The Main Putin’s Target in 2008: to Quit So That Comrades Won’t Get into Prison

In the interview with the Indian journalists Vladimir Putin spoke about his successor not having told, however, about him anything concrete, that would allow to understand who exactly he meant. In summary Putin declared: "I have already told: I like my work. But I cannot demand following the law from others if I myself shall break laws and, first of all, the basic, main law of the country - the Constitution".

Being not satisfied with it one of the journalists tried to specify what would become if Russians will demand to make changes to the Constitution which would allow Putin to be the nominee for third time. The president told on it that, at all his respect, he’s not going to discuss the given theme with the Indians as it’s especially internal matter of the Russian people. In other words, the question about the successor and the third term again appeared to be suspended.

Such situation promotes appearance of conjectures and rumours on the "problem-2008". And they appeared just in few hours after Putin's performance. There is such "drain site" - "New Region" which closely cooperates with political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky both in questions of "blow out" of disinformation and in scoring of "courageous ideas" of Belkovsky himself.

"The name of Putin’s successor will be given not earlier than in September, 2007", - the political scientist declared to "New Region" in the afternoon on January, 23rd. As he said, Putin perfectly understands that as soon as will give a name, he will become useless to everybody. "For this reason he tries to move aside in every possible way this moment", - Belkovsky concluded.

In opinion of the political scientist, the project "Medvedev" at the moment has already started "to revolve". Potential successor on a post of the president, vice-premier of the Russian government Dmitry Medvedev already twice failed to become the chairman of the Cabinet though he had all possibilities for it.

The political scientist noted that now the group which until recently supported Medvedev started partially to support Ivanov: "Machinery wars between the grouping of Igor Sechin and Roman Abramovich who is very close to Sergey Ivanov though they are not friends have become aggravated in the Kremlin”.

“Problem-2008" causes increasing interest also abroad and in rather negative for Putin key. I felt it myself when one and a half week ago together with political scientist Ruslan Saidov led a series of meetings with prominent American scientists and experts. In private conversation they told us about the same that director of the Russian and Asian programs of the Washington Institute of world safety of the USA, well-known political scientist of the Russian origin had recently publicly told in the interview to "New Newspaper".  

The basic sense of messages from abroad addressed as a matter of fact personally to Putin is that he should not remain for the third term. He, on the contrary, should transfer authority to the liberal successor like Dmitry Medvedev or Sergey Ivanov who under a skilful management of Roman Abramovich, Alexander Voloshin, Anatoly Chubays and Sergey Zverev will realize a line desired to the USA.

The American experts within many hours explained to me and Ruslan Saidov what Washington waits from the successor in details. If to take “dry weight” it’s required from the successor the following: to agree on "internationalization" of natural resources of the country in interests of the West, to dismember "Gazprom", other natural monopolies and "Rosneft" having transferred control over them to foreigners, to refuse power cooperation with China, to moderate "imperial ambitions" by final break with Belarus and “cede” Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Syria, and Transdniestria, turn off military-technical cooperation with “countries-derelicts” – Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Sudan and also with China.   

It is not excluded, besides, that the successor will be obliged "to give freedom" to the Chechen Republic and all Northern Caucasus using "radical way" having abolished "kadirovshina", to release Michael Khodorkovsky and other "prisoners of conscience" having returned to them "illegally withdrawn JUKOS and to stop persecution of Leonid Nevzlin, Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky and other "political refugees".

If Putin will disobey, if he will not appoint suitable for the USA successor and, on the contrary, will go for the third term, they openly threaten him with prison. And the threat is real. Unlike Gorbachev and Yeltsin the present president does not have such merits before the West, as ruin of the USSR, liquidation of socialist mode, treachery of friends and allies, introduction of wild capitalism under the American recipes.

Meanwhile they have a lot of claims to Putin over the sea. Then why they are so sure in the Kremlin that, as Zlobin said, Putin won’t be in pursuit and imprisoned in one-three years? The more so, where’s confidence that right after the change of authority in 2008 some of his present comrades won’t be also put into the prison?

