Andrei Piontkovsky, Hudson Institute Visiting Senior Fellow, 30.10.07., "House Commitee on Foreign Affaires"
I. Kremlin
The nature of the conflict over Putin’s successor has not changed in the slightest in the past two years. The Successor-2008 problem is quite different from the Successor-2000 problem.
In
2000 the successor had to be marketed to an electorate 100 million strong. We all remember what a huge firework display
was required, involving Basaev’s raid on Dagestan and
the blowing up of apartment blocks in
In 2008 there will be no need to market the successor to anyone. The electorate has been satisfactorily dealt with and will now swallow anything. In any case, nobody is going to ask its opinion.
All that is required is for Putin to reach agreement with the inner circle of his entourage, five or ten of the boyz of the Petersburg Brigade. This is where the problems begin.
The conflict is already spilling out of Churchill's “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma”, as the terrible truth becomes evident to Putin’s cronies that He really does want to get out:. In The Brigade, however, a certain equilibrium has been established and “The Chief” cannot simply give orders or make arrangements there, let alone appoint successors. He needs to negotiate the terms of his departure, if he can, with his business partners.
Most
see his longing to get out as easily explicable in a still youthful and no
doubt wealthy man: he does very much
want for the next twenty years or so to be a kind of another Roman Abramovich. As a
certain Russian billionaire irrefutably remarked, we Russians should, after
all, be allowed to compensate ourselves for decades of tragedy and
deprivation. This feeling is undoubtedly
present in the psyche of the boy from the
Putin understands very well the pitiless laws of the system he has built up step by step over the past seven years. If he takes that final step of agreeing to a third term, he is accepting a life sentence. He will move into a new existential realm; he will enter that world of shadows from whose bourne no traveller returns. The darkness at noon of the Kremlin will engulf him forever. Not only will he never become a Roma, or Vova, Abramovich, he will never become anyone or anything again.
When
Joseph Stalin lost, if he did, the argument on the agrarian question to Nikolai
Bukharin in 1929, he could still, if he had so
wished, have gone to work at the Institute of Red Professors teaching a course
on “Marxism and the National Question” to students in the Workers’
Faculty. Alternatively, he could have
gone home to
Only a few years passed before, as the ruler of one-sixth of the Earth, resigning his position would have been tantamount to standing up against the nearest wall in front of a firing squad. He had another twenty long years of that before his beloved comrades-in-arms found him where he had been lying unconscious on the floor in a pool of his own urine for twenty-four hours.
But let us return to our present-day hero. The more doggedly he tries to get out, the more they hate him; and the more desperately he wants to break free and never let these people hold sway over his life and destiny. Unfortunately, beyond the confines of his immediate entourage he has nobody. Beyond there is a scorched earth of his own making in which tens of thousands of “Our People”, his “Nashi”, are marching in T-shirts bearing his portrait.
His latest actions and statements(appointment of Mr.Zubkov as a Prime-Minister and his intention to become Prime-Minister himself) reveal beyond any doubt that he has taken a fatal decision-
he is staying as a de-facto President for life.
II. Munich
The
attitude of the Russian political class to
Just
as 300 years ago, and 200, and twenty, we know perfectly well that we cannot do
without Western technology and investments, and that autarky and an Iron
Curtain spell economic and geopolitical disaster for
And
yet, the West seems to irritate us by the very fact of its existence. We see it as a psychological, informational,
spiritual challenge. We are constantly
trying to convince ourselves that the West is inherently hostile and malevolent
towards
If you take any mainstream Rssian publication and read the last hundred articles dealing with foreign policy matters, ninety-eight will be full of bitterness, complaints, irritation, poison and hostility towards the West. This despite the fact that most of the authors of those articles like to spend as much time as possible in Western capitals and Western resorts, keep their money in Western banks, and send their children to study in Western schools and universities.
As
in the famous poem a
passionate declaration of love for
What
have ‘5,000 bayonets deployed in
Last week that question was asked again at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in the latest spiritual striptease show put on by the latest Russian Patient. It doesn't matter what his name is: Ivanov, Petrov, Sidorov, Yeltsin, Primakov, Putin...
For some reason it is considered statesmanlike and patriotic to pout your lips and enumerate before various Western audiences the same old list of "grievances" about the unipolar world, the ABM treaty, the expansion of NATO, the creeping up of NATO, our encirclement by NATO.
Wake
up, intellectual "heavyweights" of
Where
now is that mammoth aggressive military machine of NATO you have so long been
warning of? It truly has lumbered up to
the sacred borders of the former
"In
September 2006 the Chinese People's Liberation Army conducted a ten-day
military training exercise on an unprecedented scale in the Shenyang
and Beijing Military Regions, the two most powerful of the seven Chinese MRs. These border
The
nature of the exercise tells us that it is in preparation for war with
But
who is bothered about all that in our little psychiatric hospital? It is far more fun to go on about the usual
grievances: bayonets in
III. Will the 2008 G8 Summit be the last one?
Many commentators, myself included, have noted that Vladimir Putin is regularly pulling off a striking personal propaganda coup at the G-8 summits. But what about the present state of that institution, and the G-8’s future?
The G-8 (formerly the G-7 and G-6) arose in the 1970s
after the oil crisis, also caused by events in the
It was a club where it was possible to work out, in a businesslike manner in an intimate circle, a common strategy for the West in world politics, primarily in economic sphere.
Post-Soviet Russia was accepted into this club, despite its relatively modest economic weight, as a geopolitical ally that felt it belonged to the Greater West.
Economically,
The
upshot is that the G-8 ceases to be a club of like-minded partners, while
falling short of being a global economic council, since such giants as
This totally undermines the institution’s ability to function effectively, and that gives rise to an atmosphere of awkwardness and unease, which developed into the kind of more and more evident mutual irritation.
The solution is not far to seek. Two functions of the G-8, neither of which it is currently performing satisfactorily, need to be separated.
The
G-8 should expand to 10 or 12 members (
Putin's
What is indisputable is that today the West faces challenges and threats on an unprecedented scale and urgently needs to come up with a unified strategy to cope with them.
I
believe that
Given this state of affairs, it is naive and foolish of the West to continue pretending we are all members of the same club and trying to work out a joint strategy with Putin. Today Putin is playing on the other side, and no longer makes any bones about it.
However
Putins come and Putins go
but
One
of the most important tasks of the Western Politburo, then, will be to find a
modus vivendi with an openly non-Western Putinist
To
wait for the real interests of