Commentary
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": []
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Medvedev's Cure for the Far East
Medevdev’s recent visits to the Far East reflect Russia’s geopolitical interests: to strengthen its presence in the Arctic and Asian-Pacific Rim. The visit also focused attention on the region’s economic and depopulation woes. While Medvedev’s response to the problems contrasts sharply with Putin’s optimistic statements, it remains to be seen whether Medvedev can provide a better cure.
Published on Sep 30, 2008
Source: The Moscow Times
Tellingly, Medvedev said in Chukotka that the Far East represents Russia's geopolitical interests "in a concentrated form," even though it is a tangle of economic, social and demographic problems. The gist of those interests and the overall motivation for Medvedev's tour are clear: Russia needs to strengthen its presence in the Arctic -- the theme of the Security Council's latest meeting -- and, in a larger sense, its foreign policy and geopolitical interests in the Asian-Pacific Rim.
Federal authorities have long focused on the problems of depopulation and the depressed economy in the Far East. As president, Vladimir Putin visited the area several times. Among the ambitious plans for the Far East are creating a special zone in the Magadan region, setting up a wide-scale decriminalization program and preparing Vladivostok to host the APEC in 2012. There were, however, two new elements introduced in Medvedev's trip. The first was his focus on problems in individual regions, not only in the Far East as a whole. The second was Medvedev's sharp rebuke of regional centers for failing to achieve results on existing projects. Back in 2006, the Security Council decided to work out a strategy for the social and economic development of the Far East and the Buryat and Irkutsk regions through 2025. However, the government still lacks a final version of its strategy for the Far East, even though a deadline for presenting it has passed.
Medvedev has traveled through the regions before, notably during his presidential campaign early this year. Although the trips were billed as working visits by the then-first deputy prime minister, they were clearly aimed at winning votes. The tone of last week's tour was markedly different. Medvedev relentlessly showed his impatience toward inactive or ineffective officials in Moscow and the regions, including businesspeople who complained about the economic and bureaucratic difficulties they face. The degree of Medvedev's dissatisfaction grew as the trip progressed. He made his harshest remarks during a meeting in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. Asked about his overall impressions of the trip, he said, "On one hand -- beauty, and on the other -- squalor. Unique natural resources on one hand, and a depressing, heavy -- call it whatever you want -- extremely undeveloped economic system."
Among Medvedev's more constructive remarks were his mention of the need for an individualized approach to each region, for government leaders in Moscow to work directly with governors, for transportation infrastructure to be modernized and for workers to be attracted to the Far East from other regions and countries.
Medvedev's tone contrasted sharply with Prime Minister Putin's confident and optimistic statements at the Sochi economic forum. It would seem logical for them to trade places. The sharp-talking Putin, who as president dealt extensively with the Far East but, as Medvedev discovered, had little success, played no role in Medvedev's tour. The question now is whether Medvedev's diagnosis of the Far East's ills will be met with an appropriate cure, or if it will be limited to an emotional outburst.
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.
- Moscow Elections: Winners and Losers
- September 8 Election As a New Phase of the Society and Authorities' CoevolutionCommentary
Nikolay Petrov
Recent Work
More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- Could Migrants From India and Africa Solve Russia’s Labor Shortage?Commentary
The demands of the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine, demographic problems, and public hostility toward Central Asians mean Russia does not have enough workers.
Salavat Abylkalikov
- Russian Market Sours for Belarusian State CompaniesCommentary
Minsk’s faith in the future of its larger neighbor’s economy is fading as Belarusian firms in Russia see record losses.
Olga Loiko
- Did Putin Return From China Empty-Handed?Commentary
With no key agreement signed on the Power of Siberia 2 gas pipeline, there is a risk that the window of opportunity for Russia will close if Chinese power generation becomes so green that new gas sources are no longer of any interest to Beijing.
Alexander Gabuev
- What Does Central Europe’s Post-Orban Russia Policy Look Like?Commentary
Though Orban is gone, Putin can still count on some like-minded individuals in Central and Eastern Europe. However, they will seek to avoid open confrontation with EU institutions over Ukraine and their ties with Moscow.
Dimitar Bechev
- Are Russia-Japan Relations Really Warming Up?Commentary
The truth is that Japan’s government is seeking a degree of reengagement but at a vastly reduced level than under Abe. Most significantly, Japan has shown no willingness to ease sanctions.
James D.J. Brown