One more theme – is "party of the third term" to which I adhere also myself. Nikolay Zlobin approves that this "party" consists from "Putin's confidants who are already today “restricted to travel abroad” and who for their raider and other pranks are worth prison". Therefore, the American political scientist insists, they "do everything for public destabilization in Russia so that by unconstitutional way to keep Putin on a post of the president".

Actually, Putin also agree with it, as his application in India shows, he can stay for the third term by quite lawful way - simply having changed the Constitution. The mechanism of modification is incorporated in the Constitution itself, it can be realized during two-three weeks if one has a desire.

But it’s no the main thing. I know it for sure that "the party of the third term" consists of not Putin's confidants “restricted to travel abroad” but of travelling publicists from the newspaper "Tomorrow" and "FORUM.msk": writers Alexander Prokhanov and Sergey Kugushev, political scientists Ruslan Saidov, Anton Surikov, Alexander Nagorny and the author of these lines. That is of people not only not connected with the Kremlin but also frequently extremely rigidly criticizing Putin on a number of questions of principle. In particular, for the presence of liberals at the economic block of the government, for conditions of the introduction of Russia into WTO and for Belarus. As to the "confidants", we do not see them and receive no instructions from them. And hardly they would risk to give us such instructions.

Nikolay Zlobin's interview, a person who personally met Putin not once, was published under witty as, probably, they consider in «New Newspaper», heading «The Size of the Kickback Should Correspond to the Force of Dolly-In». Such is the principle of functioning of present Russian authority and business as the political scientist sees it.

I won’t argue with him, he is right here in many respects. On the contrary, for the best understanding of our readers of the degree of rigidity anti-putin hysteria reached in the West, we give below fragments of the interview of Zlobin devoted to Vladimir Putin and “problem-2008".

Vladimir Filin, political scientist

The Size of the Kickback Should Correspond to the Force of Dolly-In

(Shortened version)

We too early decided that disintegration of the Soviet Union was over. This process proceeds. May be, we have not reached even the middle. Things that occur in Abkhazia, Transdniestria, Ossetias is - continuation of this process.

We live in a transitional epoch of disintegration of the empire. And any political system has transitional character. We live in an epoch of fundamental change of political geography. The Russian authority has a sensation that the transitional stage has been already completed, that there appears an opportunity to construct something fundamental. While they are living in the heat of the process which is not capable to manage because of its transitiveness. That’s why any attempt to fix current condition should be in vain.

The Russian policy is – an impromptu, pure improvisation. Thus, it is necessary to notice, that America taught Russia two things. That policy is - a naked cynicism ("the real policy"). And the second - application of double standards.

As to an internal situation, here Putin has cornered himself and now it is difficult to find a way out. He managed to do so that people lost the lever of management, influence on a vertical of authority. Who still has this tool in hands? Elite? But it has no such instrument because one of Putin’s aim is – turn away power vertical from elite, from group of interests, from business, from mass-media, from intellectuals, etc That is to create independent, technological, purely Kremlin’s product.  

So, what do we have at last? People doesn’t influence the policy. Elite is afraid of Putin and Putin despises elite. As a result Putin happens to be a hostage of inner-Kremlin grouping – for sure he didn’t mean it at all. The hostage of bovver between Surkov and Sechin, Ivanov and Medvedev and so on. That is he losts in any case. Generally speaking he interferes with everyone today.

An attempt to create technological scheme of management, having taken people away, having taken elite away, having taken business away, having taken mass-media away, having taken intelligency away led to such end that he was deceived by his colleagues and became a hostage of representatives of opposite inner-Kremlin camps which are full a paranoia. Which hate each other, frequently don’t talk to each other and which can’t achieve any compromise with each other. Up to that they are capable to accept all criminal measures in relation to each other.

There is a conflict of authority and ownership and dispute about future model which Russia will follow. For both models Putin is an obstacle today. Both for rather liberal and for power model which representatives - he has grown up himself.

Putin got in a trap of own speculative attempt to fasten on himself all and everything, but he’s not Stalin. He decided that he’s in power, that he could say whatever he wants and everybody would eat it up. Wouldn’t eat. Everything’s being written down and remembered. And I for today do not see any model which he can adhere without any loses.  

Though being a paradox, Putin needs today support of those layers which he was belittling all these years. Liberals, business, mass-media. Otherwise he can’t rely on anything at all and in a year after resignation he could find himself on plank. Whether he will receive this support? Certainly, no. That is he built so strange a model that it kills its authors.

