• Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Europe logoCarnegie lettermark logo
EUUkraine
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Nikolay Petrov"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Caucasus",
    "Russia"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Political Reform"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

Taking the Hit for Putin

Dmitry Medvedev's recent surge in official activity is simply a PR ploy to shift focus away from Vladimir Putin as Russia's financial crisis deepens. It does not indicate any serious political or personal changes.

Link Copied
By Nikolay Petrov
Published on Mar 3, 2009

Source: The Moscow Times

Taking the Hit for PutinThe sharp increase in President Dmitry Medvedev's activity over the last couple of weeks resembles his election campaign a year ago. Those recent activities include: his meetings with representatives of the Interior Ministry, the Federal Security Service and the Prosecutor General's Office; his "fire-side chats" shown on television; his replacement of four governors; and his announcement that the dialogue between the president and the governors will be expanded and become more frequent. In addition, Medvedev announced that he will beef up his reserve of future leaders, met with foreign leaders and traveled throughout the regions. It seems that Medvedev's hyperactivity is placing Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in the shadow of the country's political life.

Medvedev is "inflating" his political presence in the same way that gypsies would "inflate" a horse before putting it up for sale. It is obvious that the surge in activity is mostly PR and does not indicate any serious political or personal changes. For example, the announcement of a presidential staffing reserve of about 100 people does not mean that those are "Medvedev's people" or that Medvedev plans to suddenly replace officials installed by then-President Putin.

In addition, the real reason Medvedev replaced the governors in the Voronezh, Orlov and Pskov regions as well as the Nenets autonomous district is to better control the increase in the governors' independence.

The current round of appointments completely dispels the myth of the advent of younger and more energetic politicians, which many had hoped for when Medvedev announced the appointment of 33-year-old Nikita Belykh as the governor of Kirov. He was considered to be Medvedev's personal candidate. This is a typical Putin-style castling move in which an official from one agency is moved to a gubernatorial post. But in the regions during a period of crisis, where a leader's knowledge of the local situation often outweighs his image, changing the governor over a question of his style could only make the situation worse. It appears to be positively dangerous for the Kremlin, in the midst of an economic crisis, to remove governors it finds displeasing for one reason or another and replace them with people who have no experience in that region.

Recent surveys indicate that the few people who one year ago believed that Medvedev would be the country's actual -- and not merely nominal -- leader has now dropped by half. At the same time, the ratings for the Medvedev-Putin team remain high. That is the only basis for political stability. But if Putin and Medvedev do nothing to strengthen the country's political institutions, the entire system will effectively depend on keeping those ratings at a relatively high level. In that, not only the president and prime minister have a vested interest, but so does the entire political elite.

If you were to imagine that those ratings suddenly fell like the ruble, it would turn out that neither the State Duma nor the Federation Council as they now exist hold any real authority or influence and cannot provide the country with political stability. How can Putin hold onto his high ratings in the midst of a worsening economic crisis? It is possible that Medvedev's frenetic schedule in recent weeks is one attempt at resolving that problem. Putin has to be somehow saved from the blow, pulled to the side so as to remove any hint of his being responsible for the negative consequences of the crisis. The only way to do that is to put someone else's head on the chopping block. But now the country is faced with another problem: Who can rule the country besides Putin?

This comment first appeared in The Moscow Times

About the Author

Nikolay Petrov

Former Scholar-in-Residence, Society and Regions Program, Moscow Center

Nikolay Petrov was the chair of the Carnegie Moscow Center’s Society and Regions Program. Until 2006, he also worked at the Institute of Geography at the Russian Academy of Sciences, where he started to work in 1982.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Moscow Elections: Winners and Losers

      Nikolay Petrov

  • Commentary
    September 8 Election As a New Phase of the Society and Authorities' Coevolution

      Nikolay Petrov

Nikolay Petrov
Former Scholar-in-Residence, Society and Regions Program, Moscow Center
Nikolay Petrov
Political ReformCaucasusRussia

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?

    French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?

      • Rym Momtaz

      Rym Momtaz, ed.

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    The EU Needs a Third Way in Iran

    European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.

      Richard Youngs

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Can Europe Still Matter in Syria?

    Europe’s interests in Syria extend beyond migration management, yet the EU trails behind other players in the country’s post-Assad reconstruction. To boost its influence in Damascus, the union must upgrade its commitment to ensuring regional stability.

      Bianka Speidl, Hanga Horváth-Sántha

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europolis, Where Europe Ends

    A prophetic Romanian novel about a town at the mouth of the Danube carries a warning: Europe decays when it stops looking outward. In a world of increasing insularity, the EU should heed its warning.

      Thomas de Waal

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Europe Falls Behind in the South Caucasus Connectivity Race

    The EU lacks leadership and strategic planning in the South Caucasus, while the United States is leading the charge. To secure its geopolitical interests, Brussels must invest in new connectivity for the region.

      Zaur Shiriyev

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
Carnegie Europe logo, white
Rue du Congrès, 151000 Brussels, Belgium
  • Research
  • Strategic Europe
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Gender Equality Plan
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Europe
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.