Stats
-
-
Dec
10
Medvedev Anointed
December 10, 2007 |
And the winna is? Dmitry Medvedev. Putin named the young economic liberal as his presidential favorite in a meeting with United Russia leaders today. What is interesting is not so much what Putin chose, but what he didn’t choose. Putin didn’t choose the siloviki. He didn’t choose the economic nationalists. He didn’t choose the hawks. In Medvedev, Putin has endorsed someone’s who’s young (he’s 42), more liberal economic minded (he considers himself a liberal patriot), clanless (he’s said to have little or no ties to other Kremlin power brokers), and loyal (his rise is solely reliant on Putin). By most accounts, Medvedev looks at the West as a shining guiding light, but shades his eyes enough so it doesn’t blind him from Russia’s national sovereignty.
But does Putin’s endorsement officially end “Operation Successor”? Hardly. According to the Guardian, conspiracy theories of Putin’s return are hard to shake. After all, what is a poor Russia watcher to do without Putin? Clearly, his endorsement of Medvedev is hardly enough to satisfy critics’ deep desire, yet ultimate fear that Putin might just be leaving.
For critics see a weak leader in Medvedev. One that as President will give Putin the Prime Minister a blank check to do whatever he wants. Well, that’s true. But by all accounts, Putin may be leaving the Presidency, but there has never be any indication that he will leave Russian politics.
In fact, as some see it, Medvedev’s nomination is merely part of Putin’s larger plan to return.”Putin’s plan may well be to return after a year or two once Medvedev has messed up. But I don’t think he will succeed in this,” Mikhail Delyagin, the director of Moscow’s Institute on Globalization Problems told the Guardian’s Luke Harding. On Ekho Moskvy, Duma oppositionist Vladimir Ryzhkov said that this is all part of the Putin strategy. “The strategy is as follows: Medvedev is a compromise choice because he will allow Putin to keep a free hand.” he said. “If Putin wants to gradually leave power, Medvedev guarantees him comfort and security and will continue to listen him.” He then added: “If Putin wants to return in two, three years… Medvedev will be the person who will without a doubt give up the path for him.”
This is still an unfolding story and more will be discussed in the coming days. However, even at these early stages, one thing is clear. No matter what Putin does to show that he’s leaving the Presidency, his very own critics just won’t let him go. As Michael Corleone declared in Godfather III: “Just when I think I’m out, they keep pulling me back in.”
Popularity: 10% [?]
Comments
63 Comments so far
-
Subscribe
RIA Novosti- Global Voices: Russia
-
-
“But by all accounts, Putin may be leaving the Presidency, but there has never be any indication that he will leave Russian politics.”
Isn’t this what they said about Yeltsin?
Really, given the immense powers of the presidency, can the president be anyone’s puppet? They said VVP was BAB’s kukla.
Hey, CM .. don’t you know that in all the extremely popular forums, you should boast “FIRST” when you get first crack at commentary?
I do agree though, I think all this talk of Medvedev been subordinate or some obedient boy is misguided. I wrote today that I saw it as a continuation of Russia, Inc. - a Russian government that operates more and more like a big business. I’m think Medvedev won’t be very admiring of the West if they seek to impact Russia’s bottom line.
However, unlike Putin or Ivanov, he does seem more measured and rational with his public statements. I doubt he’ll be speaking about “wetting terrorists in the shithouse” or some other colorful phrase.
If Putin does become PM, Russia, Inc. might start to seem like a long game of “Good Cop, Bad Cop.” Medvedev’s presence makes it much easier for Putin to spout off about the West’s “booger noses” in Russia’s business. Medvedev can then step in, seeming calm and rational, rolling his eyes and saying “there goes my crazy Uncle Putin again, saying things without thinking. So about those missiles in Poland …”
We all know who is first around here. I am too modest to state it aloud.
I’ve been thinking that mybe we should consider the whole “rah-rah Putin, you da best!” furor prior to the Duma elections as a sort of giant going-away party, a big “thanks Putin for all you’ve done! We appreciate you” kind of thing.
