If you want to understand what is happening among the political elite in Russia and why Putin making the moves he’s making, read Mark Ames’ “The Kremlin’s Clan Warfare: The Putin Era Ends“. Here is an excerpt:
What is happening?
I’ll repeat: It’s the End of the Putin Era as we know it. The struggle is on.
Here is how I see the current situation, from reading the various Russian reports and talking to people.
Putin had hoped or lulled himself into believing that he’d really set up the stable regime everyone thought Russia had become. The alleged stability had a kind of narcotic effect, convincing Putin’s supporters that he’d done good, and his detractors that he’d gone Fascist or neo-Soviet. In fact, these two filters have led all of us to completely misunderstand what is really happening in Russia, and how potentially unstable the political power is, including Putin’s own position.
There has been factional infighting all along, between various silovik clans, oligarch clans, and, to a lesser degree, Western interests. The infighting has been kept under control until recently by Putin’s undisputed power, which he wielded to try to ensure some measure of balance. However, just as the Banker’s War of 1997 showed, competing clans are never happy with their share of the “balance.” As this autumn election season loomed, the two silovik clans’ internecine war started breaking out, Putin, who may have wanted to step down from power and retire from glory, understood that things were potentially slipping out of his control as the clans battled for position and worked to weaken the other. Given Russian history, and given the high scary-factor of the two silovik clans, Putin should have every reason to worry about how badly he’s going to sleep once he leaves the Kremlin. If power passed to one or the other clan, then London or Siberia or the untraceable-poison intensive care ward are all serious possibilities. The people poised to take power after Putin are pretty much guaranteed to make a lot of his detractors miss him.
It seems to me that Putin’s recent moves–appointing Zubkov, setting up the new Investigative Committee, announcing his plan to head up the United Russia ticket, appointing his own man to run the Transneft pipelines (remember, it was over pipelines that Khodorkovsky and Putin went to war)–are all designed to ensure his power. It’s hard to tell to what degree he is controlling the takedown of the Cherkesov clan or the Patrushev-Sechin clan, or if he even can control their battle. The fact that the two sides have taken their war to the media suggests that they’re less afraid of upsetting their master than they used to be.
In short, Putin is already weakened. That’s why he’s scrambling to strengthen his position and weaken the other clans. Every move he makes from here on out is fraught with danger. If he runs for parliament, appoints his man Zubkov as president, and then becomes the prime minister of a new parliamentary republic–basically following the playbook of Khodorkovsky’s plan to take power–then he’ll subject himself to the uncertainty of whethor or not the new president will really hand over power to Prime Minister Putin. There could be a long tug-of-war and new factions will very likely emerge. He might get some of the power, but not all of it. Jealousies, greed, ambition, and the general mess of transition all mean that Putin could find himself locked in a serious and dangerous battle, if he already isn’t in it.
His other option is the Kazakhstan Scenario. This year, Kazakhstan’s dictator Nursultan Nazarbayev passed laws allowing him to remain in office for life, quashed what little remains of the opposition, and then held elections which turned his parliament into a single-party rubber-stamp committee. He managed this all with the West’s collusion: when Nazarbayev announced legislation making him president for life this past May, U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack called it “a step in the right direction,” leading to outrage among Kazakhstan’s beleaguered pro-democracy movement. When the rigged elections this summer gave him a one-party parliament, the OSCE hailed it as “welcome progress.” Kazakhstan has for the past couple of years been the darling of Dick Cheney and the neocons.
In fact, these two filters have led all of us to completely misunderstand what is really happening in Russia, and how potentially unstable the political power is, including Putin’s own position.
This latter point was obvious to me when Im first came to Russia and saw pictures of Putin everywhere. As I found in the Middle East, countries which display the leader’s pictures everywhere are the most fickle when it comes to disposing of the leader and ushering in a new one. An American friend of mine who got caught up in the Iranian revolution was astonished at the speed with which the Sha’s portrait was replaced with the Ayatollah’s on every wall and in every building.
I find it a comforting thing that the political leaders of the UK, USA, Germany, France, Australia, etc. do not have their pictures put up in every office and plastered on every wall.
I find it a comforting thing that the political leaders of the UK, USA, Germany, France, Australia, etc. do not have their pictures put up in every office and plastered on every wall.
