Project "ZZ". Putin will not leave. And do not expect!
Neither in the USA nor in Europe do not doubt: March 18 Russians will elect Putin again. Observers find the upcoming voting theater of the absurd. Others say that the “dictator of a light weight category” cannot leave his post, because he believes that his personal survival and the survival of Russia are a single whole. Other Western historians specializing in Russia are confident that Putin will be in office as much as he himself will need.
Will Vladimir Putin ever leave the Kremlin? Can she? Even if you want?
Tunku Varadarajan tried to answer this question in "The Wall Street Journal".
The results of the upcoming elections, the author believes, are “known in advance.” And it is not for nothing that Stephen Kotkin (Stephen Kotkin) notes that Putin’s re-election is “predetermined”. This is "an extra testimony of the Russian disastrous stagnation."
Kotkin - a historian specializing in Russia, the author of the book "Stalin: in anticipation of Hitler, 1929-1941". This is the second book of the three-volume “biography of the Soviet dictator,” the author of the article indicates. In comparison with Stalin, the current Putin is “a dictator of light weight category”. Kotkin does not even bother to compare them: there is no sense in equating Putin to Stalin, for the Soviet Union, which Stalin ruled to death, embodied control "over one-sixth of the land on the planet", and this is not to mention the satellite countries in Europe, and in Asia. The communist parties conducted their affairs in many countries that carried out the will of the USSR, in France, in Italy, even in the USA. In addition, at the peak of development, in 1980's, the economy of the USSR was powerful: it accounted for about a third of the American economy. Today, the Russian economy is 1 / 15 of the American economy. Russia is very weak, the historian believes, and it "continues to weaken." Recently, it was in eighth place among the strongest world economies, but now "occupies not the twelfth, not the thirteenth place" (these "places" depend on the evaluation criteria). If Putin will stay in the Kremlin for a couple more terms, the historian sneers, then Russia "will no longer be able to get into the top twenty."
The Russian situation seems to Kotkin not quite normal. The historian singles out from Russia "the desire for a special mission in the world," which is the basis of the national culture. And the “Putin regime” is the heir to such a mission. Therefore, Putin can’t take it so easily.
By the way, Russia is not the only one. Of the major powers, the United States and China also feel the “predestination from God” now.
But if Russia has a special mission, it is unable to realize it, Kotkin is convinced. Moscow has already come to terms with the rise of Beijing. But the West ... Kotkin says that Putin’s tactic is aimed at “accelerating the process of decomposition of the West.” Putin did not "crack the elections in the United States," but "hacked into American social discourse." Moscow discredited H. Clinton and at the same time American democracy through the flow of compromising material.
Apparently, Putin admits that Russia can only survive "to the detriment of the West." This Kotkin explained and Putin's particular patriotism. In addition to believing in exclusivity, Putin’s version of patriotism is built on the “survival of his personal regime.” Its survival and the survival of the country are "one and the same." Only such a vision “corresponds to the long-term interests” of Russia is hardly ironic to the historian.
The union of personal and non-personal puts Russia in a "vicious circle" and condemns to stagnation. Evidence is more than enough. Russia is characterized by a marked reduction in human capital. According to Kotkin, from 5 to 10 of millions of Russians today live outside the borders of the former USSR. And these are prosperous people: they receive about twenty percent more abroad than the average income of citizens of those countries that turned out to be the final destination for the Russians who have moved. The historian says that these people are talented, educated and enterprising. He personally knows some: they work at Princeton University.
Putin will certainly win the March 18 election, the historian believes. Hence the question: will not Putin, like Stalin, remain the head of state to death?
The answer should be: Vladimir Putin "will remain in the Kremlin as much time as he needs, if only he is not killed during the coup d'état."
Does Putin have a choice? The historian strongly doubts this. Will Putin be able to leave if he wants to? Hardly: after all, he himself overly personified his regime. And autocratic regimes often became victims of their own "successes." They successfully suppressed dissent in their countries, and that meant how poorly they knew their people. And Putin is unlikely to go "peacefully" to rest: in fact, he is the leader of the "faction" that controls "power and wealth" in the country. "Fractions" need Putin to remain at the helm: in this way its members will preserve their wealth.
Christian Esch wrote for the German edition "Der Spiegel" the material is under the catchy headline: “Das System Putin”. He writes about the same thing about which the previous author, whose material is considered in the review: March 18 will be held in Russia elections, and the “new president” will again be the current one. For almost two decades, Putin "completely subjugated" Russia to himself, and the upcoming vote was "the most absurd."
