• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • 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",
    "Democracy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

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President Medvedev, the Kremlin’s efforts to develop and execute concrete solutions to Russia’s many challenges have been replaced by a constant stream of polemical sound bites and vague slogans.

Link Copied
By Nikolay Petrov
Published on Sep 29, 2009

Source: The Moscow Times

The Virtual PresidentOur leaders and political analysts have been very active in recent weeks. We had the Valdai Club, the global security forum in Yaroslavl, President Dmitry Medvedev’s “Go, Russia!” article and provocative statements made by the president’s first deputy chief of staff, Vladislav Surkov, and the head of the Institute of Contemporary Development, Igor Yurgens.

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

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 ReformDemocracyCaucasusRussia

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

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Will Russia–Armenia Relations Improve Following Pashinyan’s Re-Election?

    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

      Alexander Atasuntsev

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The World According to Putin: No Deal on Ukraine in Sight

    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

  • two men sitting next to each other
    Commentary
    Emissary
    Senegal’s Debt Crisis Has Moved Its Leaders from Partners to Rivals

    The impacts of the Faye-Sonko rupture could go well beyond the country’s borders.

      • Dr. Lesley Anne Warner

      Lesley Anne Warner

  • Participants in the 4th Meeting 'In Defense of Democracy' | Pool Moncloa/Fernando Calvo
    Paper
    Post-U.S. International Democracy Support: Aspiration in Search of Substance

    The reinvention of democracy support needs to be carried forward without the clear leadership of one dominant player.

      Richard Youngs, Thomas Carothers

  • Viktor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, speaks during a campaign rally of the governing Fidesz Party in Pecel, Hungary, on March 28. The rally is part of the Prime Minister's nationwide campaign trail before the Hungarian General Election scheduled for April 12.
    Paper
    Orbán, Fidesz, and Hungary’s Populist Foreign Policy

    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

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.