Last week’s big news was president Putin’s sharp criticism of the United States at the Munich security conference and his shuffling around of defense minister Ivanov. As to the first, personally, I commend Putin for his remarks. He made many strong arguments about double standards which the United States has set up in the international arena. Having said that however, I couldn’t help but wonder about two things. 1) Why did Putin decide to make such a politically faux pas speech now? and 2) Why did he not present any suggestions about what the U.S. should do to make things right? Only Mr. Putin knows the answers to both of these questions, but here’s how I see it.
1) The Munich speech was his answer to U.S. defense secretary Heitz’s statement earlier last week, which lumped Russia as a potential threat together with “the mighty axis of evil” nations of North Korea and Iran (who wouldn’t be pissed?). Another (not mutually exclusive) possibility is that Putin, who is nearing the end of his second term later this year, wants to leave behind a legacy of a powerful leader who is not afraid to speak his mind and show that he still carries considerable international clout. Of course, a third possibility is that he might have just wanted to stick it to the U.S. and did it just because “he can,” knowing that nothing short of some strong American denounciations and long faces would come of it.
2) The main problem that I have with his speech is that he did not present any solutions. One might argue that his intent was to expose the U.S.’s faults and not to address the underlying problems. One might be right to do so. However, while it is of course not his obligation to offer solutions, it is always easier to criticize than to come up with solutions. In this spirit, if one starts criticizing Putin’s policies, one might come up with a long litany of complaints ranging from the undemocratic appointment of governors to the stifling of freedom of the press, non-governmental organizations (especially if they happen to be foreign), and dissident activists just to name a few.
One of Putin’s favorite examples appears to be that no one, not even the United States, has the right to force its kind of democracy onto another nation. American democracy-building in Iraq admittedly has proven to be an abysmal failure, at least in the short term. However, Mr. Putin seems to confuse a well-intentioned but poorly implemented “forced democracy” with the more noble ideal of a “liberal democracy,” one which embodies basic human rights such as rights to due process, privacy, property and equality before the law, and freedoms of speech, assembly and religion (many of which are severely lacking in Russia). A key element of such a democracy is the emphasis on the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals, and constraints on the powers of the leaders. It’s easy to criticize the U.S. in the wake of the Iraqi quagmire, but as well-founded as that criticism may be, Mr. Putin has only to look at his own quagmire in Chechnya to see that noble and lofty democratic plans do not always proceed as intended.
Moving on to the reappointment of former defense minister Ivanov to the position of first vice premier, some have suggested that this is a “step up” for the former minister. More precisely, that he is now on equal footing with his main competitor for the Russian presidency in 2008 - the other first vice premier Dmitrii Myedvyedyev. Ivanov and Myedvyedyev are the two current favorites for president. Ivanov, who is seen as the more authoritarian and pro-nationalist of the two, stands in stark contrast to Myedvedyev, who is more western and liberal in his approach. Both Ivanov and Myedvedyadyev are the two favorite candidates for “preeyemneek,” literally, one who accepts authority from the former ruler, a term president Putin clearly dislikes because of its undemocratic implications.
Some have viewed Putin’s reappointment of Ivanov as an attempt to distance the former minister from the negative publicity surrounding the army. Recent scandals include the beating into a comma of private Syechyov by his superiors and the subsequent cover-up. The incident, which was widely covered by the media and drew public outcries, reflected the well-known army practice of “dyedovshheena,” or hazing, which has been around for most of the army’s existence. It also publicly exposed the worst fear of every mother in Russia who, unless she is fortunate enough to know the right people or can bribe her way through the appropriate officials, dreads the day when her son turns 18 and is drafted into the army.
Pundits may try to guess whether Ivanov’s reappointment is a promotion, a demotion or just a strategical maneuver on Putin’s part, but true motives behind the president’s decision will for now remain speculation. Interestingly, some have suggested that Ivanov’s replacement, Anatolii Syerdyukov, whose last name literally means “the angry one,” is the new “preeyemneek.” Little is known about Syerdyukov, though what is known has raised a few eyebrows and has served as fodder for political satirists.
Anatolii Syerdyukov was the former head of the Ministry for the Collection of Taxes in St. Petersburg. He was instrumental in making the government’s case against “Yukos,” the oil company formerly headed by the presently incarcerated Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Syerdyukov thus proved his loyalty to Putin, goes the logic. Prior to becoming head of the Tax Collection Agency, Syerdyukov worked his way up the chain of command in a furniture company, becoming director of marketing in 1995 and keeping the position until 2000, when he relieved his father-in-law as the head of the Tax Collection Agency. This hardly seems the career path of a defense minister, let alone the president, but we are talking about Russia, where given the right connections, anything is possible.
Admittedly, the role of defense minister in Russia is more managerial than tactical, and the administration’s supporters point to the fact that Syerdyukov was appointed to manage the army’s budget rather than to make strategic decisions which are the domain of the head military general. Syerdyukov has not made any public statements as of yet, and as of yesterday news reports announced that he has not yet been brought up to speed on many key briefings because he is still awaiting the appropriate clearance.
I’d like to leave you with an excerpt from Viktor Shenderovich’s program “Melted Cheese.” Here, Shenderovich compared the credentials of Syerdyukkov and Heitz for the position of defense minister of a major military superpower.
“Robert Michael Heitz - defended PhD thesis focusing on the history of Russia and USSR in Georgetown.
Anatolii Eduardovich Syerdyukov - graduated from the Leningrad Institute of Soviet Trade.
Robert Michael Heitz: from 1986 - 1989 - assistant to the the director of the CIA.
Anatolii Eduardovich Syerdyukov - assistant to the head of the furniture section store #3 “Lenmebel’torg”
Robert Michael Heitz: from 1989 - assisstant to presidential advisor of homeland security.
Anatolii Eduardovich Syerdyukov: from 1991 to 1993 - assistant director in charge of commercial section of “Lenmebel’torg”
Disclaimer: Though a native speaker of Russian, I am not a professional translator and do not
guarantee the accuracy of my translations. I am not affiliated with any organization and the opinions expressed
on this blog are strictly my own.
Tags:
Defense Minister,
Munich Conference,
Putin,
Russia,
U.S. Military Policy
Trackback URL for this entry.
Add to:
Blink It | |
Digg it |
My Google |
My AOL |
Reddit |
Spurl |
Y! MyWeb
RSS Feed
Write a comment