Putin led the country to understanding of the fact that the policy is - a game by the rules which are written today but it’s not a fact that the same state of things will remain tomorrow. And if you have an access to rewriting of these rules, then you are a king. Today Putin loses monopoly for rewriting of the rules though only a year ago he wrote them himself. At this he still thinks that he writes them. For this reason he is not only a hostage of the system but also an obstacle for it. That is why there is a danger that he should leave earlier or all control levers will be beaten out from his hands.

In 2008 he will render microscopic influence. The president will become the one whom Putin can appoint the successor and not the one whom he really would like to see on this place.

I seriously consider a variant of Putin’s resignation before the end of the term, in 2007. It can be initiated by him so that to lead the successor while others will not have time to be prepared for it. The earlier he will make it, more chances that he will manage to survive in the future. The later - more chances that he will be imprisoned. And everybody will say after it: “Here it is bloody Putin’s regime, it was him who led non-qualified concentration of power which in its turn led to the ruin of the country”.  

I am sure that there will be talks about "bloody putin’s regime". At that almost everyone who supports Putin today. The only question is when: they can start to talk in a year after his leaving or - in three years. And Putin will have to listen to it. Variants are the following: he will listen as Yeltsin or Khodorkovsky or won’t.

As to the question of existence in Russia of so-called "party of the third term". That is the party of those confidants of Putin, who being already today “restricted to travel abroad" and who for their raider and other pranks are worth prison make everything for public destabilization in Russia so that using non-constitutional way to keep Putin on the post of the president.

Actually it is the Kremlin myth that Putin provided stability. What stability is meant, if the country is constantly in a condition of unpredictability?

I think that the third term for Putin is a suicide. And not because then "the West will turn away from him". But because an ambiguity in a matter of successors and the third term he has excited every possible expectations to the extend that if now he suddenly will say: "I remain", he will hear the following answer: "What the hell we need you for?".

And, I think, he understands it that is why his main task is - to come off this level of expectations competently. It’s extremely difficult to make it because present basic groupings in the Kremlin deceived everybody - the country, themselves, ownership and Putin - to such an extend that everyone see enemy in him. And he perceives elite as those who will betray him at the first opportunity. And consequently I consider him the main victim of his own mode for today.

It’s senseless to argue how many oil and gas is there in Russia. Russia created a model in which there are no rules. And it is understood everywhere: from Belarus up to the West-European partners of Russia on construction of the Baltic pipeline. While absence of rules in policy - is even worse, than its immorality which has rules though they do not coincide with moral principles.

As a result of Putin’s presidency Russia having won formally somewhere lost fundamentally. The fact that ostensibly the Europe depends on Russia by means of energy can be treated vise versa: Russia-supplier depends on these deliveries in percentage connection more than the Europe-consumer.  

Instead of Russia, really becoming more strongly, would receive as the answer more regardful attitude to itself, the attitude to it became worse. For the last few years unpredictability of Russia which besides tries to impose the West its internal "original" ideas about policy, right and business, has extremely tired everybody

Last one-two years became the period of missed opportunities. We shall not speak about economic situation exclusively favorable for Russia. There will be in the USA for the nearest years no other proRussian president such as Bush. There never will be in the Europe so many proRussian politicians being simultaneously in power.

It is difficult to imagine that in the Kremlin after 2008 will appear a person capable practically alone to make the decisions which will define fundamental turns of the Russian policy, lean on fantastic ratings of trust of people and, generally speaking, accepted in the West. Alas, almost all these benefits appeared to be not used. Russia has already become not so much the country of "sovereign democracy" but a field of opposition of several groups with own, first of all purely material interests. Asperity of their struggle will be growing in 2007.

It is partly good, for it will interfere with monopolization of authority. But it means that again nobody will think of strategy of the development of the country, what will be with it and its people in one-two decades. What can be said about the future of the country when it’s necessary to divide money right now.

Nobody asks a question "Who are you, Mr. Putin?" for a long time already. And Mr. Putin himself, probably, does not know the answer to it. It is clear today only that Vladimir Putin having stayed for so many years the president did not become the politician.