During the eighteen years of his reign, Putin "truly merged with his own country." And "the elections of Russia are not required." The corresponding opinion, says Ash, "Putin himself is sticking to it." After all, he "never participated" in the election debate.
“Stability” and “national pride” are the promises of the “Putin system”. Instruments to achieve "stability" elected "lies and force." There is no notorious feeling of stability. In Putin’s last term, the ruble lost half its value against the euro, and real incomes of the population have been falling for four years. According to open official data, twenty-two million Russian people languish in poverty. And Putin himself is no longer the same: he changed in the 2012 year, because he was frightened by the street protests that preceded his return to the Kremlin. Then the Kremlin’s political opponents were declared “internal enemies”, “fifth column”, “foreign agents”. The Putin System has become both populist and repressive. Populism is especially noticeable in foreign policy: the Crimea, Syria, and others. Russian citizens can be proud of the country's greatness, however, precisely at the expense of the aforementioned “stability”, including due to the level of personal well-being.
It would be good for the Russian economy to undergo modernization, but how? There is no reform or investment in the education system. And still prevents isolation from the West. "Silicon Valley" in Skolkovo simply did not take place, it is an architectural imitation, and sometimes a "springboard" for those who seek to leave the country and rush to the West.
This is Putin’s tragedy: it preserves its own power and thereby prevents alternative development options. Such actions, Putin, says Ash, knocks the ground out from under the feet of both the opposition and his own supporters.
With such a “strategy” Putin is hindering the most important thing - the development of Russia after Putin.
Putin's trouble is that he found himself indispensable.
Russia found itself in a maze of "stability." Apparently, Putin himself does not know the way out. At least, such a conclusion can be made after exploring the views of Western experts.
Observing a foreign country, its election campaign, foreign experts in Russia do not see in it the very bright future that the Soviet general secretaries once called upon. AND historical They have reason for this: if after the Brezhnev “stagnation” the USSR existed for only a few years, how long will Russia survive after Putin's “stability”, which, according to other analysts, does not live now, but “survives”?
However, we will object to Western experts and historians by the mere fact that the people in Russia elect the president. Democracy! If the people's trust in Putin still stands high, it means that he has earned his right to be president. And be him again and again. We ourselves want this, right?
Will Vladimir Putin ever leave the Kremlin? Can she? Even if you want?
Tunku Varadarajan tried to answer this question in "The Wall Street Journal".
The results of the upcoming elections, the author believes, are “known in advance.” And it is not for nothing that Stephen Kotkin (Stephen Kotkin) notes that Putin’s re-election is “predetermined”. This is "an extra testimony of the Russian disastrous stagnation."
Kotkin - a historian specializing in Russia, the author of the book "Stalin: in anticipation of Hitler, 1929-1941". This is the second book of the three-volume “biography of the Soviet dictator,” the author of the article indicates. In comparison with Stalin, the current Putin is “a dictator of light weight category”. Kotkin does not even bother to compare them: there is no sense in equating Putin to Stalin, for the Soviet Union, which Stalin ruled to death, embodied control "over one-sixth of the land on the planet", and this is not to mention the satellite countries in Europe, and in Asia. The communist parties conducted their affairs in many countries that carried out the will of the USSR, in France, in Italy, even in the USA. In addition, at the peak of development, in 1980's, the economy of the USSR was powerful: it accounted for about a third of the American economy. Today, the Russian economy is 1 / 15 of the American economy. Russia is very weak, the historian believes, and it "continues to weaken." Recently, it was in eighth place among the strongest world economies, but now "occupies not the twelfth, not the thirteenth place" (these "places" depend on the evaluation criteria). If Putin will stay in the Kremlin for a couple more terms, the historian sneers, then Russia "will no longer be able to get into the top twenty."
The Russian situation seems to Kotkin not quite normal. The historian singles out from Russia "the desire for a special mission in the world," which is the basis of the national culture. And the “Putin regime” is the heir to such a mission. Therefore, Putin can’t take it so easily.
By the way, Russia is not the only one. Of the major powers, the United States and China also feel the “predestination from God” now.
