New rules of the game known as Presidential Election have been established in Russia of late. There are few candidates and their names have long been known. The intrigue is who will win the race. The [Medvedev-Putin. – Ed.] tandem pretends to be so much concerned about what is good for Russia they have no time to bother their heads with such trifles. Vladimir Putin’s press secretary Dmitry Peskov, when asked whether his boss plans to return to the Kremlin, replied: “Vladimir Vladimirovich is working, working hard, rather than thinking about whether to run for election.” President Dmitry Medvedev’s press secretary Natalia Timakova made similar statements more than once.
The said tandem’s demonstrative aloofness from the presidential campaign is more than made up by the activities of their courts. Igor Yurgens, director of the Institute of World Economy and International Relations, and his number two, Yevgeny Gontmakher, published an article in the newspaper Vedomosti. It is entitled “The President Must Make his Presence Felt” and has a desperate appeal: “We often hear people say that they will sit down and make a decision when the time comes. This attitude and especially the way our political elite obediently accepts it only serve to stress the fact that modern public institutions are lagging far behind in Russia. And this considering that one party of the tandem is openly canvassing for a sequel to a stable political course, something that in current conditions has become synonymous with more than stagnation (we went through that phase in the 2000s, before the crisis), with obvious degradation in all walks of life in Russia. What about the other presidential side? We see attempts to improve the situation by switching from stagnation to progress, combating corruption, improving the business climate, shaping an effective foreign policy. However, as previously, there is no decisive turning point. The impression is that even the most elementary efforts of Dmitry Medvedev on the road of modernization are not only swamped by hot air sessions, but also sabotaged, even disavowed by counteraction.”
This appeal did not pass unanswered. A response came instantly, from foreign media, as usual. Referring to Kremlin sources, Reuters made headlines announcing that Vladimir Putin had decided to run for president: “I think Putin is going to run, that he has already decided to,” said a highly placed source who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the political situation. The source said Putin had been troubled by the perception that his protege, whom he has known for more than two decades, did not have sufficient support among the political and business elite or the electorate to ensure stability if he pushed ahead with plans for political reform. “Putin has much more support from the people than Medvedev. Medvedev has overestimated his weight inside the system,” he said. Reuters quote yet another source as saying, “I am not completely convinced he [Medvedev – Ed.] has enough steel...” One of the sources told Reuters that “Putin was thinking of running and that if he became president he could appoint a reformist prime minister, an apparent attempt to dispel fears that his return would usher in a period of stagnation two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.”
Reuters says, “Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is close to a decision to bid for the presidency in an election next year because he has doubts about his protege, President Dmitry Medvedev… Putin ruled as president from 2000 to 2008 before handing over to Medvedev to comply with a constitutional ban on a third consecutive term. He will be free to run in the March presidential election… if he became president he could appoint a reformist prime minister, an apparent attempt to dispel fears that his return would usher in a period of stagnation two decades after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.” It is as if Russia weren’t in that very stagnation up to its neck now. An interesting thought though. Putin is being presented as fearsome symbol of stability — or stagnation and degradation, to quote from Yurgens and Gontmakher. In actuality, Putin is more on the reformist side than Medvedev. Once he becomes president, the world will see a totally different Putin. He and his reform-minded prime minister will lead Russia along the road of modernization. Enough work for two presidential terms. Stolypin asked to have 20 days to transform Russia. Putin will translate into life this project cut short by a gunshot fired by Bobrov at the Kyiv Opera. It is no coincidence that this date is planned to be officially marked in Russia.
The above quotes from Reuters are a response to the following undisguised threat in the Vedomosti article (in case Medvedev steps down): “One can confidently predict that the very refusal of the incumbent president to run for another term will cause a large-scale crisis in this country. The economy, weak as it is, will cave in and debilitate the resource base of the social sphere… Pension appropriations will have to be severely cut. In this situation, to preserve the status quo, the government will have to toughen the political regime, the way it is done by our union neighbor [Belarus – Ed.]. Such is the price of conserving the policy of stability.” Warning strong enough to make one’s heart sink.
Whereas Yurgens and Gontmakher signed their message, Reuters refers to sources who preferred to remain anonymous. Looks like a carefully planned operation, reminding one of those planned and carried out by the agency for which Vladimir Putin used to work, leaving the reader with the impression that the people who wrote the Vedomosti article were free individuals, whereas the anonymous sources quoted by Reuters were assigned a task which they were not supposed to reveal, so they chose not to identify themselves. Reuters, however, makes it clear that its sources are well-informed individuals who hold important posts, who have long wanted to get it all off their chest, waiting for just such an opportunity. Undoubtedly, this double input will be followed by others as the date of United Russia’s convention, slated for September, draws closer. Pretty soon, with both sides being eager to see its outcome.
