before the Soviet Union collapsed, the ambitious young engineer moved to Moscow where he got a job on the government architecture committee and became friends with Boris Yeltsin.

When the USSR toppled and Yeltsin rose to power as Russia's president, Shoigu's future among the Russian elite looked assured.

"There's no one else like him in the ruling class," Evgeny Minchenko, an analyst who studies the Russian elite, told The Economist in 2015.

"It's an absolutely unprecedented story."

Once ensconced in Yeltsin's cabinet, Shoigu gave himself the title of minister of emergency situations.

He quickly built a public profile by donning military fatigues and choppering into disaster zones — always with a camera crew in tow.

Vladimir Putin and Sergei Shoigu sitting together, dressed in camo gear, inspecting mushrooms
Vladimir Putin and Sergei Shoigu often take hunting and fishing trips together in the defence chief's home region of Siberia. ()

When Yeltsin retired in 1999 and made way for Putin, the mysterious KGB agent reportedly looked to Shoigu for inspiration in building his image.

Shoigu, who goes fishing bare-chested, forages for mushrooms, plays ice hockey and rides horses, was exactly the hyper-masculine, outdoorsy leader Putin wanted to be.

Knowing that "one log can't support two bears", Shoigu ceded the spotlight to his new boss and set about becoming his friend and ally instead, according to Gleb Pavlovsky, a former Kremlin adviser.

Shoigu gave Putin a black Labrador called Koni, and the Russian strongman promptly fell in love.

"As far as bad moods go, of course I have them like any other person, but in those cases I try to consult with my dog Koni — she gives me good advice," he said.

A composite image of Putin and his black dog
Shoigu gave Putin his beloved black Labrador, which he called Koni. ()

In 2012, Shoigu's unshakeable loyalty was rewarded: He was made the minister of defence.

While the appointment raised some eyebrows as Shoigu had never served a day in uniform, experts say his considerable political skills were useful in the byzantine defence apparatus of the Russian state.

"Shoigu has made considerable headway in restoring trust between senior officers and the Defense Ministry," an analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) wrote in 2014.

As a member of Putin's siloviki, Shoigu enjoys the finer things.

Jailed opposition leader Alexei Navalny claims he owns a $27 million mansion outside Moscow.

He also reportedly collects rare oriental swords and Aztec sacrificial daggers. Despite never seeing combat, his military uniform is adorned with medals — many invented specifically for him.

When his boss decided to fulfil a lifelong dream and try to claim Ukraine as his own in early 2022, Shoigu was, as always, right there to support him.

But the war tested their power and their relationship in ways neither man could have predicted.

Shoigu began Ukraine a top dog, but the war has not gone his way

Since Putin launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine early last year, Shoigu has been a central figure in the military campaign, overseeing Russia's 830,000 active troops.

As one of Putin's closest confidants, he was said to have been among the few Kremlin insiders who were not taken aback by the leader's plan to send troops over the border.

Vladimir Putin smiling and gesturing while walking with Sergei Shoigu
One of Prigozhin's key demands was that Putin dump his defence chief, Sergei Shoigu. ()

"After Putin announced his decision … the chief of foreign intelligence struggled for words, and the FSB director and the foreign minister acted as if they were automatons following commands," investigative journalists Andrew Soldatov and Irina Borogan wrote in February 2022.

"By contrast, Shoigu, having spent much of the past decade building up the military into a powerful political force, sounded confident and ready to lead Russia headlong into battle."

But cracks in the relationship began to appear early in the war, with the defence minister mysteriously going missing for weeks at a time, sparking rumours of his capture, sacking, or death by poison.

As it became clear that Shoigu would not be able to deliver Putin the quick victory the leader had hoped for, observers predicted his days were numbered.

"There are reports that Putin is very disappointed in how Shoigu prepared for this war, how he carried it out," Russian political analyst Tatiana Stanovaya told the Washington Post in May last year.

According to analysis by CSIS in February this year, Russian forces sustained more combat fatalities in a year in Ukraine than in all of its wars since World War II combined, including a decade in Afghanistan and two campaigns in Chechnya.

Among Shoigu's biggest critics has been Yevgeny Prigozhin, who joined Chechen warlord Ramzan Kadyrov in staunch criticisms over Russia's defeat in Lyman last October.

