Nikolay Petrov
{
"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
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.
Source: The Moscow Times

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
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.
- Moscow Elections: Winners and LosersCommentary
- September 8 Election As a New Phase of the Society and Authorities' CoevolutionCommentary
Nikolay Petrov
Recent Work
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
- Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?Commentary
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, ed.
- The EU Needs a Third Way in IranCommentary
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
- Can Europe Still Matter in Syria?Commentary
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
- Europolis, Where Europe EndsCommentary
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
- Europe Falls Behind in the South Caucasus Connectivity RaceCommentary
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