ARTICLE: "Putin Backs a Young Loyalist As His Choice to Follow Him," by Clifford J. Levy, New York Times, 11 December 2007, p. A1.ARTICLE: "In Putin's Past, Glimpses Of Russia's One-Party Future," by Alan Cullison, Gregory L. White and David Crawford, Wall Street Journal, 21 December 2007, p. A1.
Putin has engineered his continued relevancy quite completely. Minister without Portfolio is not enough, so this new president will arrive with training wheels attached.
Understood and stipulated.
Political experts now search his past to figure his motives. Can we believe him when he says he's pursuing a transformation process at a pace appropriate to a country ruled for centuries in an authoritarian manner?
Based on what we saw in the 1990s under Yeltsin, I'd say he's got a decent case. To that end, one can claim Putin is simply allowing his social and political structures sufficient time to adapt to a global economic landscape that's not easily navigated by the naive or less-than-determined-to-succeed.
Key to me is that he respected the need to give up the presidency. He didn't break the rule set. He's getting around it somewhat, but that's very Russian—the land of the work-around.
More interesting is what kind of guy Medvedev will end up being. He's given some hints, and he'll definitely have to bide his time and make any moves with great slowness and care, but unless Putin totally hogs the stage, Medvedev will inevitably emerge as an alternative power source in the system. And if Putin wanted to do that, I think he simply would have broken the rule set and remained president.
So we shall see…
| Permalink |
Comments (2)
I'm not an expert on Putin, rather an observer, but I am impressed by how he transformed during his presidency.
He entered office with bold ideas but a misguided confidence, and when his ambition for Russian influence hit a wall, incidents like Kursk come to mind; he stepped back and took a very structured, patient approach that focused on infrastructure. One characteristic of 'greatness' in political leadership is the ability to understand ones role in ones time. I observe Putin played that card very well for his country.
Posted by Galrahn | February 14, 2008 9:49 AM
"Political experts now search his past ..."
I hope (and believe) they started that search a long time ago. We should know his earlier duties must have exposed him to KGB studies of US, European and Japanese cultural/economic/political traits with their strengths and weaknesses, and how they evolved. I suspect he also used those insights to see how they could be adapted to Russia's long term culture, and its extended distortion under Stalinism.
I would like to hear what our experts learned about what he thought of the US-Russian relationship in the 1800s and what he thought of the Rockerfeller clan's interest in trying to partner with Lenin type communists for mutual benefit.
But, darn, those stories would not fit media interest!
Posted by Louis Heberlein | February 14, 2008 2:58 PM