I’m not totally serious about this, but not totally unserious either.
Barring any quick constitutional changes, the Russian presidency is a powerful post, so I agree if Medvedev becomes the president, after a period of being deferent, he will assert his authority and be the one calling the shots.
Not knowing much about those who were hoping for Putin’s anointment and blessing, I have to say that, rightly or wrongly, Medvedev was the one I liked the most. Because of it, I was surprised that Putin picked him.
Many things can happen between now and the first couple of months of the new presidential term, but if there are no major surprises (which will then be THE major surprise) my respect for Putin would grow considerably. Not that the Mexican PRI model is great, but at least it is better than many other alternatives and it allows room for eventual evolution.
“rah-rah Putin, you da best!” furor prior to the Duma elections as a sort of giant going-away party
Yes, I’m sure there are many powerful and wealthy Russian politicians, with their own agendas, who are quietly also saying, “and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out …”
rightly or wrongly, Medvedev was the one I liked the most. Because of it, I was surprised that Putin picked him.
I agree, but I wonder how much of that is our projecting onto a somewhat blank slate. To my mind, he has seemed the most rational candidate … the least likely to cut off his nose to spite his face.
This is all going to reveal a particularly strange type of checks and balances. Assuming some Silovik candidate doesn’t emerge, someone in Sechin’s clan is going to get a nice piece off ass (I’m looking in your direction, Gazprom). Which, one would think, should be enough to keep everything calm. Unfortunately, the elite in this country are never satisfied with their lot. Which means there could be a looming shitstorm, with many more Storchakian arrests in store.
Well I didn’t expect surprise to come that early. But I think Putin and Medvedev discussed the Plan and calculate all risks…
And I don’t see anyone on horizon to stop this double-head … bear :))
Превед :))
Really, given the immense powers of the presidency, can the president be anyone’s puppet?
This is the key question, isn’t it? It’s difficult — no impossible — to believe the future President Medvedev would ever step aside to allow his mentor back in.
So let’s roll this ahead a couple of years. Suppose Medvedev’s polls aren’t what Putin’s have been. For whatever reason. Inflation. Lack of a “tough guy” image. Clan conflicts. What’s he going to do? He’ll have to blame Putin. When you’re all-powerful, who else is there to blame other than your all-powerful predecessor?
In other words, I’m not sure I’m buying any of this. Yes, Yeltsin stepped aside and disappeared. But he was a sick old man happy to get a piece of paper guaranteeing him and his wouldn’t be going to jail.
I suspect Putin has something else up his sleeve. I don’t see him fading into the woodwork or accepting some second-tier post.
We need to take a closer look at this ridiculous-sounding “National Leader” thing some of the Putinistas have been babbling about. I’m starting to think that, having binned the authority of local and regional leaders, and then legislative bodies, Putin’s about to emasculate the presidency itself.
[…] Sean's Russia Blog: […] This is still an unfolding story and more will be discussed in the coming days. However, even at these early stages, one thing is clear. No matter what Putin does to show that he’s leaving the Presidency, his very own critics just won’t let him go. As Michael Corleone declared in Godfather III: “Just when I think I’m out, they keep pulling me back in.” […]
This is all definitely a ruse set up by Putin in preparation for his coronation as President 4 Life
Medvedev’s mother is apparently Jewish, as is his wife, and as is his son obviously. Yet somehow he manages to stay Russian (according to his passport) amidst all this Jewry. I wonder if Herr Putin is aware of such a grave matter, and what will the usual suspects in the kremlinology trade make of it? Personally, being a half-goyim, half-yid myself, the prospect gives me the fuzzies. But think of the Pipes and Applebaums of the world. For God’s sake, think of the Poles! The icing on the cake would be Obama winning. President of imperialist America… a black guy?
A pure Russian is always a blend of Ukrainian, Jewish, Mongolian and hell knows whose else blood.
Remember Stalin?
