Paul
Goble
Staunton, July 23 – The Kremlin’s
actions sometimes appear chaotic and almost driven by chance, but they aren’t,
Igor Eidman says. Instead, as in any authoritarian system, they are “subordinate
to the interests of the autocrat and are shaped according to his tastes,
complexes and stereotypes” (kasparov.ru/material.php?id=5D375412E0C6D).
According to the Russian sociologist
and commentator, “Putin takes seriously only force and big money. Thus, he isn’t
afraid of the dependent and poor population of his own country. He is concerned
only with those who have serious financial and force resources, above all the West
and China and also a few oligarchs and his own immediate entourage.”
Putin works hard to neutralize these
real or invented threats. He works against the West by hybrid penetration of
its economic and political systems and against China by playing at friendship
and even giving Beijing de facto control over “entire regions” of his own
country. And he does everything he can
to make Russian oligarchs dependent upon himself personally.
At the same time, Eidman continues, “Putin
does not take the opposition seriously but behaves in that way toward it only
as long as it is poor and powerless and cut off from the power” domestic in the
first instance but also foreign as well “and the financial resources” that such
links might provide it with.
Once this is understood, the sociologist
continues, Putin’s policies make perfect sense from his point of view. Eidman gives two examples to make his point.
First, he says, Putin’s views
explain “why Nemtsov was killed but Navalny remains alive and free.” Nemtsov
challenged Putin’s power by actively pushing for sanctions by the West,
something he could do because of his contacts with Western leaders, and by
seeking to organize an anti-Putin movement among the old oligarchs.
Putin couldn’t tolerate either and
so Nemtsov had to be removed from the scene.
Navalny presents no such threat
because he doesn’t have the ties to the West or with members of the
oligarchate, Eidman says. In fact, some of what he does plays to Putin’s
interests. The current opposition leader
“appeals mostly to the Russian population which Putin doesn’t fear,” and his
attacks on oligarchs lead them to view Putin as their protector.
And second, Putin’s attitudes
explain why the authorities pulled back in the case of journalist Ivan Golunov
but haven’t in the case of the blocking of opposition figures seeking to run
for the Moscow city council. Golunov’s incarceration was conducted by mid-level
officials who could be sacrificed to make the Kremlin look good.
But opposition efforts to get into
the Moscow city council are “another story.”
From Putin’s point of view, “the opposition must be cut off from power
and financial resources,” something that Moscow deputies have access to, and “opposition
figures must be viewed in society as losers.”
It is not to be permitted in Putin’s
view that such people be allowed to achieve anything that could suggest to
young people that the opposition is a path to success – “join the opposition and
become a deputy” – and thus attractive.
Moreover, Eidman points out, what
has happened in Moscow has done more to harm the image of the city’s mayor, Sergey
Sobyanin, than to harm Putin’s. In fact, weakening the position of Sobyanin
serves the Kremlin leader’s purposes quite well. Yet another potential
challenge to his position is thus weakened and quite possibly destroyed.
No comments:
Post a Comment