After Kadyrov accused military leaders of nepotism and covering for "incompetent" generals, Prigozhin chimed in that the top brass should be "sent barefoot to the front with machine guns".

Yevgeny Prighozin angrily pointing a finger
Many of Yevgeny Prighozin's screeds were directed at Sergei Shoigu. ()

As Prigozhin's mercenaries swung into action in Ukraine, he ramped up criticisms of the Russian military, accusing Shoigu and his chief of general staff Valery Gerasimov of fumbling the war effort and starving Wagner troops of supplies.

In February this year he claimed they were making orders "left and right" to prevent ammunition and air transport from reaching Wagner units in an apparent effort to "destroy" the private military company (PMC).

By May, Russia's campaign was bedevilled by logistical setbacks, prompting Shoigu to order the state-owned Tactical Missiles Corporation to double its production of high-precision weapons "in the shortest possible time".

In one of his trademark rants, Prigozhin filmed himself standing next to the bodies of fallen Wagner fighters, aiming his ire directly at Shoigu and his chief.

"Shoigu! Gerasimov! Where are the f***ing shells?" he demanded, blaming the "stupid" commanders for failures on the front line.

Then came the final straw.

On June 10, Shoigu issued an order requiring all Russian volunteer fighters in Ukraine to sign contracts with the Ministry of Defence by the end of the month.

Prigozhin's response was swift.

"Wagner will not sign any contracts with Shoigu," he said, adding that his group would be compromised by coordinating with a man who "cannot properly manage military functions".

Two weeks later, his mercenaries marched toward Moscow.

Did Prigozhin try to blackmail Putin into dumping Shoigu?

While tensions have boiled over in the past 12 months, the rivalry between Prigozhin and Shoigu is said to go back at least five years.

Shoigu's own private military company, established in 2018 and known as the Patriot PMC, has been spotted in Syria, Africa and Ukraine, and is described by US officials as a direct competitor of Prigozhin's Wagner group.

There appear to be personal elements to the feud as well — Prigozhin has also taken aim at Shoigu's family members for allegedly dodging military conscription and living in luxury while ordinary Russians suffer.

Sergei Shoigu saluting while standing in an open top car
Sergei Shoigu is Russia's defence minister, though his critics say he has never served a day in uniform. ()

But analysts say it's most likely Prigozhin was either attempting to wrestle more power or trying to offer Putin a way out.

"He was potentially floating a balloon for Putin to grab in case he wanted to wind down this war or blame someone for its failures," said Dmitri Alperovitch, founder of the Washington-based think tank Silverado Policy Accelerator, on his podcast Geopolitics Decanted.

"He could basically grab onto this and say, 'See, it wasn't me who launched this war, it was Gerasimov and Shoigu who misled me and created this false pretence.' But of course Putin didn't bite."

If it was an attempt to pressure Putin into dumping his defence minister, it backfired.

Days after the mutiny ended, Shoigu was back in the spotlight with photos and video showing him purportedly going about his business at a busy command post, and seated at the negotiation table as Putin went into damage control.

Without naming Prigozhin, the Russian president put the Wagner chief on blast as a corrupt liar who inflated his company's independence, publicly claiming for the first time that the Kremlin "fully funds" the PMC.

"Prigozhin had built his personal brand on criticising the Russian military command and bureaucrats for corruption and ties to Western countries, and Putin is likely attempting to shatter Prigozhin's populist appeal by accusing him of the same sins," the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) concluded.

While he has not fared as poorly as Prigozhin, Shoigu's reputation has been damaged.

"The big winner of the night was Lukashenko. The big loser was Shoigu," Arnaud Dubien, director of the Franco-Russian Observatory think tank, told The Moscow Times.

Could Sergei Shoigu be replaced?

For now, Vladimir Putin remains focused on restoring the image of his chaotic inner circle to one where he holds the ultimate power.

Putin and Shoigu smiling at each other
Sergei Shoigu is said to be one of the few people in the Kremlin who Putin trusts. 

Pro-war Russians on Telegram, many of whom are supportive of the Wagner group, spent the week speculating about who could replace the defence minister and his top general.