Yes, but are they a PURE blend of Ukrainian, Jewish, Mongolian and hell knows whose else blood?
I’d rather not put up Stalin as an example… or Lenin, or Trotsky. The ethnicity does not matter. It’s just too bad that there was no real open competition for the top job. I know that it’s no guarantee of the best candidate being chosen, just look at Bush, but still… Supposedly Medvedev is a good manager/administrator, so hopefully he’ll have his finger on the pulse. At least he’s better than that stiff Ivanov with his never-ending army reform. And to think that I tipped him to be the next-in-line just after Putin won his second term.
fhs’s point that when Yeltsin stepped down he was old and unpopular and it was obvious that he’s not coming back. Not so with Putin: he’s popular, healthy and only in his mid-fifties.
Nonetheless, the presidency is the presidency and if Medvedev becomes the new president sooner or later he is the one who will be calling the shots, even if Putin becomes the Prime Minister. (Unless Medvedev is a weak yes man. Without knowing much about it, my sense is that although Medvedev is a Putin man, he’s not a yes man.)
Of course, Putin may be thinking about 2012. But, as everyone says, that’s a very long time in politics.
–
(In a previous comment instead of writing “after a period of being deferent”, I should have written “after a period of being deferential”.)
What happens if Medvedev falls out of a tree whilst gardening? Who’s the back up? What happens if Putin falls out of a tree whilst gardening? Has anybody been keeping an eye on appointments lower down the chain in less visible, but powerfully administrative posts?
That’s how Stalin did it.
If there is a (physically) dangerous for Putin, it is now, judo or no judo….
I just saw the Medvedev photo essay over at Russia Blog: http://www.russiablog.org/2007/12/dmitry_medvedev_photo_essay.php#more
Is it just me or does he look like he is straight out of the film ‘Get Carter’ (the Michael Caine one of course)???
My apologies: although it can probably be guessed, I meant to say that fhs’s point about the differences between the positions of Yeltsin and Putin is a very good one.
Here’s a NYT translation of Medvedev’s post-designation speech today: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/world/europe/medvedev-speech.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Note the words: “…I find it extremely important for our country to keep Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin at the most important position in the executive power, at the post of the chairman of the government.”
Even allowing for Russian’s lack of definite and indefinite articles (a and the), there’s no mistaking the meaning here: At a minimum, the presidency is no longer going to be the only important executive position.
It’s possible Putin will decline.
Suppose so. But it’s all been so well choreographed, unlikely. In fact, credit where credit’s due: This whole piece of political theatre has been extremely well scripted.
This whole piece of political theatre has been extremely well scripted.
I’m really surprise that you found this strange :))
And most funny - no one doubts that Medvedev will be the President. Check and mate. Or how it is called in judo?
By the way - first thing to do after election - to replace two-head eagle for two-head bear. At least Russia has always been “The Bear” for the world.
If Medvedev is too close to Putin, he’ll find himself unable to use the tried and tested routine of all new presidents, prime ministers, and managers: blame every bad thing which happens in the first six months on your predecessor.
But since the 90s were so terrible, he can still blame Yeltsin.
Sometimes I wonder how long they’ll be able to keep blaming the ’90s, but then I remember that in 1980s Leningrad they were still blaming the housing problem and buiding remonts taking 20 years on the Great Patriotic War.
The 90s were only 10 years ago and represented a huge catastrophe and trauma. Blaiming the 90s today is analogous to blaming the Great Depression in the US in 1939. It doth hold water.
I mean, I edit lots of scientific articles where they blame their lack of funding specifically on the 1990s.
There are a lot of Communists in RAN, by the way.
Chris, of course it holds water today. But looking forward, I was really just wondering how long that will continue to be the case. How much longer will leaders be able to gesture back at the 1990s as the birthplace of all of Russia’s problems? 10 years? 20?
