« | Home | »

Medvedev v. Putin


Any number of reasons have been put forward to explain why the Russian president, Dmitry Medvedev, sacked Yuri Luzhkov, the mayor of Moscow, last week. Some commentators have put it down to an interview Luzhkov gave to Rossijskaia Gazeta in early September, in which he challenged Medvedev from what was thought to be a pro-Putin position. Others say it’s because Luzhkov failed to cut short his holiday and return to Moscow when the city was engulfed in smoke from the summer’s wildfires. Still others say it’s because Medvedev wanted to show that he was serious in his struggle against corruption, for which Luzhkov was notorious. Many think that it’s so the Kremlin can establish control over Moscow’s corrupt electoral mechanisms before the 2011 national elections. Almost all speak about a redistribution of capital flows between Russia’s various power groups.

Almost nothing, however, is known for sure. The origins of the media campaign against Luzhkov that was launched in mid-September, for example, are hazy, to say the least: the campaign was probably ordered by the presidency, but, according to some sources, the idea came from people close to the prime minister, Vladimir Putin. And we don’t know whether or not Medvedev discussed his decision to sack Luzhkov with Putin. Under these circumstances, perhaps the best question to ask is ‘cui bono?’

So who benefits? During his time in office Medvedev has changed almost half of Russia’s governors and regional leaders, all of them well-rooted figures with strong followings among regional elites, though none as powerful as Luzhkov: they include the presidents of Tatarstan, Ingushetia and Bashkiria, and the governors of Stavropol, Sverdlovsk, Amur and Oryol regions. Some, like Luzhkov, and unlike their appointed successors, were among the last remaining elected governors. By getting rid of them, Medvedev may have simply been strengthening Putin’s ‘vertical of power’.

But the sacking of Luzhkov may mean something else. Almost 70 per cent of Russians believe that Medvedev has no independent power but is controlled by Putin and his entourage. Luzhkov’s dismissal suggests that the situation may not be that simple. Luzhkov’s relations with Putin were complicated, but in recent years he has been much closer to Putin than to Medvedev. Luzhkov’s original decision to stand up to Medvedev, and to go on holiday to Austria despite the unfolding media campaign against him, can only be explained by one fact: that he believed he had Putin’s support. Putin did not comment on the media campaign publicly, but on 21 September he sent Luzhkov a telegram, wishing him a happy birthday and praising his achievements ‘as a competent and experienced professional’.

In a recent interview with the liberal Novoie Vremia, Luzhkov connected his sacking to the 2012 presidential elections. A few days earlier his wife, Yelena Baturina, a powerful oligarch in Moscow’s construction industry, told the same publication: ‘There are people in the Kremlin,’ she said, ‘who are worried that in the run-up to the elections Moscow’s mayor may support the position of prime minister Putin, not president Medvedev.’ Many commentators wrote then that if Medvedev did not dare to touch Luzhkov his chances in 2012 would be zero. Getting rid of him has therefore strengthened the president’s position, if only in public opinion. Putin’s remark that Medvedev had every legal right to fire Luzhkov according to the law that he, Putin, had initiated, looked like a weak attempt to show that he had more to do with sacking the mayor than in fact he did.

So, for now, Medvedev has scored. But this isn’t the end of his struggle. After all the allegations of corruption against Luzhkov that have been splashed onto the TV screen, failing to prosecute him would be a sign of real weakness, turning Medvedev’s victory into defeat. Prosecuting him, however, means disturbing the hornet’s nest of the corruption system in Moscow as a whole. And this is a task too tall for any leader in Russia, however powerful, let alone Medvedev.

Meanwhile, there is the question of the new mayor of Moscow: will it be someone close to Medvedev, or to Putin? It remains to be seen who will benefit in the long run from Luzhkov’s dimissal.

Comments on “Medvedev v. Putin”

  1. Geoff Roberts says:

    Is there an answer to the Russian problem? Seems to me that Putin and Medvedev are agents of the financial bosses, making their millions on the side and thriving on the system that brought them to power. The peasants in 19th century Russua used to complain about the miseries of living under a feudal system, calling on the Czar to act, as he would surely never allow his children to be treated as slaves. Richard Pipes described these conditions very well – apart from the political system, what has changed since 1900?

  2. Geoff Roberts says:

    It looks as if Russia isn’t as important as Norway. Can this be?

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.

  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • mideastzebra on Swedish-Israeli Tensions: Avigdor Liberman was not foreign minister November 2015.
    • lars hakanson on Exit Cameron: Europe will for good reason rejoice when the UK elects to leave. The country has over the years provided nothing but obstacles to European integration...
    • Michael Schuller on Immigration Scandals: The Home Office is keen to be seen to be acting tough on immigration, although I'm not sure that the wider project has anything to do with real number...
    • Geoff Roberts on What happened in Cologne?: The most surprising thing about the events in Cologne (and the most disturbing) is that some 600 incidents of theft, harrasment and rape were reported...
    • EmilyEmily on What happened in Cologne?: The author's argument is straightforward: Sexual violence is one beast; fears about migrants is another - let's not confuse the two. Alfalfa's poin...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement