A joke from Vladimir Putin’s first term finds him in despair at Russia’s
economy as the ghost of Josef Stalin appears in the Kremlin. When President
Putin asks for advice, Stalin tells him to shoot some government ministers
then paint the Kremlin walls blue.
“Why blue?” asks Mr Putin. Stalin replies: “I knew you’d ask about that part.”
Russia has a rich tradition of political anecdote but Mr Putin’s stern visage
raises few laughs, and jokes about the former KGB colonel remain rare.
Russia’s neighbours also find it increasingly hard to smile as a resurgent
Kremlin uses its new economic clout to flex its foreign policy muscles.
The power is easy to quantify. Russia earns $600 million (£300 million) a day
in revenues as the world’s biggest producer of oil and gas, much of it from
European Union countries increasingly dependent on Moscow for supplies.
Total income from exports of energy since Mr Putin took office in 2000 amounts
to $750 billion. He can boast that Russia’s economy has quintupled in value
since then from $250 billion to a predicted $1,250 billion by the time he
steps down after presidential elections next March.
Poverty remains widespread in the regions, but real incomes have doubled since
2000 and Russia’s petro-economy has fuelled a consumer boom for a growing
middle class in Moscow and other big cities.
To borrow a phrase, many Russians have never had it so good. Yet a little over
nine months before the Putin era draws to an end, the mood in Moscow is
defined by a resentful intolerant nationalism, driven by a perception that
Russia is under siege from hostile forces abroad.
European Union leaders admit that relations are worse than they have been for
years after last week’s acrimonious summit in Samara. President Bush muses
openly that democracy is withering away under Mr Putin amid talk of a new
Cold War.
Relations between London and Moscow, already tense, are under more strain over
Britain’s extradition request for a former KGB man accused of murdering
Alexander Litvinenko. The Kremlin retorts that Britain will not extradite
Boris Berezovsky, who boasted of a plot to overthrow Mr Putin.
Estonia, Ukraine, Lithuania, Georgia, Poland, and even friendly Belarus have
all felt the lash of Russian displeasure in the past 18 months over issues
ranging from meat imports to gas prices and allegations of spying.
Tiny Estonia, with a population of only 1.3 million, has been the most vivid
example of the Russian bear’s new assertiveness. It accused the Kremlin of
waging cyberwar against it after a Second World War monument to the Red Army
was moved from the centre of the capital, Tallinn, to a military cemetery.
In Moscow the Kremlin-backed youth organisation Nashi(“Ours”) laid
siege to the Estonian Embassy, prompting protests from the EU and Nato. The
dispute may have had a personal edge for Mr Putin. He once told interviewers
that his father had operated behind German lines in Estonia as part of an
NKVD sabotage unit.
The team completed its mission but was later betrayed by local Estonians. Mr
Putin recalled how his father hid in a bog to escape capture, breathing
through a reed as Nazi soldiers hunted for him with dogs.
An even bigger fallout looms over Kosovo as Russia digs in against plans
supported by the US and EU to grant independence from Serbia. Relations with
Nato are already in trouble over Mr Putin’s threat to abandon a key arms
control agreement in Europe.
Few expect next month’s G8 summit in Germany to go smoothly. The paradox
appears to be that as Russia grows richer, so it has become more sensitive
to perceived slights from abroad.
Masha Lipman, an analyst at the Carnegie Centre in Moscow, said that
antiWestern rhetoric was becoming the main election campaign message as the
Kremlin laid the ground for Mr Putin’s sucessor.
“It works well, projecting the sense that Russia is surrounded by enemies and
that it has no allies,” she said. “But now it has come down to this –
Russia doesn’t have any allies. The countries that Russia has come to terms
with recently are those that have no other place to go, like Uzbekistan.”
While the Kremlin had been responsible for much of the conflict, she said that
the West had failed to take into account the depth of humiliation felt by
Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. “Now that Russia is strong it
is taking advantage of differences within the EU and between Europe and the
US. But the West also underestimated how difficult that period was for
Russia psychologically,” she said.
She cites Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2004 as the turning point. As Russia
revived economically it expected that its former Soviet satellites would
remain within its sphere of influence.
When the EU and US backed Ukraine’s popular revolt in support of Viktor
Yushchenko against the fraudulent election of Moscow’s candidate for
president, Viktor Yanukovych, the Kremlin realised its mistake. “That’s when
it started to view the West as a rival. Russia is seeking to reassert itself
and is destroying trust because Russia does not trust anyone itself.”