Bureaucrats have good cause for worry. By the middle of this summer experts with the Public Opinion Foundation registered the lowest public ratings of both the head of state and head of government. A poll carried out in 204 populated areas, in 64 regions of Russia on July 23-24, showed that 43 percent of the respondents trusted Dmitry Medvedev, compared to 49 percent in 2008, when he was elected president (his highest ratings, 62 percent, were registered in 2010. Putin’s ratings got close to 50 percent by the end of July, compared to the highest 71 percent in the third quarter of 2009. This trend was noted by Levada Center back in March, 2011. Well, the night is young, so to say. Medvedev’s ratings are lowering slowly – from 49 to 43 percent. Putin’s are going down considerably faster and will soon match those of the president. This is another reason behind Putin’s court’s concern, hence constant talk about him getting much bigger public support than the president; that the people will support the national leader; that this is understandable, considering that the current head of state isn’t strong enough and doesn’t have enough steel and other meaningless symbols; that the Russian people are used to being ruled by an iron hand, and so on.
Russian observes showed a markedly varying attitude to the Vedomosti and Reuters articles. Vladimir Slatinov, Institute of Humanitarian and Political Studies, believes the Reuters article is a publicity stunt: “I think the presidential campaign which is underway in Russia is reaching its peak, whatever it is. There are some reasons behind Reuters’ information; Reuters has either analyzed the situation, relying on its sources, or used the occasion to make public information supplied by the prime minister — or by his court, more specifically.” Ilya Konstantinov, political analyst, conversely insists that the Reuters article was commissioned by Putin’s rivals: «I would suggest that it was a move, a probe meant to figure out the response likely to come from the ruling circles and public of the West. We may assume that the rival political groups are interested in rallying the West against Project Putin Returns. I’m practically sure that whoever commissioned this article is to be found in Russia.»
Igor Yurgens wrote in Moscow-based Nezavisimaya Gazeta that he is not a member of any ruling political court – he is just an analyst; that Reuters’ information should not be completely trusted; that he roughly knows “how such response could be generated, even using forces that simply want to push the prime minister to make certain decisions.” He further believes that Medvedev, by his two or three recent public statements, has practically prepared public opinion for the need to have a thoroughly formulated presidential program.”
I have previously noted that Ukraine has become a subject as well as object of Russia’s domestic political struggle. The fact that the next meeting of the intergovernmental commission has been postponed and that neither president attended the Russian Navy Day is explained not only by Moscow’s obstinacy in terms of the gas prices. This factor does exist, but it shouldn’t be overestimated. After all, a number of German, Croatian, and other companies have talked Gazprom into making concessions. Bulgaria intends to lower gas supplies from Russia by more than 90 percent, and Lithuania plans to stop them altogether. A Russian in the street is told not to worry, that these are small supplies and that the monopoly will not suffer any serious financial losses. However, these reductions and refusals may set a luring precedent. Therefore, meeting Ukraine halfway would not mean losing face for Russia — that is, if the commercial factor is really at play.
Sad but true. The Ukrainian factor is neither commercial nor financial. It is political, so making concessions is very risky. No one in Moscow wants to be responsible for whatever the outcome: success, achieving a compromise with Kyiv, or for furthering relations between the countries. Whatever the decision, its price will be very high, its consequences very far-reaching because the point of no return will be passed very quickly. There are too many reefs along this course, so neither the head of state, nor the head of government dare set sail. Of course, it would be an ideal gift for the Russian electorate if a given candidate could have Ukraine join the Customs Union and single economic area, yet even the wildest dreaming Moscow politician realizes that nothing like that will ever happen. Under the circumstances the best solution to this problem is by shelving the issue, remembering that you don’t trouble trouble…
Another thing is that Kyiv has to make haste. Election or no election, there is no canceling of the heating season, with only a couple of months left before October. Viktor Nebozhenko, political analyst, head of the Ukrainian Barometer polling service, told Radio Liberty: “I think the hawk strategy, demanding quick and decisive measures in regard to Ukraine, will win, so that before the New Year they will face us with harsh demands and will claim moral damages… I think that by the New Year we will face not just a threat of another gas war, but something more complex, something like a demand for capitulation.” In other words, there is little likelihood of the presidential summit — if it takes place in September as planned —yielding positive result. The summer lull is drawing to a close and the fall and winter may well turn out to be very hot.