Sorry to disabuse you but in France the picture of the President hangs on the wall of every village mairie and townhall. This may explain the French passion for revolutions and new republics.
Some may already be aware, but we published the full translation of the Cherkesov letter which kicked off this article and much speculation elsewhere about the dark clouds gathering over Sechin.
http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2007/10/viktor_cherkesov_on_the_spy_wa.htm
Perhaps the most important line from that uneven eXile article is the following: “The fact that the two sides have taken their war to the media suggests that they’re less afraid of upsetting their master than they used to be.” Can’t really disagree with that.
I find it a comforting thing that the political leaders of the UK, USA, Germany, France, Australia, etc. do not have their pictures put up in every office and plastered on every wall.
As I’ve had the opportunity to travel the US and visit government buildings regularly as part of my work, I can promise that you’ll find Bush’s smirking face in almost every government building in the US of A. Usually it is the same official portrait. Unsurprisingly, you’ll also find portraits of mayors in city halls and governors in state houses.
Further, you’ll never find more flags waving in any country in the world than you find in the good ole US of A. All of this portrait hanging and flag-waving patriotism peaked around late 2005 or so – along with all those yellow magnetic ribbons on cars, proclaiming “support our troops” in Iraq.
Since people seem to have seized on this thought, I guess it’s not off-topic to comment on it. I think Tim is referring to places that have the image of the “leader” up in places other than government offices (i.e., in private businesses and offices and public spaces). Of course the head of gov’t's picture is up in gov’t offices. You can see Bush, Cheney & Rice on the wall in any US overseas diplomatic mission as well.
However, you don’t see people buying portraits of the US President or putting them up in their private businesses. You do see this in Russia. One example I happened to take a picture of – a bookstore in Volgograd prominently displaying VVP’s official photo. And there are many options available – the bookstore at Tverskaya 8 in Moscow had at least two dozen various Putin portraits for sale last time I checked, not to mention datebooks with Putin on the cover and other Putin-abilia.
Putin’s name and quotations (and less frequently his image) also show up on billboards – most recently, the “Putin’s Plan” billboards; but as far back as 2003, I remember billboards with a Putin quote about making Russia “unified and strong.” Also, the issue of which governors can use “Putin’s image” in their campaign materials has recently been covered in the Russian media – it’s a much more powerful campaigning tool than any incumbent President’s image ever has been in the US.
The situation in Russia is not as extreme as it is, for example, in Azerbaijan, where billboards of Heidar Aliev were all over the place (with slogans like “Heidar is the people – the people are Heidar”); now they’ve been replaced by billboards showing Aliev father & son shaking hands, or just Ilham by himself, trying to look presidential. But you do see Putin in some unsuspected places, and I think the wiser members of his team are on the lookout for indicia of a cult of personality developing, because they understand there could eventually be a backlash.
Finally, Wally, I doubt the “portrait hanging” in American government buildings (and I’m not sure where else you see people hanging Bush’s mug) actually fluctuated at all during the past few years – it’s fundamentally different from displaying the flag. Americans tend to love their country (hence the flags, which I can’t say bother me), but they do not worship their leaders – actually, they prefer to kick the leaders around when necessary.
I think Tim is referring to places that have the image of the “leader” up in places other than government offices (i.e., in private businesses and offices and public spaces).
That is exactly right. One would expect to see the posters and images of political leaders in government buildings and offices, although I have no idea whether this happens in the UK or not. What I am referring to is the display of leaders’ images in private homes, private businesses, and in usually gigantic form in public. Our office in YS has a poster of Putin displayed in it; by contrast, I never saw a picture of Tony Blair in any British office. In Kuwait and the UAE, it was near compulsory to display the official poster of the country’s leaders in a workplace. I have also never seen a huge poster of Tony Blair similar to this one of Putin on a busy interchange in the UK.
Americans tend to love their country (hence the flags, which I can’t say bother me), but they do not worship their leaders – actually, they prefer to kick the leaders around when necessary.
I’m glad that somebody is bright enough to appreciate the difference between flying the national flag and idolising the political leader of a country. When I was in the US (26 states in all) I actually rather liked the civic pride on display, a large part of which was the national and state flags being flown above every public building and outside of every school, and (especially in the south) a lot of private homes as well. Americans are capable of loving their country at the same time as detesting their politicians. This is all rather healthy IMO.
