President Putin has a master manipulator's talent for keeping his country guessing. Speculation about his successor, to be chosen in the presidential election in March, has for months been gathering intensity, but when the future seems clear Mr Putin utters another Delphic remark that throws everything awry. Yesterday, he told state television that he “completely and fully” endorsed the candidacy of the 42-year-old Dmitry Medvedev, a deputy Prime Minister seen as one of Mr Putin's closest political allies. Given Mr Putin's extraordinary popularity, this long-awaited expression of support is likely to make Mr Medvedev's election a foregone conclusion provided there are no other presidential endorsements. If so, this is probably good news for Russia and good news for the outside world.

Mr Medvedev and Sergei Ivanov, also a first Deputy Prime Minister, have long been the two frontrunners. Both owe their rise to links with Mr Putin during his days in the local government of St Petersburg, and both are part of his inner circle. But, in temperament and appeal, the two are very different. Mr Ivanov is, like Mr Putin, a former KGB operative, with a base in the so-called power ministries — Russia's defence, security and interior networks. Mr Medvedev has no obvious links to the KGB, is a former law professor and chairman of the state-controlled gas giant Gazprom. He describes himself as a pragmatist who rejects political labels — though he has also said that he feels closer to liberal ideas of democracy and the free market.

Both men would continue the style and legacy of Mr Putin. But Mr Ivanov would almost certainly place more emphasis on the hawkish aspects of his rule: the assertive foreign policy, the clamp-down on the press, opposition parties and non-governmental organisations, and the continued dependence on Russia's security apparatus. The softly spoken Mr Medvedev, by contrast, has more experience of international business and the outside world, is seen as a consensus-builder and once said that his foreign policy views were “European” (not perfect, but an improvement). He also has the domestic advantage of having been responsible for “national projects”, including health, education and housing, areas of great concern to Russian voters.

Mr Putin's apparent endorsement could be another ruse to ensure that he is not seen as a lame duck before he leaves office. He has already wrongfooted schemers by appointing the elderly and little known Viktor Zubkov as Prime Minister in September, a move that seemed to dash Mr Ivanov's hopes for early anointment. A month later he hinted that he would himself take the job of Prime Minister, triggering speculation that the next President would be only a figurehead, with Mr Putin returning mid-term. Now he seems to have confirmed Mr Medvedev in the lead — though next week he could also approve an Ivanov candidacy to give Russia a “choice”.

In the Machiavellian world of Kremlin politics, however, what matters most are connections. Mr Medvedev has no powerbase apart from Mr Putin, thus confirming his continued influence. That is the scenario Mr Putin himself and most of the country seem to prefer. It may be, in this murky world, that Mr Putin in fact is less able to appoint his successor than supposed. But a Medvedev presidency should allow Russia to get over the increasingly strident nationalism of the Putin era and exercise a more responsible role on the global stage.