I mean, if after 5 more years of petro-bounty the scientists are still unfunded, is it really Yeltsin’s fault, or is it the fault of the current government’s policies? And perhaps a simple function of the fact that some areas of science are not going to be prioritized any more as they were in the Soviet era?
I would be surprised if there weren’t a lot of Communists in RAN. It seems that the sciences in Russia (with perhaps some niche exceptions) have still not found a modus vivendi in an economic system where the state does not completely underwrite their work.
The general blame is laid at the door of the “democrats,” by which they mean a continuous destructive system that has existed from Yeltsin (sometimes Gorbachev) to Putin, with some improvement under the latter. (Although GDP% devoted to research has been going down, in absolute terms funding has been going up, but they still complain. Not that I blame them.)
“Some areas of science” means pretty much all areas of science not related to natural-resource extraction!
According to the reigning economic ideology, research is supposed to be funded by private sources, which of course go where there is profit to be made.
I think people will be able to blame the 90s for decades, like US Southerners blame the Civil War for everything. Historical traumas are like that.
“I would be surprised if there weren’t a lot of Communists in RAN. It seems that the sciences in Russia (with perhaps some niche exceptions) have still not found a modus vivendi in an economic system where the state does not completely underwrite their work.”
Agreed. It’s also an age thing.
I think people will be able to blame the 90s for decades, like US Southerners blame the Civil War for everything. Historical traumas are like that.
Yes, they are “like that” in that they are often mythologized and abused by people of questionable motivations (see, e.g., Confederate flag wavers) for political ends. That’s exactly what I’m worried about. Mythologizing the ’90s according to the false narrative being pushed at the moment will only serve to entrench an anti-democratic, anti-Western attitude.
But the demos is anti-Western!
Didn’t the Russian economy hit bottom and then started to go on the upswing before Yeltsin left? In other words, the economy during Putin’s first years was a continuation of a trend that already started during Yeltsin.
As it is often the case, it takes a while for a society to notice that things started to improve. I remember reading about this with respect to crime statistics in the US several years ago: people were complaining about the worsening crime situation at a time when the crime rate was already going down for a while.
“Didn’t the Russian economy hit bottom and then started to go on the upswing before Yeltsin left? In other words, the economy during Putin’s first years was a continuation of a trend that already started during Yeltsin.”
It rose due to the devaluation of the ruble pricing imports out of the market. I don’t know but suspect that may have run out of steam by 2000-2001 or so.
Chris, I’m not suggesting that anti-democratic = anti-Western. I’m just saying that the current Kremlin-propagated narrative the ’90s (which is actually remarkably similar to the narrative of the Zavtra wingers during the ’90s) is that “dermokraty” destroyed a great country, led the people into poverty, etc. Another element of the narrative, which the Kremlin could play up or down as it chooses - and it chooses to play it up - is the suggestion that all of the collapse - from the Soviet breakup to the ‘98 crisis was somehow orchestrated by nefarious “Western” forces with the cooperation of said “dermokraty.” So, both elements are present in the narrative.
As for the “demos” being anti-Western, on issues like this (where they have no first-hand experience, as with “the West”) people will listen to what they are told and will follow cues from above - on perceptions of foreigners, the media can generate the zeitgeist. Thus, the Russian “demos” was still largely pro-Western (though one can of course argue how to define that), I’d say, right up until the 1999 and the spat over Kosovo.
Anyone ever wonder what the ’90s would have been like with oil at $80 (or even $40) a barrel?
“(which is actually remarkably similar to the narrative of the Zavtra wingers during the ’90s).”
Well, minus the “it’s all the Jews’ fault” part of Zavtra. Anyway I think you’re exaggerating the importance of this rhetoric.
“Anyone ever wonder what the ’90s would have been like with oil at $80 (or even $40) a barrel?”
Mainly, more money for the oligarchs to fight over. Bigger budget certainly. Probably more investment in longer-term business projects in the oil sector and less capital flight. It would not have done much to alleviate the affects of Shock Therapy and 1992 hyperinflation though I don’t think, or of the style of privatization that was carried out. (Incidentally I think that it was the way privatization was carried out that is at the root of most of Russia’s problems.)
