• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "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",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

Moscow Losing Clout in the Regions

The recent changes made to Russia’s regional leadership shows that neither Medvedev’s presidency nor the financial crisis has changed the Kremlin’s approach in appointing ‘strongman’ regional leaders. But it also shows that the range of opportunities open to the Kremlin to reform the regions has narrowed significantly.

Link Copied
By Nikolay Petrov
Published on Oct 28, 2008

Source: The Moscow Times

After a long quiet spell, the Kremlin has made several personnel changes affecting both regional heads and Moscow's relationship with the regions. These include the removal of the governor of the Amur region, the disclosure of a shortlist of candidates for the head of Khakasia and the appointment of a new regional development minister.

The resignation of Amur Governor Nikolai Kolesov was long expected. The entire local political elite was opposed to his appointment 15 months ago, when he came to the job from Kazan without any knowledge of the Amur region and without any administrative experience. Kamil Iskhako, former presidential envoy to the Far East Federal District, had lobbied for Kolesov's appointment, but when he left office a year ago, Iskhakov could no longer cover for his political protege. The relatively small region six time zones east of Moscow holds the honor of changing more governors -- and under more scandalous circumstances -- than any other in Russia. It is interesting to note that this "interloper," Kolesov, was traded for another one, Oleg Kozhemyako, who hails from the Far East and once headed the Koryak autonomous region. The conventional thinking is that with Kozhemyako at the helm, the Amur region -- previously under the informal control of the Khabarovsk region -- will now come under the Primorye region's sway.

Two names are noteworthy on the short list of candidates for the head of Khakasia: incumbent Alexei Lebed, who for the last three years seemed to have no political future at all, and former head of the Evenkia autonomous district Boris Zolotaryov, who currently heads the Krasnoyarsk 2020 project and is the leading figure proposing that Khakasia merge with the Krasnoyarsk region. It is hard to determine which is riskier in this case: leaving an ineffective governor with close ties to Basic Element in office at a time when Russia teeters on the brink of a national economic crisis or provoking a political crisis by taking the unprecedented step of stripping an autonomous region of its status.

Putin's decision to move Dmitry Kozak from the post of regional development minister to deputy prime minister in charge of preparations for the 2014 Sochi Olympic Games is important for several reasons.

First, it shows that Putin does not fully realize how bad the economic situation has become if he is willing to move one of his most effective administrators to a far less important job fraught with greater potential hazards.

Second, it is a clear signal that the Kremlin's promise to strengthen its activity in the regions will not take place. It apparently also means that Moscow plans to shelve a series of important regional investment projects that Kozak had headed, including the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in Vladivostok, which would have boosted Russia's image internationally.

The recent reshuffling in the regions indicates that the Kremlin's approach has not changed -- either as a result of Dmitry Medvedev's presidency or of the current financial crisis. At the same time, the range of opportunities open to the Kremlin has narrowed significantly. Following its transition to a confrontational stance with the West, Moscow is in no condition to initiate modernization in the social sphere, much less to modernize the archaic regimes of its "strongman" regional leaders. This suggests, among other things, that when the office terms for a number of these regional leaders expire this year, Moscow will not have the necessary political muscle to push them aside and install new heads.

Therefore, the possibility cannot be ruled out that Tatarstan leader Mintimer Shaimiyev and Mayor Yury Luzhkov, along with a number of other political heavyweights, will either retain their posts or pass them on to successors of their own choosing, and not of the Kremlin's.

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 ReformForeign PolicyCaucasusRussia

Carnegie India 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 India

  • Paper
    Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with China

    After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.

      Saheb Singh Chadha

  • Article
    Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026

    This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.

      Vrinda Sahai

  • Article
    India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible Pathways

    A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.

      Rajiv Bhatia

  • Commentary
    Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTA

    The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead

      Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki

  • India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era
    Research
    India and a Changing Global Order: Foreign Policy in the Trump 2.0 Era

    Trump 2.0 has unsettled India’s external environment—but has not overturned its foreign policy strategy, which continues to rely on diversification, hedging, and calibrated partnerships across a fractured order.

      • Sameer Lalwani
      • +6

      Milan Vaishnav, ed., Sameer Lalwani, Tanvi Madan, …

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.