Alexander Lebedev, a billionaire former KGB agent who spied on Britain from
the Soviet Embassy in London, rejects the image of an angry Russia slipping
into authoritarianism and lashing out at the West in a new Cold War.
“When I think about the Russian political system then I really make
comparisons with the Soviet Union. I can tell you that I was highly
antiCommunist, but I love my country,” he told The Times. “Both
sides are responding to each other in a fairly childish way. The top levels
of the EU, Russia and the US should not use the rhetoric that has become
characteristic lately.”
Mr Lebedev, 47, who is a member of the Duma – Russia’s parliament –
added: “Business has a completely different view. Most of the serious
companies from all over the world are very much interested in doing business
in Russia.”
For a population largely disconnected from power, the lost art of Kremlinology
is being revived to interpret who might follow Mr Putin. When the Federal
Security Service (FSB) announced that it had foiled a plot to assassinate
Valentina Matviyenko, the Governor of St Petersburg, sceptical newspapers
debated whether it was the start of a Kremlin campaign to promote her
candidacy.
Two unnamed men have been charged and the FSB let it be known that they were
converts to Islam, a detail intended to strike a chord with a population
scarred by acts of terrorism involving Chechen rebels.
Ms Matviyenko, 58, is a close ally of Mr Putin and Russia’s most prominent
woman politician. One theory goes that she would serve a single term as
president so that Mr Putin could return in 2012, while giving Russia a more
modern image abroad by having a woman as leader. Whoever Mr Putin backs is
likely to come from his home city of St Petersburg.
Sergei Ivanov’s promotion to joint-first Deputy Prime Minister in February was
viewed as a signal for state-controlled television to accord him equal
coverage with Dmitri Medvedev, the other main contender.
Mr Ivanov is regarded as the hawks’ candidate and shares the President’s
background as a former KGB spy. Mr Medvedev, 41, is a former lawyer and
academic who would be Russia’s youngest leader in almost a century.
Both are from St Petersburg, as is a possible dark-horse candidate, Sergei
Naryshkin, who was promoted from Cabinet chief of staff to Deputy Prime
Minister.
Mr Naryshkin, 52, is also said to be a former KGB agent and worked under Mr
Putin in the St Petersburg mayor’s office in the 1990s. His surname carries
aristocratic echoes for Russians.
Mr Putin has been fortunate. His presidency coincided with a huge windfall
from soaring oil prices, up from $18 a barrel in 1999 to nearly $72 now.
Chris Weafer, the chief strategist at Alfa Bank in Moscow, said that
demographic decline and rising public expectations would be critical issues
for Mr Putin’s successor. Russia’s working population is predicted to
fall by ten million within seven years, posing huge economic challenges.
Mr Weafer said that the wealth gap remained dangerously high, with the richest
Russians earning 13 times more than the poorest. The World Bank defined a
wealth gap greater than ten times as unsustainable.
“The base for everybody has been rising on the back of oil flows but it is not
going to rise at the same rate in future. If it fails to meet expectations
then it could be a source of discontent,” he said.
Ms Lipman said that the oil bonanza fed public apathy towards politics and the
succession because “there is enough for everyone”.
“The future doesn’t depend on the personalities so much as on how long there
will be enough cash to keep the Russian people content and the elites from
really vicious clashes,” she said. “Right now that is a very important
factor in preventing the country sliding deeper into authoritarianism.”
THE NAMES
Sergei Ivanov, 54 Ex-spy and Putin’s deputy at FSB. Former Defence
Minister, now first Deputy Prime Minister. The hardliners’ choice. Chances:
8/10
Dmitri Medvedev, 41 Lawyer. Viewed as heir apparent when Putin created
post of first Deputy Prime Minister in 2005. Has lost ground to Ivanov.
Chances: 7/10
Sergei Naryshkin, 52 Controls much government business as Deputy Prime
Minister and chief of staff. Chances: 5/10.
Valentina Matviyenko, 58 Flamboyant Governor of St Petersburg and
Russia’s most powerful female politician. Could be Putin’s stop-gap before
he returns in 2012. Chances: 4/10.
Vladimir Yakunin, 58President of Russian Railways. Heads Kremlin-backed
foundation dedicated to reviving national glory. Chances: 4/10.
Vladimir Putin, 54Insists he will respect constitutional ban on a third
term. Chances: 2/10.