Anyway I think you’re exaggerating the importance of this rhetoric.
I’m pretty sure I’m not, although you’re there and I’m not at the moment, so all I can do is read what the leadership says and how often they repeat this point. The semi-mythical narrative of Putin as having ridden in on a white horse and saved the country from “civil war” (see most recently Medvedev’s speech yesterday) is central to the logic behind asking Putin & his team to stick around. Civil war was actually averted in 1991, 1993 and 1996; what was averted in 2000-2002 looked more like regions drifting away from the center (which admittedly can lead to civil war, but still, I don’t think the country was “on the verge” in those years).
Mainly, more money for the oligarchs to fight over. Bigger budget certainly. Probably more investment in longer-term business projects in the oil sector and less capital flight.
You forgot some important ones - fewer problems with wage arrears (presumably), no 1998 default (almost certainly), less of a military collapse…but of course if we want to play the what-if game, we could also recall that the USSR would probably still be around if oil prices had been at a consistently high level throughout the ’80s.
It would not have done much to alleviate the affects of Shock Therapy and 1992 hyperinflation though I don’t think, or of the style of privatization that was carried out.
Hyperinflation = in large part a consequence of removing the controls on the economy, controls which were failing completely by 1990-91 and had to be removed. Agree that privatization was mismanaged, on the other hand people were operating in a crisis setting.
(Incidentally I think that it was the way privatization was carried out that is at the root of most of Russia’s problems.)
Not to go too far back in time in the search for the “roots” of present problems, but couldn’t one fairly accurately say that the Soviet experiment is really still at the “root” of many if not most of Russia’s problems? Talk about a historical trauma.
I haven’t read the speech yet, but I think the civil war he is talking about is the one between Russia and the jihadis along the Volga.
Here’s the speech (I looked for it on the EdRo website but couldn’t find the full text).
I guess you’re either jokingly talking about Tatarstan - jokingly, right? Shaimiev hardly seems like a jihad kind of guy - or talking about Dagestan - which is, I guess, within spitting distance of where the Volga goes into the Caspian. If the latter, you’re right that Medvedev could have been referring to the ‘99 fighting surrounding Chechnya - but query in that case (1) whether a civil war was really prevented or rather just waged with a “better” outcome (from the Center’s perspective) than the one in the ’90s, and (2) whether that is what is meant every time when Putin and associated leaders talk about the country being headed for collapse and civil war and this being the special project of the same “western forces” that supposedly broke up the USSR. I don’t think they are just referring to Chechnya when they make those statements.
But maybe you’re right that this particular element of the rhetoric is less important than the “economic resurgence” element - of course, flat tax and other first-term reforms aside, the role of the gov’t in that resurgence is debatable, while the role of neftedollary is undebatable.
ivanov:
By the way - first thing to do after election - to replace two-head eagle for two-head bear. At least Russia has always been “The Bear” for the world.
Блоггеры уже взялись за это.
I haven’t read the speech yet…
http://www.1tv.ru/news/n113596
I mean, I edit lots of scientific articles where they blame their lack of funding specifically on the 1990s.
To be fair, they’d probably receive even less funding if they blamed it on circumstances of the Putin era.
Hey, I’ve just realised that Dmitri Medvedev is the same chap who turned up on one of the pipeline spreads on the Sakhalin II project and said to a meeting of the Sakhalin Energy bigwigs that he looked forward to the day that the operating language of Sakhalin Energy was Russian. This caused half the assembled Dutchmen and other expats to shit themselves. Personally, I think it was fair enough and if anything would benefit me in the long run.
Incidentally, I think much work was done in under Yeltsin in the 90s towards establishing a sound base which Russia is now reaping the rewards of. I have just completed a course on the Russian Federation Labour Laws and HSE Laws, and nearly all of these were put in place and ratified by Yeltsin during the 1990s. I am wondering how much which forms the backbone of the current Russian state was put into place in the 1990s, all ready for Putin when he came into power. Yeltsin was running a country which had almost nothing, not even a set of HSE legislation. Putin at least had something under his feet, yet this is barely acknowledged these days.
