Dual Power, Time Soft on Putin, Russia Doesn’t Matter, and P-Dawg’s Bling
By Sean at 4 January, 2008, 12:56 pm
The Russian news is still at a trickle at least until next week. Still there are a few articles that have caught my eye.
The first is an editorial from Nezavisimaya Gazeta published before the New Year. The big news of 2007, NG says is that “Putin is staying . . . everything else derives from this.” But as NG I think rightly points out, Putin’s continued grip on Russian politics is no so much out of a personal desire for power. It is a result of the contradiction internal to the very system he’s presided over.
“Putin was unable to quit because of the impossibility of leaving behind — without himself — strong and strong-arm elite groupings competing strongly with each other. A struggle among influential clans, getting out of control, could very quickly become a factor in the degradation of what had been achieved. He probably knows better than anyone that his entourage does not contain a successor figure comparable with himself and capable of effectively controlling the elites.” (translation, JRL #3, 2008)
I couldn’t agree more.
The real question then is how will Russia’s new “dual power” with Medvedev as President and Putin as Prime Minister balance itself out. One option would be that it won’t. It’s possible that after Medvedev is firmly planted in his new role, Putin would gradually recede or be forced into the background. Another option is that the Medvedev-Putin dyad would set the tone for future Russian administrations. Many have suggested that Putin becoming the PM will undoubtedly strengthen that otherwise weak office. Whether this strengthening will be accomplished solely on Putin’s personal power or through the law remains to be seen. United Russia deputies have already hinted that the latter is a possibility and could be completed in 2008. As it stands, United Russia couldn’t do this alone. They currently have 315 of the 360 votes needed to amend the Constitution. I doubt however they would have any trouble mustering the final 45 from the Duma “opposition.”
Others, including Putin himself, argue that such changes aren’t needed to the Constitution and could be done within its existing framework. As Andrei Ryabov notes on Gazeta.ru, the past 14 years of Russian politics have seen a few cases where there “unexpectedly emerged a second decision-making center that has objectively nudged the system toward evolution in the direction of dualism of executive power.” All one need to do is remember the Prime Ministerships of Viktor Cheromyrdin, Evgenii Primakov, and to some extent Mikhail Krasyanov. Each commanded their own centers of power that at times was antagonistic toward the Presidency. The big difference now of course is that “relations between the future president and the future premier are close and friendly” and there are even suggestions that “they have already agreed how powers will be divided up in practice, irrespective of any rules or articles of the Constitution that might apply.” So I guess we can call this “dual power” not so much by law as it is by fiat.
Well enough of the sensible commentary for now. Now on to the absurd. And what a better place to turn than Edward Lucas? Lucas is clearly enraged that Time chose Putin as Person of the Year. Fine. I can accept that. I can also accept some of his criticisms of Putin and Time’s puff piece on him. What I wonder though, is it possible to air them without mentioning “Hitler” or Garry Kasparov as “the opposition leader”? Der Fuhrer makes his appearance by Lucas’ third sentence to bolster his suggestion that naming Putin Person of the Year is akin to when Time named Hitler in 1938. Kasparov canonization’s as the only oppositional force in Russia is so tired that bringing him up appears not only rote, but revealing to how little one understands Russian politics. So Time was soft on Putin? Big deal. They’re soft on everyone.
Lionel Beehner tries to convince us that Russia doesn’t matter to us Americans as much as we think. His reasons? Russia is not a “nuclear Wal-Mart.” It’s better to look at Pakistan for that. Russia maybe an energy powerhouse, but “little of its natural gas goes toward American consumers.” Russia’s economy is resurgent, but still “light years” behind Europe. It’s economy he claims “is still smaller than Portugal’s.” As for Russia’s pulling out of the CFE treaty, helping Iran with nuclear power, and forming military ties with China, don’t worry about it! Small fish in a big pond. Putin as dictator? C’mon it’s not like “dictatorship” came “out of left field”?
For Beehner, the only thing that makes Russia matter is its veto on the UN Security Council. But of course that is assuming that the UN Security Council matters. If Russia matters so little, does this mean that Beehner is going to give that grant he got in 2006 to research post-Soviet youth movements in Ukraine and Belarus back to the German Marshall Fund? Because if Russia doesn’t matter, surely the pettily youth in its “near abroad” does even less.
True, Americans should be more tuned into more pressing concerns around the world. But it shouldn’t be done at Russia’s expense. To reduce Russia’s relevance to its UN veto power is simply encouraging the dangerous myopia too many Americans are already so comfortable with.
Ahhh . . . the song remains the same. The Daily Telegraph is getting some mileage out of Andrei Illarionov’s assertion that Putin’s circle have raided Russia’s Stabilization Fund. Though as the Telegraph points out, Illarionov “gave no details of how this allegedly occurred.” If he has no details, then why is it a story? Especially when its based on Stanislav Belkovsky’s unsubstantiated claim that Putin is worth $40 billion. I liked Leonid Radzikhovsky’s response to Belkovsky’s claim. “It is difficult to understand Belkovsky. He is known as a source of confusing information and it is hard to treat it seriously. He is an adventurer.”
