Beg to differ.

Appointing loyal people in the administration of the state in no way means emasculation of state structures. For example, every US Prez. ’sweeps the house clean’ and brings loyal people to all the important positions. To the contrary, the fact that this is done every few years attests to the structural stability of the US political system.

In engineering terms, if you can replace component elements without destroying the system, the system is strong and sound.

It really is weird how much analysis seems to be based on stereotypes.

For example, people had been speculating for a couple of years that Medvedev would be Putin’s annointed successor. Then people started to see that as too obvious, Sergei Ivanov was discussed based upon his increased TV time, others tried to read tea leaves and spin theories, and in the end Russia ended up with the presidential candidate that was discussed over 2 years ago.

It really wasn’t much of a mystery at all.

It’s certainly has lead to numerous books, fictional and well … less fictional.

I think Putin need not fear.

It seems to me that a lot of fantasizing takes place in these attempts at neo-Kremlinology. It’s just so bonkers.

(My favorite of these was an op-ed in the MT during the Khodorkovsky affair, the author of which I do not remember. The gist of it was that nationalizing Yukos amounted to re-Sovietization of the economy, which would lead to economic collapse. Since a large proportion of Russia’s wealthy are Jewish, this would result in scapegoating and anti-Semitic pogroms. I kid you not.)

Go Celtics! Beat L.A.!

I don’t buy that power in Russia (or any government) is only through the people you appoint. That is an aspect of the short-term implementation of power, no doubt, and it fuels party systems and fealty. But the laws of the land, their creation and enforcement, are the real power, particularly in the long-term. I think it is no coincidence that “dictatorship of the law” and “legal nihilism” are early talking points by both Putin and Medvedev in their respective presidency’s.

As to “emasculate state structures” – I say that, in fact, he strengthened the federal government of Russia, particularly in his office of the Presidency, at the expense of local oblasts, krais, okrugs, and republics. It is easy for Americans (in particular) to forget just how autonomous the republics and okrugs were and remain. I read a recent (short) article about Khanty-Mansi governor Alexander Filipenko, where he is described as a “sheik” ruling an “emirate”, as he seeks his regions own foreign business relations with India.

http://www.ptinews.com/pti%5Cptisite.nsf/0/A11516F60BEDA3366525746900223E27?OpenDocument

The US fought a war between the states, whose lasting legacy was not just abolition of slavery, but a strengthen of the federal government over the independent state governments. To my mind, Russia had a similar potential for a war between its regions, had Putin not taken steps to curtail regional ambitions.