Putin Regime Incapable of Running Russia But Won’t Leave without a Fight, Shevtsova Says

Paul Goble

            Staunton, October 14 – By its actions and inactions in recent times, Liliya Shevtsova says, the Russian government has demonstrated that its members work only for their own interests, are corrupt and cynical, and do not plan ever to leave the scene and even more that they cannot run the country when they control all levers of power and don’t face any threats.

            The Russian political commentator says that this unfortunate conclusion arises from cases as diverse as the rocket accident to the comic behavior of governors to the pathetic role of the hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox church, all of which show “the degradation of the structures” which are supposed to be running things (echo.msk.ru/blog/shevtsova/2295872-echo/).

            And what is most important, Shevtsova says, is that President Vladimir Putin has been compelled to devote significant resources to try to shore things up as the true nature of Russian reality stands revealed without the customary make-up: “the transformation of Kremlin being all powerful to becoming impotent.”

            Polls show that the Russian people increasingly recognize this reality and are ready for change. The drama in this situation, the analyst continues, is that despite its increasing incapacity to rule, “the Russian powers that be will not go voluntarily and are ready to defend themselves” against any challenge.  That is, they want to remain in power even if they do not effectively rule.

            “The foreign isolation and Western sanctions which will only expand are closing for the ruling class the possibility of moving to the West. And who of these guys would want to seek asylum in China?  This means that they will fight at home and struggle to the last Russian Guardsman!”

            Consequently, “the way out of Putin’s Russia will be different that the peaceful end of the USSR. And not only because the current ruling class represents a different type of political animals accustomed to use violence” but rather that “we are dealing with a system which blocks peaceful change and excludes reforms ‘from above.’” 

            The challenges Russia faces are truly enormous because of the actions of the Putin regime: Income inequality is so great that one would expect a revolt rather than any reform.  The regime has destroyed the normal constraints on the use of violence, pushing Russia back into an ever uglier past.

            Further, the fusion of power and property, greater than at any time in Russia history, Shevtsova argues, makes holding on to one a condition of holding on to the other and thus reduces the chances for gradual change.  “’Liberals’” have been coopted, and Russia is increasingly becoming an international outcast, something that won’t change soon.

            “Some of these challenges exist in other non-democratic societies as well,” she says; “but the nuclear status of Russia and the willingness of the powers that be to use this for self-defense makes our situation unprecedented” and unprecedently dangerous, even if one can take some encouragement by the shifts in popular attitudes.

            But those shifts are not as profound as many may think; and therefore the question must be asked: “Are we prepared for a situation in which the powers again push Russia into the trap of military patriotism” as they did with the “Crimea is ours” movement in 2014.  Worse, if that is to work again, the move will have to be more “apocalyptic” in its targets and methods.

            “In this context,” Shevtsova concludes, “two questions arise: First, will Russia fall into this very same trap given that the authorities do not have any other idea for neutralizing growing popular dissatisfaction? And second, when will a force arise which will offer the people a way out from Putin’s time and will it receive their trust?”