Still Putin’s alleged $40 billion tucked away who knows where still intrigues many. It’s also clear that if something is repeated enough it becomes true. Even if no one thinks they could ever actually prove it. Just take Yulia Latynina’s comments on Ekhko Moskvy. She said, “I certainly cannot imagine how [Belkovsky] could prove them, and I seriously doubt that anyone ever will be able to prove that the figure of $40 billion is correct.” Is correct? Perhaps we should start with identifying what Putin has rather than whether it’s $40 billion or not.
Vladimir Filin, who is Moskovskii komsomolets’ Ukrainian editor, thinks that the $40 billion story as just another Western attempt to add “some more demonic features to Vladimir Putin’s image in the West.” Maybe. Except I would think that given how much Americans are fascinated with rich people, the $40 billion might make him more likable in their eyes. If the Kremlin really wants to spin shit into gold, they should maybe book Putin on Cribs or even do a reality show called The Putins. After all, if he does have all that bling, he might as well put it to use and score of PR brownie points.
Popularity: 15% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Argh. Lots of stuff to discuss there. Too much for one response. I’ve said my piece about the $40 B thing, and anyway I completely agree that the actual number isn’t the issue. Not being American, I don’t know — or care actually — whether you guys take Russia too seriously. My guess is that many (most?) don’t pay any attention at all.
The Kasparov fetish interests me. It seems to me yet another instance of outsiders — westerners mostly, and western journos particularly — latching on to western-oriented foreign politicos in places which are fundamentally not western-oriented. A bit like Bhutto I suppose. I ascribe nothing conspiratorial here. No CIA plots. It’s just a very human sort of flaw which good journalists — and Edward is one — ought to do more to overcome. I like Kasparov too, but that doesn’t even come close to qualifying him to lead Russia.
Regarding Lionel Beehner’s article, I can’t find the part where he compares Russia’s economy to Portugal’s. Normally I’d fault the blogger commenting on the original article. But since last month’s Time faux pas I’m not so quick to pass judgment.
Regarding Lionel Beehner’s article, I can’t find the part where he compares Russia’s economy to Portugal’s.
It’s in second paragraph. It reads:
“All of which begs the question: Why do we suddenly care so much about Russia? Its economy is still smaller than Portugal’s, its nuclear stockpile is no match for our own (not to mention its Soviet-era early warning radars barely work), and its foreign ambitions, as George Kennan predicted generations ago, have been mostly contained. Plus, given its current demographic trends, some analysts predict Russia’s population could sink below 100 million by 2050, making it smaller than Mexico.”
My mistake. Sorry for wasting bandwidth.
I actually had already railed against Beehner’s mentally retarded column. I had to register to the Huffington Post website or whatever to do it, but his column screamed stupidity on so many levels that I couldn’t let it slide.
Ya. Russia, the world’s newly largest oil producer and home to the largest gas reserves in the world is of no importance to the largest buy of petroleum in the world. Why? Because we don’t buy much directly from Russia.
That shows such a child-like understanding of market supply and demand that I just bristled. He doesn’t get any better as he goes along.
I ended up quoting a long section of Latynina’s monologue earlier today. I think there is something to be said for the idea that Putin’s declared income and resources are not complete, but very skeptical of the $40 billion figure.
It would give me a sort of perverse admiration for him if he proved to be such a hugely incredible and bold thief, while building his reputation (albeit, not deserved in my opinion) on regaining control from the big, bad oligarchs.
fundamentally not western-oriented More than any nation I have ever visited, Russia has a total western fetish. Many Russians may be in denial of it, but it is apparent that everything from television to movies to fashion to politics in Russia are less about being Russian and more about either being different or the same as the West.
I also can say from experience as an American who has traveled in Russia (not Moscow), that Russians ask far more questions and are more curious about American opinions and observations, than almost any American is about a Russian in the US.
I actually had already railed against Beehner’s mentally retarded column.
I saw. It served as inspiration for comments.
There is a rumour that London Zoo plan to acquire an “Edward Lucas” as a still living example of a cold war warrior. What is startling is that the editor of the Economist allows him to parade his violent prejudices anonymously in the guise of expert reporting on Eastern Europe. One would have thought that it would be cheaper simply to print NATO and State Department press releases without alteration.
“its nuclear stockpile is no match for our own”
What a funny statement, considering what would happen were that stockpile to go off.
W. Shedd wrote:
“More than any nation I have ever
visited, Russia has a total western
fetish. Many Russians may be in denial
of it, but it is apparent that
everything from television to movies
to fashion to politics in Russia are
less about being Russian and more about
either being different or the same as
the West.”
Although I would not put it as starkly, I also noticed the same thing. 19th Century Russians had quite a different mentality from the Russians of today, but many of the educated Russians back then also had rather similar hang ups with respect to the West. A sort of love and hate relationship. Fascination and attraction combined with an almost childish desire to prove that “we Russians are different and unique” and in some mystical way superior. As tremendously insightful as he was about human nature, Dostoyevsky’s views about the West and Russia is a good example of this sort of thing.
