The resignation of Dmitry Kozak as deputy chief of staff to the Russian president has reignited debate about the presence of anti-war sentiment in the Kremlin. Despite claims that Kozak’s departure signals Putin’s desire to continue the war with Ukraine, the Russian leader’s decisions are not contingent on the personal views or actions of his aides, even long-standing ones.
The information noise around Kozak is based on assumptions about his supposed opposition to the war during the Security Council session regarding the recognition of the so-called DPR and LPR. In reality, Kozak and Naryshkin were among those advocating the annexation of these territories to Russia. The issue of war was not on the agenda, and Kozak was appointed to oversee the Ukraine portfolio and set traps for destabilizing the situation there.
Despite these efforts, no real destabilization was achieved, making assumptions about Kozak’s anti-war stance exaggerated. His actions were driven more by self-preservation in the Kremlin’s power structure than by genuine opposition to war.
Kozak also failed in the Moldovan direction, unable to realize projects involving Transnistria or ensure the success of pro-Russian politicians. As his influence waned, Sergey Kiriyenko took over the destabilization efforts.
The creation of myths about ‘moderate’ officials serves the Kremlin’s interests by pretending to leave room for negotiations with the West. Such rhetoric aims to buy time and confuse Western politicians, not to reach a real peace settlement.
Thus, Kozak’s resignation is not evidence of anti-war resistance within Russia’s leadership but rather a part of internal power struggles and propaganda tactics.