But if Russia has a special mission, it is unable to realize it, Kotkin is convinced. Moscow has already come to terms with the rise of Beijing. But the West ... Kotkin says that Putin’s tactic is aimed at “accelerating the process of decomposition of the West.” Putin did not "crack the elections in the United States," but "hacked into American social discourse." Moscow discredited H. Clinton and at the same time American democracy through the flow of compromising material.
Apparently, Putin admits that Russia can only survive "to the detriment of the West." This Kotkin explained and Putin's particular patriotism. In addition to believing in exclusivity, Putin’s version of patriotism is built on the “survival of his personal regime.” Its survival and the survival of the country are "one and the same." Only such a vision “corresponds to the long-term interests” of Russia is hardly ironic to the historian.
The union of personal and non-personal puts Russia in a "vicious circle" and condemns to stagnation. Evidence is more than enough. Russia is characterized by a marked reduction in human capital. According to Kotkin, from 5 to 10 of millions of Russians today live outside the borders of the former USSR. And these are prosperous people: they receive about twenty percent more abroad than the average income of citizens of those countries that turned out to be the final destination for the Russians who have moved. The historian says that these people are talented, educated and enterprising. He personally knows some: they work at Princeton University.
Putin will certainly win the March 18 election, the historian believes. Hence the question: will not Putin, like Stalin, remain the head of state to death?
The answer should be: Vladimir Putin "will remain in the Kremlin as much time as he needs, if only he is not killed during the coup d'état."
Does Putin have a choice? The historian strongly doubts this. Will Putin be able to leave if he wants to? Hardly: after all, he himself overly personified his regime. And autocratic regimes often became victims of their own "successes." They successfully suppressed dissent in their countries, and that meant how poorly they knew their people. And Putin is unlikely to go "peacefully" to rest: in fact, he is the leader of the "faction" that controls "power and wealth" in the country. "Fractions" need Putin to remain at the helm: in this way its members will preserve their wealth.
Christian Esch wrote for the German edition "Der Spiegel" the material is under the catchy headline: “Das System Putin”. He writes about the same thing about which the previous author, whose material is considered in the review: March 18 will be held in Russia elections, and the “new president” will again be the current one. For almost two decades, Putin "completely subjugated" Russia to himself, and the upcoming vote was "the most absurd."
During the eighteen years of his reign, Putin "truly merged with his own country." And "the elections of Russia are not required." The corresponding opinion, says Ash, "Putin himself is sticking to it." After all, he "never participated" in the election debate.
“Stability” and “national pride” are the promises of the “Putin system”. Instruments to achieve "stability" elected "lies and force." There is no notorious feeling of stability. In Putin’s last term, the ruble lost half its value against the euro, and real incomes of the population have been falling for four years. According to open official data, twenty-two million Russian people languish in poverty. And Putin himself is no longer the same: he changed in the 2012 year, because he was frightened by the street protests that preceded his return to the Kremlin. Then the Kremlin’s political opponents were declared “internal enemies”, “fifth column”, “foreign agents”. The Putin System has become both populist and repressive. Populism is especially noticeable in foreign policy: the Crimea, Syria, and others. Russian citizens can be proud of the country's greatness, however, precisely at the expense of the aforementioned “stability”, including due to the level of personal well-being.
It would be good for the Russian economy to undergo modernization, but how? There is no reform or investment in the education system. And still prevents isolation from the West. "Silicon Valley" in Skolkovo simply did not take place, it is an architectural imitation, and sometimes a "springboard" for those who seek to leave the country and rush to the West.
This is Putin’s tragedy: it preserves its own power and thereby prevents alternative development options. Such actions, Putin, says Ash, knocks the ground out from under the feet of both the opposition and his own supporters.
With such a “strategy” Putin is hindering the most important thing - the development of Russia after Putin.
Putin's trouble is that he found himself indispensable.
* * *
Russia found itself in a maze of "stability." Apparently, Putin himself does not know the way out. At least, such a conclusion can be made after exploring the views of Western experts.
Observing a foreign country, its election campaign, foreign experts in Russia do not see in it the very bright future that the Soviet general secretaries once called upon. AND historical They have reason for this: if after the Brezhnev “stagnation” the USSR existed for only a few years, how long will Russia survive after Putin's “stability”, which, according to other analysts, does not live now, but “survives”?
However, we will object to Western experts and historians by the mere fact that the people in Russia elect the president. Democracy! If the people's trust in Putin still stands high, it means that he has earned his right to be president. And be him again and again. We ourselves want this, right?
Information