Maybe things changed now, but I found it ironic that not only Russians were much more aware of Western brand names (and their relative “coolness factor”) than I ever was, but they were more aware of it than your average American.
“Maybe things changed now, but I found it ironic that not only Russians were much more aware of Western brand names (and their relative “coolness factor”) than I ever was, but they were more aware of it than your average American.”
This is one of the few things that really annoy me about Russian culture (although it’s thankfully getting better) — the constant use of a (largely imagined) “West” as a benchmark to compare themselves with. I know there are historical reasons for this, but it still annoys the crap out of me. Do the Chinese, Brazilians, and Koreans sit around doing this kind of thing? I don’t know, maybe they do, but I’d be surprised if it was as pronounced as in Russia.
“Do the Chinese, Brazilians, and Koreans
sit around doing this kind of thing? I
don’t know, maybe they do, but I’d be
surprised if it was as pronounced as
in Russia.”
FWIW, Venezuelans, who even before Chavez loved to expressed their hate of the USA, are also have a similar dynamic with respect to American culture.
BTW, when a British journalist I met in Moscow in the early 1990s found out that I had lived in Venezuela for many years, he told me that in all the years of work he had done all over the globe he found that Venezuelans were the most vocally anti-Americans. He was surprised about it. (That was when so many Russians I knew were so enamored of the US that it was obvious that soon enough they’ll become disillusioned.)
I apologize for my atrociously written comment, right above this one. I hope it did not totally obscure what I meant to say.
An American I worked with on the oilfields commented on this phenomenon. He had worked in dozens upon dozens of countries, including most of the Middle East and most of South America (and impressively, 48 of the 50 United States). He found everywhere he went everybody hated the Americans, but seemed desperate for American material and cultural goods. He reckoned that about 95% of all those who hate America would break off in mid-sentence and bite your hand off if you offered them a green card, and they’d be singing The Star Spangled Banner under the stars and stripes before the day was out.
For a place which everybody hates, an incredible number of foreigners seem to want to go to live there.
So Time was soft on Putin? Big deal. They’re soft on everyone.
Heh! I liked that.
“For a place which everybody hates, an incredible number of foreigners seem to want to go to live there.”
One could say the same thing wih respect to Russia and its huge amount of residents from Ukraine, Georgia, and other countries usually thought of as anti-Russian.
About the US, Tim wrote:
“For a place which everybody hates, an incredible number of foreigners seem to want to go to live there.”
And Chris replied:
“One could say the same thing wih respect to Russia and its huge amount of residents from Ukraine, Georgia, and other countries usually thought of as anti-Russian.”
But if those people had the choice to live/work in the US rather than in Russia, which country would most of them choose?
For fairness sake, I had a leftist Venezuelan friend, a brilliant fellow, who was offered to do postgraduate work in both the US and the USSR (it was in the early 80s). Although he has never been outside of Venezuela, he chose the USSR without any hesitation. Later he became very disillusioned about the USSR, but being a true believer, he moved to Cuba for a while. I lost track of him around then. I wonder what he thinks now. He was highly intelligent and idealistic. We were good friends, but he thought that although I was a good fellow I was in the wrong side of history.
“But if those people had the choice to live/work in the US rather than in Russia, which country would most of them choose?”
Well, most don’t speak English.
My point (which I didn’t actually express) was really different — it was that many of the countries usually considered anti-Russian (and I don’t know to what extent they actually are) exist in a Russian-dominated economic space, are economically dependent on Russia, and also exist in a Russian-dominated cultural space, in which they watch Russian television programs and Russian and Soviet cinema and listen to Russian pop music.
I mean, Ukrainian pop groups have a tendency to sing in the Russian language. Zdob Si Zdub, from Moldova, sing half their songs in Russian and (I think) live in Moscow. Reciprocally, I don’t know the sales statistics but I would imagine that Vopli Vidopliassova and Okean Elzy (both of which sing in Ukrainian) sell more discs in Russia than in Ukraine, given the difference in population size.
“But if those people had the choice to live/work in the US rather than in Russia, which country would most of them choose?”
Incidentally, Israel has had net emigration to Russia for the last several years. (Israel has also had a lot of emigration to Germany, as Israelis of German Jewish descent use the German Right of Return laws to get citizenship.) Make of this what you will.
Actually the CIS countries with net immigration are Russia and (I think) Belarus.
Thanks, Chris. Your observations are interesting.
Not part of your point, but let’s remember that most of those who immigrate to the US (whether legally or illegally) do not speak English.
Yeah, but they normally are going to join a large group of people who do speak their language. A monolingual Germanophone would be a fish out of water, unlike a Spanish- or Korean- or Vietnamese-speaking person.
PS. these purported 95% of people who don’t like the US but would immigrate if given the chance are not the ones from Western Europe!
“PS. these purported 95% of people who don’t like the US but would immigrate if given the chance are not the ones from Western Europe!”
To be fair, the guy Tim wrote about was talking about his experiences in the Middle East and South America. But, yes, I doubt that at this point a large proportion of Western Europeans would want to immigrate to the US even if given the chance.