Putin's former bodyguard Alexy Dyumin was touted in Shoigu's place, as a competent governor of the defence-heavy Tula region and reportedly a key negotiator who helped Lukashenko bring Prigozhin's mutiny to an end.

There have also been questions raised about the fate of deputy commander Sergei Surovikin, who has been absent from public since the mutiny, and is reported to have been interviewed by Kremlin officials.

But at this point, any moves to replace Shoigu or Gerasimov would likely be seen as capitulating to Prigozhin's demands.

"At least immediately we're unlikely to see a personnel change there just because that would look like yet another level of weakness," CSIS associate fellow Catrina Doxsee told the Russian Roulette podcast.

"In the longer term … I could see Putin using [battlefield] failures or setbacks as an excuse to then change out leadership … But I don't think he can possibly do it when it looks like it was based on Prigozhin's demands."

Putin and Shoigu talking at a plane crash site
Experts say despite missteps in the war, Putin will value Shoigu's unshakeable loyalty. ()

Many have observed that Vladimir Putin values loyalty above almost all else — and this may ultimately be what saves his closest friend.

"Kremlin officials confirmed that Putin has been increasingly preferring loyalty over competence within his inner circle, and Putin may have perceived Prigozhin's critiques a form of disloyalty," the ISW wrote in March, following a tirade from Putin's chef over the Battle of Bakhmut.

"Prigozhin likely did not intend to challenge Putin directly, but Putin likely saw Prigozhin's aggressive self-promotion at the expense of others who had Putin's trust as a threat.

"Shoigu and Gerasimov, after all, have been loyal to Putin and his regime structure for years and likely erred by excessive loyalty — failing to tell Putin what Putin did not want to hear — a trait Putin seems willing to forgive."

With Wagner forces no longer allowed to fight in Ukraine, Shoigu may look to demonstrate the strength of his allegiance to Putin on the battlefield, through his Patriot fighters.

According to an investigation by open-source intelligence outlet Strike Source, Patriot fighters have adopted a symbolic mascot perhaps demonstrating Shoigu's idea of loyalty.

A close-up on a military patch sewn onto camouflage print shows a dog wearing a spiked collar, surrounded by Cyrillic letters
Patriot fighters have adopted a symbolic mascot that bears a striking resemblance to the severed dog's head of Ivan The Terrible's Oprichniki.()

"There are a few images that show Patriot fighters in action. However, one of their identification signs has been shared on social media — a patch with a dog head in a spiked collar," Anna Varfolomeeva and Justen Charters wrote in April.

It bears a striking resemblance to the insignia of the Oprichniki — Ivan the Terrible's personal bodyguards, who unleashed brutal violence in their bid to protect the tsar and carried severed dog's heads tied to their saddles.

"Dogs are known for their fierce loyalty and protection of their owners, and the Oprichniki adopted this symbolism as a way to demonstrate their unwavering commitment to the tsar," Varfolomeeva and Charters wrote.

"It represented the brutal force and aggression that [they] were willing to employ to maintain their power."

Shoigu's fighters wear the image of a dog as a symbol of commitment to their leader and the alliances he holds.

It may not matter that Shoigu has failed to deliver Putin a swift victory because their relationship was never based on him being good at his job.

Shoigu gave Putin the ultimate lesson in loyalty when he gifted him a dog all those years ago.

Now, he's betting the Russian president will remember that in one of his most challenging moments.

Putin and Shoigu in camo gear driving a boat
Experts expect Putin to stick by his old friend — for now. ()

Sporting codes’ gambling revenue is not sacrosanct. A business model that relies on causing harm must end.

Extract from The Guardian 

A smartphone user accesses the Ladbrokes gambling website

The fastest growing cohort of gamblers is young men aged 18-24, arguing the first cohort bombarded with gambling advertising.
Zoe Daniel

The responses of vested interests to calls for a crackdown on gambling advertising are predictable – they fail to see the patience of parents and fans has run out.

I love sport. I love football. I grew up at football grounds first when my dad played for the Bombers, and after that, in Tassie where he played and coached for many years.

My aim is to protect sport, and the Australian sporting culture with it.

I therefore applaud the watershed parliamentary report recommending ads for online gambling be banned across all media and at all times within three years.