“I guess you’re either jokingly talking about Tatarstan - jokingly, right?”
Half-jokingly, repeating the phraseology of the period. I think he probably is talking about the jihadist designs on Muslim Russia though.
Note that the fact that Tatarstan isn’t going anywhere and the Tatars don’t want to do anywhere doesn’t mean it’s not a target of the Caliphate. It is.
Incidentally, I think much work was done in under Yeltsin in the 90s towards establishing a sound base which Russia is now reaping the rewards of. I have just completed a course on the Russian Federation Labour Laws and HSE Laws, and nearly all of these were put in place and ratified by Yeltsin during the 1990s.
Tim, I agree with you as far as some base being established in the ’90s (I’d say that the “base” was privatizing major assets, however problematically, so that going back to having everything in the hands of the state became impossible). However IIRC that base did not include a new labor code. I remember having to study up on the new labor code (TK) which replaced the old, Soviet-era KZoT around 2002 or thereabouts.
Putin at least had something under his feet, yet this is barely acknowledged these days.
Yes, to hear the current EdRo line you would think Putin took over a country that was much like Russia in 1992 - broke, still operating on the basis of the unreformed system which made it broke, in disorder, on the verge of civil war, etc.
“Yes, to hear the current EdRo line you would think Putin took over a country that was much like Russia in 1992 - broke, still operating on the basis of the unreformed system which made it broke, in disorder, on the verge of civil war, etc.”
That’s not just the EdRo line — that’s what most of the population believes. That’s the near-universal consensus.
The EdRo line is determined by popular belief, not the other way around.
“The EdRo line is determined by popular belief, not the other way around.”
Chris, I thought that you are cynic, but the statement above is quite naive. Popular belief about the recent past and about the role of a given party or government is at best a two-way street, but governments and parties can wield enormous influence on popular beliefs–especially if the media is somewhat pliable or timid. Think how well the Bush administration manipulated popular belief within the first two or three years of 9/11. Once established, popular perceptions–even when wrong–can linger on for a long time.
Kolya, the idea that the 1990s were a period of chaos and suffering was not invented by United Russia. It is because the 1990s were, in fact, a period of chaos and suffering.
Yep — awful. But it was bound to be awful — couldn’t have been anything but. Blaming Yeltsin or the “young reformers” or the World Bank or Harvard economists is the bit that’s nonsense, just as it’s nonsense for the current elite to take full credit for the current “resurgence.”
I hope you don’t think I was suggesting that “chaos and suffering” in the ’90s was invented by EdRo. Obviously they have taken the valid memories of the ’90s as a tough time for most Russians and run with them. Tough as the ’90s were, Putin had fewer systemic challenges to deal with when he took over than Yeltsin and his team had to deal with in ‘92, which was part of my point.
As EdRo has realized the resonance of blaming the ’90s for everything (sort of like people in the ’90s blaming the USSR for everything, but less valid), their narrative of the ’90s has become polished and refined to include an important role for external enemies (”those who prefer a weak Russia” / “those who bought our national resources for pennies on the dollar” / “those who wanted to see the collapse of Russia”).
What EdRo has done is to take all of the discontent about the ’90s and focus it on people who are now the “other” - exiled oligarchs, “the West,” etc. This narrative ignores the role of people currently in power (and how they got there) and propagates myths like “Putin got rid of the oligarchs.” He didn’t, he just created new ones and let the quiet ones stick around. What he did was curtail the political influence of the super-rich in the public sphere, because he does not believe the executive should have any checks at all on its ability to run the country.
fh is right about the inevitability of at least some degree of “chaos and suffering.” This brings up another element of EdRo’s myth - namely, that things were pretty much hunky-dory in the late-stage USSR (to cite one example, the statement in this Nashi publication that “This is the USSR at the start of 1991. Things are good and happy for people. They have everything or almost everything.”) and that its breakup represented the “dismemberment (razval) of a great country,” along with the wrong-headed implication that this couldn’t have happened without external meddling. Myth-making like this is unfortunate and even dangerous IMHO.