Incidentally, I am very disappointed by the way the Union flag is no longer flown much in the UK, an ill-conceived idea by politicians who thought it was offensive or old fashioned or some other such garbage. Whether or not this is related, there is almost no civic pride in the UK whatsoever any more, and the place is a whole lot dirtier and more unpleasant because of it. The government is now desperately trying to reintroduce the Union flag into “common ownership”, having realised that throwing symbols of ones nation into the dustbin has rather detrimental effects on society. Even in Turkey I was impressed by the display of huge flags across Istanbul which could be seen for miles, it would be nice to see a couple flying over London.
Putin had hoped or lulled himself into believing that he’d really set up the stable regime everyone thought Russia had become.
I doubt Putin is that naive.
I also doubt that Putin had such agenda – to set up stable regime. His first term’s goal was much more “simple” – to re-start the outdated, rusted “engine” of state management. What he did in his second term – he just tuned-up this old system. It’s almost exactly as in the days of Alexander II. Same system that is revolving around its “leader”.
So the system’s performance is (and was) always about how current leader deals with “clans”.
As example – Khruschev had same power as Stalin, right? But what the different results!
So I think that this is major problem of the Russia – the system based on leader-clans balance can not be stable.
I don’t know Putin’s plans but in any case he hasn’t had the time to change this system.
PS. I’m sure – it’s waste of time to guess next Putin’s move. It’s too early for him to show what’s in his Dead Мороз’s sack
)
If you really want to see a true cult of personality, nothing beats Chavista Caracas. A few Putin photos in bookshops, and billboards across Moscow? That’s nothing compared to the historical necrophilia going on in Venezuela – entire sides of buildings painted with murals depicting an imaginary past where Che was chummy with Hugo.
That recent three-hour call-in broadcast Q&A that Putin did? A real revolutionary does one of those every day!
“In short, Putin is already weakened. That’s why he’s scrambling to strengthen his position and weaken the other clans.”
I concur with ivanov’s comments. I find it hard to believe that Putin suddenly realized that the rug could so easily be pulled from beneath his feet and had not been as prepared as he could have been.
What we should maybe asking is that of all the ‘ex-’FSB that Putin and the pygmies have appointed to important positions throughout Russia, socio-politico etc., how many of them can he count on? In that sense, Ames is right (if that was his precise point all along) – for everything he has done, you can’t build lasting foundations on quicksand.
There is always the option of the double/triple etc. bluff, i.e. promising your support to one side, only to pull it at a critical/strategic moment. This has to figure in the thinking somewhere. If Putin apparently feels not so secure, are Sechin and co. etc. so certain of their strength? It’s hard to believe that spooks would get complacent, but it happens.
Putin, King or Queen, or Guillotine???
I think Tim is referring to places that have the image of the “leader” up in places other than government offices (i.e., in private businesses and offices and public spaces).—Lyndon
That is exactly right. One would expect to see the posters and images of political leaders in government buildings and offices, although I have no idea whether this happens in the UK or not. What I am referring to is the display of leaders’ images in private homes, private businesses, and in usually gigantic form in public. Our office in YS has a poster of Putin displayed in it; by contrast, I never saw a picture of Tony Blair in any British office. In Kuwait and the UAE, it was near compulsory to display the official poster of the country’s leaders in a workplace. I have also never seen a huge poster of Tony Blair similar to this one of Putin on a busy interchange in the UK.–Tim
Well I am not too familar with the UK, however I have spent enough time in the US to note the truth in what you say. Govt buildings/instiututions aside, private owned/operated businesses and homes rarely display images of political leaders. I had always believed this to be a cultural thing- I understand that in US one is taught from childhood to never discuss or make to much public display of ones personal politics or religion. But lack of political figures images does not mean that these walls remain empty of hero worship. What you will see in US that I have not seen in Russia is being bombarded everywhere with images of likes of Britney Spears, Brad Pitt, Lindsay Lohan etc etc Well these are Americas heros. I strongly suspect very few average Americans will recognize a picture of Dick Cheney or Nancy Pelosi on sight- but at same time most likely almost all will recognize a picture of Paris Hilton. But this does not matter. Bottom line is whether private business chooses to display picture of Vladimir Putin or that guy who played lead role in Sopranos (sorry I do not remember his name offhand, but he comes immediately to mind as whenever I go to the cashier at a local convenience store his picture always stares at me from over the counter) the most important thing to me is that they do so under their own free will.
