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",
"Democracy"
]
}Source: Getty
The Virtual President
Under Russian President Medvedev, the Kremlin’s efforts to develop and execute concrete solutions to Russia’s many challenges have been replaced by a constant stream of polemical sound bites and vague slogans.
Source: The Moscow Times

This deluge of polemical sound bites has underscored the fact that Medvedev has not offered concrete solutions for the most difficult challenges facing Russia today. Instead, he only offers vague slogans while proposing overly ambitious projects in areas that would ordinarily fall under the authority of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.
The country’s numerous political analysts compete with one another to come up with accurate interpretations of what this or that statement by the president and prime minister means for Russian and world politics. A perfect example is the Valdai Club, designed to give our top leaders the opportunity to make seemingly meaningful — but in reality very empty — statements for consumption by the international community.
I don’t want to become just one more observer giving his opinion of Medvedev’s curious statement that the system of appointing governors is democratic, that it is appropriate for Russia and that it will remain in place for the next 100 years. Instead, I will risk making a diagnosis of the country’s political system.
I think these signs indicate that the Kremlin is both nervous and uncertain. The Kremlin realizes that it must finally do something to correct the situation but is unable and unwilling to do so. This realization is a break from its former state of self-complacency.
Two factors are compounding the problem — the desire of the authorities to preserve their high popularity ratings at any cost, and the paralysis of government officials who cannot take action without approval from the top.
When Putin moved from the Kremlin to the White House, he took all of the authority with him. The result is that while something is being accomplished in the economic sphere, the political work of the Kremlin has ground to a halt.
Medvedev has said the country is so burdened by bureaucracy that nobody lifts a finger until he gives the order to act. But at the same time, he draws the surprising conclusion that the political system is functioning well.
The hyperactivity on the analyst front is nothing but a meaningless jumble of empty political signals, proposals and conjecture issuing from the ever-shifting political landscape. It represents a crippled system in which idle boyars and economically crippled, servile oligarchs kowtow to their powerless and passive king.
This is Russia’s latest risky experiment: the attempt to carry out Medvedev’s transition from a relatively unknown political figure to the country’s chief executive. Were it not for the crisis, the experiment might even be amusing. Under the current circumstances, however, it is a disaster waiting to happen.
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 Endowment for International Peace
- Will Russia–Armenia Relations Improve Following Pashinyan’s Re-Election?Commentary
For all the menacing rhetoric, the Armenian prime minister remains a leader with whom Putin is prepared to interact: not as an ally, but as a partner, albeit a problematic one.
Alexander Atasuntsev
- The World According to Putin: No Deal on Ukraine in SightCommentary
The issue is not that the president only has selective information at his disposal, but that the decision-making process consists of one person with an unshakeable vision of how the world works.
Tatiana Stanovaya
- Senegal’s Debt Crisis Has Moved Its Leaders from Partners to RivalsCommentary
The impacts of the Faye-Sonko rupture could go well beyond the country’s borders.
Lesley Anne Warner
- Post-U.S. International Democracy Support: Aspiration in Search of SubstancePaper
The reinvention of democracy support needs to be carried forward without the clear leadership of one dominant player.
Richard Youngs, Thomas Carothers
- Orbán, Fidesz, and Hungary’s Populist Foreign PolicyPaper
Hungary under Viktor Orbán deployed right-wing populism as a foreign policy strategy, embedding the country in a web of illiberal transnational networks whose legacy will endure even after his April 2026 electoral defeat.
Zsuzsanna Végh