The report is blunt, direct and has not been swayed by industry players dependent on a flawed business model that targets young and vulnerable people for profit.

Australia has long treated gambling harm differently to tobacco and alcohol. Now we can change that

Most importantly, the recommendations of this multi-partisan committee are unanimous.

The broadcast TV lobby group, Free TV, arrogantly flipped the bird at community concern during submissions to the inquiry, suggesting policy can’t be made based on the “vibe”. In doing so, it conveniently ignored reams of evidence about the cost of gambling to our communities and its connection to saturation gambling ads.

Most emblematic is the fact that the fastest growing cohort of gamblers is young men aged 18-24, arguably the first cohort to grow up bombarded with gambling advertisements.

It is now up to backbenchers within the major parties to ensure there is no backsliding in the face of the committee’s disturbing findings.

The evidence is that gambling addiction increases the risk of bankruptcy, domestic violence and suicide.

The social cost of gambling in Victoria alone has been estimated at $7bn a year. Family and relationship problems were the highest cost, followed by emotional and psychological issues, including distress, depression, suicide, and violence. Financial harm was only the third highest cost.

This is just one reminder of the urgency of attacking this issue at its root.

If tax changes and such are required to mitigate the effect on the sports and the broadcasters, that should be looked at. However, I do not have a great deal of sympathy for the sporting codes, the broadcasters or the gambling companies.

Any argument that gambling revenue supports sport and is therefore sacrosanct does not stack up. A business model that relies on causing harm to people, especially children, by exploiting their love of sport, is flawed. It’s also the case that gambling on sport outside horse racing and the TAB has only been legal in Australia since 1993, so it hasn’t always been this way. There is still time to reverse course.

And the kids do not like it either.

In one study, three quarters of young people agreed that sporting codes should do more to prevent them from being exposed to sport-related gambling advertising.

We are failing these children if we do not act.

I have had youth football officials in my electorate of Goldstein tell me directly that they know the boys in their junior teams are betting on gambling apps on their phones.

I know this is happening because I hear my teenaged son and his friends talking about gambling and multis with as much authority as they talk about the finer points of the game they are watching. Winning on bets is seen as a “skill” to be admired.

The players themselves have reservations, but apart from a few courageous figures like the AFL’s Ben Brown are rarely forthright; after all, their employers have themselves become addicted to the revenue they receive from gambling outlets.

Sporting codes have been reluctant to reveal exactly how reliant they are on gambling revenue, even after being pressed repeatedly by the parliamentary committee that has just reported on our gambling culture. But if they get a cut from every bet made on their sport, there can surely be few clearer cut conflicts of interest in this conversation about the wellbeing of our young people.

What’s more important? Promoting a healthy love of sport or bleeding the fans of that sport via gambling promoted at saturation levels? Or both? Breed the love of sport and then take advantage of it.

Sport is thriving at all levels in Australia and at the elite level has gone from strength to strength.

As it was in 2017, when the previous government dipped its toe into gambling advertising reform, industry’s fundamental position was: Do nothing, nothing to see here.

Gambling advertising subsequently migrated to general programming, much of it watched by even more impressionable kids and teenagers and increased by no less than 50%.

The Guardian has read the room and responded to its readers’ antipathy to being assailed with gambling advertising by implementing a total ban across its platforms, no doubt at some cost to its bottom line.

It is well beyond time for broadcasters and sporting codes to respond.

The responses of the major beneficiaries of the swelling coffers of the mainly multinational gambling behemoths are as predictable as they are out of touch.

To fail to see that the patience of parents, supporters and players has run out could well cost them more in terms of support and revenue than accepting that this is the moment to call time on a business model that profits from harm.

Read the play. And let our kids enjoy the game.

Australia has long treated gambling harm differently to tobacco and alcohol. Now we can change that.

Extract from The Guardian 

A phone showing a betting app

Research suggests Australians are the world’s ‘biggest losers’ from gambling.
Samantha Thomas

The government must stand up to vested interests by heeding an inquiry’s call to ban online gambling advertising.

Sometimes politicians get things very right. Today is one of those days.