Oh that’s dreadful, isn’t it. And of course all those Nashi kids buy into the lie. What’s the solution to that, do you think? Short of political and media pluralism obviously.
“Yep — awful. But it was bound to be awful — couldn’t have been anything but. Blaming Yeltsin or the “young reformers” or the World Bank or Harvard economists is the bit that’s nonsense, ””
Yes, they had nothing to do with it at all! Their hands are clean! They were pure-minded angelic souls with a brilliant theory that would have solved everything if not for the dastardly legacy of communism. And yep, Yeltsin won the 1996 elections fair and square, and the oligarchs all made their money honestly. I forgot to mention that the moon is made of cheese and the sky is a brilliant purple. The Earth is hollow, too, and there are Ape Men down there.
Jesus Christ.
Nobody made the claims you are caricaturing, Chris.
But yes, the communist legacy is a dastardly one.
Yes, they had nothing to do with it at all! Their hands are clean! They were pure-minded angelic souls with a brilliant theory that would have solved everything if not for the dastardly legacy of communism.
No. They exploited it, contributed to the aftermath, failed to ameliorate it — and all sorts of other non-angelic things. But none of them bankrupted the Soviet Union.
“Nobody made the claims you are caricaturing, Chris.”
No, I distinctly remember Lyndon mentioning the Ape Men.
[…] Дмитрия Медведева своим фаворитом на пост Президента. Sean’s Russia Blog, рассуждая на эту тему, отмечает, что удивительно не […]
Russian politics are as bad as American politics, only probably cleaner.
http://www.pafundi.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Number of Operations Iraq Freedom and Enduring Freedom casualties as confirmed by U.S. Central Command: 4392
Medvedev - new ru president… It is fact.
This is a fresh piece of news and may not be shown by “western” channels.
As I may have told you, I consider Medvedev (Putin’s approved successor) a weakling. Yet I just saw his two very short comments today live on Russian TV that may change my opinion about him for good. First, they showed him visiting a home for retired people, talking to old ladies, etc. He had some tea with the old ladies. They treated him with a bowl of home-made honey and asked if he normally consumes any. He answered quickly without a hesitation: “Oh, I love it! What do you think, I have to love it – mind my last name.” (His last name translates as “a bear”). His face expression left no doubt in my mind that it was NOT a staged act.
Less than 3 minutes later they aired another piece of him having a press conference. There was a question: “How the result of upcoming elections in the US may affect US-Russian relations?” His response was: “As you know, it is our policy to work with ANY administration American people elect. However, I can tell you - it is a lot easier to work with people who have modern views about the world and not some of them, who have older, “semi-marasmus views”. (this is my word-to-word translation). Bravo, Medvedev! I like it! Away with hiding! Let’s call the things what they are!
This shows he’s got a quick mind and a sharp tongue, too. Elections (in which he’s supposed to win) are gonna be held this Sunday, March the 2nd.
Congratulations.
I think is very promising as a leader.
And very fast will get under pressure and direct attack from the united fascist internationally . They have the money , the greediness , the apetite to concure the world and to swaloow countryes one after another. No dowt about thath. And thath mean Medvedev already is listed as enemy and I can gess soon will found it by what happen around. Independance and suverenity are already a mith, because are a sheald for the integrity of the nation. Medvedev must be supported and carefully the aparatus to be considered. As a number one I see for him to give example and to insist and promote internationalli for a new balances to be created and the country and the world to be put under control by all means.To find a new friends and to consolidate them into a new balances. To exspell the world bank and Interpol fron Russia as damaging it 24/7 and corrupting the world.To find who is who by analising existing data.Im a Bulgarian at New York and spiritually am with Him.