On a more personal note I would probably prefer to see portraits of political leaders, especially if very popular as Putin is in Russia (I can see why a decision to display a portrait of George W Bush would be controversial when one wishes to retain customers to their business) rather then these others. I mean when one thinks about it, Putin has actually done a lot of good for the country and even Bush has done a couple of positive things here and there, but what has Paris Hilton really accomplished for the general good to have her face appear in almost every newspaper, tv screen and empty wall anyway?
I have also never seen a huge poster of Tony Blair similar to this one of Putin on a busy interchange in the UK.
Hmmm…nice shot, it has a natural feel to it. Well, this is what Americans have to look at, taken on busy interchange just north of Orlando Fla. Very posed, unnatural and even a little cliche and very boring. Nothing at all for Tony Blair anywhere? You would think that someone who was in his position could have had himself a much better PR agent
))
I’m glad that somebody is bright enough to appreciate the difference between flying the national flag and idolising the political leader of a country. When I was in the US (26 states in all) I actually rather liked the civic pride on display, a large part of which was the national and state flags being flown above every public building and outside of every school, and (especially in the south) a lot of private homes as well.
Yes, absolutely. In US one can find American flags displayed everywhere, and of course this is separate from political leaders that come and go, but flag and country is always there. But to drag Russia back into this- it brings up a question I have long wondered about. When American citizens display their flag they are being ‘patriotic’. When Russian citizens display their flag they are being ‘nationalistic’. I never really could sort out what the difference here is?
I had always believed this to be a cultural thing- I understand that in US one is taught from childhood to never discuss or make to much public display of ones personal politics or religion.
There is quite a lot of personal politics and religion on display. What purpose would anti/pro abortion bumper stickers otherwise serve? But I think there is a key point missing. There is a huge difference in devotion to a political frame of thought, an ideology and to a political leader. A recent poll in Russia suggested that some 40% of the population would vote for whomever Putin tells them his heir is. That is devotion to a political figure, not politics.
But lack of political figures images does not mean that these walls remain empty of hero worship. What you will see in US that I have not seen in Russia is being bombarded everywhere with images of likes of Britney Spears, Brad Pitt, Lindsay Lohan etc etc Well these are Americas heros.
Hardly. This is entertainment. Market square entertainment at that. Constant real-time semi-virtual drama. Grab your Doritos and a bud… Heroes command respect. A person that voluntarily displays Putin’s image respects the guy for whatever reason – fear or whatnot.
On a more personal note I would probably prefer to see portraits of political leaders, especially if very popular as Putin is in Russia … Putin has actually done a lot of good for the country
Putin has done good for himself and his clans. Don’t confuse the two.
what has Paris Hilton really accomplished for the general good to have her face appear in almost every newspaper, tv screen and empty wall anyway?
She is not on every empty wall, tv screen or whatnot. I do not even know how she looks. She sure is not on Discovery channel, on history channel, she is not on C-Span. Could it be that your interests lie somewhat close to places that like to display her portraits?
Hmmm…nice shot, it has a natural feel to it. Well, this is what Americans have to look at, taken on busy interchange just north of Orlando Fla. Very posed, unnatural and even a little cliche and very boring. Nothing at all for Tony Blair anywhere? You would think that someone who was in his position could have had himself a much better PR agent
))
It would be interesting to find out who paid for the Putin portrait. I would bet the Bush thing was paid for by a local/state party branch. It does after all, look like a regular billboard. Hence, poor quality and boring material.
When American citizens display their flag they are being ‘patriotic’. When Russian citizens display their flag they are being ‘nationalistic’. I never really could sort out what the difference here is?
I don’t think anyone has ever accused Russians of nationalism just because they flew national flags. The problem with this juxtaposition is that Russians very often go way beyond just flying flags. You seem to suggest that there is no difference in behavior, in attitude or in target? Patriotism does not have a target, other then self. Nationalism has a target – Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine, or maybe Azeri market merchants.