The Australian parliamentary inquiry into online gambling has released a landmark report recommending comprehensive reform of online gambling regulation in Australia. It signals a significant departure from the long-held resistance of Australian governments to tackle the predatory tactics of the gambling industry.

The title of the report is a powerful reminder of the testimonies from those who have experienced unfathomable harm from online gambling:

“You win some, you lose more.”

These losses are not just financial. Gambling is linked to some of our most pressing health and social issues, including serious mental health problems, relationship breakdown, family violence and criminality. The harms are wide-reaching, not only affecting individuals, but also families and communities.

However, the structural reforms recommended by the inquiry provide some hope.

While Australians are known as the world’s “biggest losers” from gambling, today’s report shows that we now have the potential to be the global leaders in addressing the significant harms caused by the online gambling industry, their products and promotions.

Most importantly, the committee has a made a strong commitment to protecting the next generation from harm, with clear measures to protect our children from exposure to the sophisticated contemporary marketing tactics of the gambling industry. The committee recommends a comprehensive ban on online gambling advertising to be introduced in four phases, over a three-year period. Importantly this ban doesn’t just include advertising, but also gambling sponsorship.

Over the past decade my team has spoken with hundreds of children and their parents about gambling marketing. We have shown the powerful influence that marketing has in normalising gambling for children, embedding gambling within Australia’s social and sporting culture and creating a perception that gambling is a fun and easy way to win money. Celebrity endorsement of gambling, and new digital strategies using influencers have amplified the positive impact of gambling marketing on the way children think about gambling.

Importantly, our research has shown that it is not only boys and young men that are affected by this marketing, with a new generation of campaigns appealing to girls and young women. Campaigns showing betting among mates, and the saturation of gambling ads in sport and popular family friendly shows have generated an exaggerated perception that gambling is something that “everyone” does.

However, the message from children and their parents about the need for government action particularly on advertising has also been clear. As a 14-year-old said in one of our recent studies: “I think we just need to get the ads off the telly. It’s the only thing that will make a difference.”

The committee clearly agrees.

The report also signals the need for the transformational regulatory change of the online gambling industry. It argues governments must take a public health approach to protecting the public from gambling harms, over and above the economic interests of the gambling industry and those who financially benefit from it. Importantly it highlights the inadequacy of current government approaches which have been largely driven by the “responsible gambling” paradigm. This approach places the responsibility for harm on individuals, while absolving governments and the gambling industry from responsibility.

In moving to a public health approach, the report acknowledges that national strategies aimed at preventing gambling harm must take a radically different approach. The 31 recommendations – unanimously backed by members of the committee – start with the need to reform the gambling industry and government regulation. Along with the comprehensive marketing ban and a suite of evidence-based education campaigns, this includes a national gambling harm prevention strategy, a national online gambling regulator and an appropriately resourced ombudsman to handle complaints.

During the inquiry sporting organisations, broadcasters, and the gambling industry gave messages about the need for regulatory balance, warning of the economic impact of regulation on marketing. However, powerful testimonies from those with lived experience, health organisations and public health academics provided clear and compelling evidence about the need to finally put people over profits.

The exceptionalism that has led gambling to be treated so differently to tobacco and alcohol appears to finally be changing. While Australia has led the world on preventing the harms associated with the tactics of the tobacco industry, gambling has been a continuous blind spot for governments. Rather than protecting the community from harm, governments and those profiting from the industry have largely legitimised gambling as a valued social and cultural activity with clear economic benefits for the community.

As the government considers the recommendations of the report there is no doubt that the gambling industry and those who profit from it will seek to water down the proposed reforms. Protecting policy from powerful vested interests has been central to Australia’s success in preventing the health harms from tobacco. It is important the government adopts similar measures to ensure the gambling industry and those it funds directly or indirectly have no involvement in government policy or program development.

Governments have a clear duty of care to protect the community from powerful harmful industries. Now the responsibility lies with the Australian government. Does it choose to lead the world in implementing a suite of public health measures to protect the community and particularly children and young people? Or does it back the powerful interests of the gambling, broadcast, and sporting lobbies?

The committee takes the approach that the health of the community should come first, and the harmful tactics of the gambling industry should no longer be tolerated.

Samantha Thomas is professor of public health at the Institute for Health Transformation, Deakin University.