78

PUTINISM AFTER PUTIN THE DEEP STRUCTURES OF RUSSIAN AUTHORITARIANISM

Maria Domańska NUMBER 78 WARSAW OCTOBER 2019

PUTINISM AFTER PUTIN THE DEEP STRUCTURES OF RUSSIAN AUTHORITARIANISM

Maria Domańska © Copyright by Centre for Eastern Studies

CONTENT EDITORS Adam Eberhardt, Marek Menkiszak

EDITORS Anna Łabuszewska, Tomasz Strzelczyk

CO-OPERATION Katarzyna Kazimierska

TRANSLATION Ilona Duchnovic

CO-OPERATION Nicholas Furnival, Timothy Harrell

CHARTS Urszula Gumińska-Kurek

GRAPHIC DESIGN PARA-BUCH

DTP IMAGINI

PHOTOGRAPH ON COVER Eugene Ivanov / Shutterstock.com

Centre for Eastern Studies ul. Koszykowa 6a, 00-564 Warsaw, Poland tel.: (+48) 22 525 80 00, [email protected] www.osw.waw.pl

ISBN: 978-83-65827-44-9 Contents

MAIN POINTS | 5

INTRODUCTION | 8

I. THE DEEP STRUCTURES AS THE HISTORICAL FOUNDATION OF RUSSIAN AUTHORITARIANISM | 11 1. The historical sources of deep structures in Russia | 12 2. The ‘wild 1990s’ – survival of the authoritarian tradition | 19 3. Deep structures during the Putin era | 26

II. THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE DEEP STRUCTURES IN PUTIN’S RUSSIA | 30 1. The key players in the authoritarian game | 30 2. Pathologies as the essence of applied authoritarianism | 38

III. DEEP STRUCTURES AND THE PROSPECTS FOR RUSSIAN AUTHORITARIANISM | 60 1. Deep structures vs. the personal dimension of authoritarian power | 60 2. The main challenges to the ‘post­‑Putin’ regime | 63 3. Stability or turbulence? Possible scenarios for power struggles in Russia | 66 4. Barriers to Russia’s democratisation | 69

CONCLUSION | 87

PUTINISM. GLOSSARY OF BASIC TERMS | 89 • • • • MAIN POINTS MAIN

‑scale ‑political ‘deep structures’ ‘deep As these The deep The Russian model of authoritarian rule owes its durability to the to durability its owes rule authoritarian of model Russian The The pervasiveness of such pathological practices serves the essential the serves practices pathological such of pervasiveness The institu Russia’sstate in structures deep archaic these of power The ­ a centuries overemerged structures deep The Firstly, inner manipulation norms tal the the perception priority tional system has led to a number of phenomena which are patho are which phenomena of a number to led has system tional interests of the key interests influential of groups. logical from the viewpoint of democratic values and the rule of law. of rule the and values democratic of viewpoint the from logical and abuse archical as society system cies between them, which are manifested in two pivotal phenomena. pivotaltwo in manifested are which them, between cies co‑dependen and behaviourpatterns norms, values, basic of complex criminal organisation, conditions cratisation erty sian statehood. sian

the

interest country development

well­ of circle, misappropriation

of themselves. main

was it and the ‑developed of nature

environment law groups, pathologies is structures

of

physical and in political perceived in leader; the in

law factor

enforcement the Russia. they of maintaining the from patrimonial of

enforcement

state government and of They

government­ post­ that

Most are

and

linkages survival organising the culture. have the

Their as the are politics ‑Putin will perceived

stemmed

constitute secondly, imperial a collective patterns widespread of

state omnipresent so agencies

present­ the also public notion between These deep structures encompass an entire over far and as period. by

‑citizen

administration. authoritarian the the hamper prevented

idea,

resorting from security of social­ not it the ‑day funds

of client

only sphere by state is among state

as

the foundation the which relations. state specific ‑economic continuing at violations state­ possible

The administration, of by

state agencies, authorities logic various

to genuine of

the them officials government

‑building resulted latter

illegal governance socio

as All

ruling geographical of attempts ‑long evolution of Rus of evolution ‑long include: being

development;

of these patron of levels dominance include: big ­‑political and funding

for the

norms and class); in driving business,

the

sustainable groups private the Russian of which ­‑client representatives; model organised nepotism, to

the personal

Russian and strongly

but and and interactions. democratise force in president’s

share a peculiar led

organised purposes; in finally, rather relations the violence; political climatic Russia, to: (while crime. demo­ socio­ large­

prop state

hier a vi the as to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

5 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 6 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 • • •

whereby which The maintaskforthepower eliteduringthechange inleadershipwill may is maximise to those tee power. The impressionof functions the security forces will be a key factor in this context. this in factor a key be will forces security the decision­ new the to loyalty their tain qualitative potential on influence his and limited, is thoritarianism leadership lishment ical development would be as follows: firstly, an upset in the balance the in upset an firstly,follows: as be woulddevelopment ical between Given the entrenched dominance of the deep structures in Russia’sin structures deep the of dominance entrenched the Given be to develop a new consensus between the key interest groups interest key the between consensus a new develop to be a mere acter changes in the political system may be evenweaker.be maysystem political the in changes counter­ revolution’,our elite the within assets of distribution and power of main to also and resources, and power of distribution the cerning of enforcement down does cesses, ous cally, only Should this balancing strategy fail, the two likely scenarios of polit of scenarios likely two the fail, strategy balancing this Should socio­

largely a repetition the a balance groups be one not ‑political sphere, the leader’s personal role in reproducing au reproducing in role personal leader’s the sphere, ‑political the traits or

required enables system which hostage posed ‑elites. continue the in leader, socio­ who recognised a consequence in their style and within itself order resources of and

can by belong will ‑political them of to

political to

power the The affects as

the the i.e. the large­ i.e. the determine informal to persist only security

to perform be the the extensive to latter keep by necessity

political to maintained plunder inside ‘superpatron’ be elite, distributed the the influence. relations both of a pronounced‘personalisation’ of fully the

scenario institutions agencies, the perception the after president’s as whether the the social scenario powers understood of opaque the ‑scale public protests organised by the by organised protests public ‑scale necessary he the

patronage

establishment further are if country’s needs to

would situation the in incumbent bureaucracy based ‘feed’ the vested nature of the of and inner

new ‑making centre. The loyalty of of loyalty The centre. ‑making

the the 1990s), maintaining the authoritarian minimum most system – by the networks. on the

resources leadership in stable. circle. latter’s regime those of corporate the president him – elite

likely and the and deep members regardless While decision­ the and secondly,a ‘col and support (corrupt of among A serious be is the with big

A model

the is model (which public. structures to interests accompanied power inRussia leaves

fragile Putin’s able business) a great impunity

state’s The the ‑making of to funds) of

will to

challenge the maintain Paradoxi may office. of public,

his stability

balance specific guaran of

extent public power break is estab

char (law vari­ lead con and and pro the by

it ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

• •

without would The long­ The Furthermore, Even in torically the familiar in line with the paradigm of ‘enlightened authoritarianism’‘enlightened of paradigm the with in line a tactical sarily of democratisation will be hindered by the temptation to implement it implement to temptation the by hindered be will democratisation – – – –

Russia. the Thirdly, which widespread Fourthly, Firstly, tige. posal from the very idea of democratisation of idea very the Secondly, been but atomisation experience of ­system Russian if

lead political political be

also the This reverting from

contributed ‑term barriers to the democratisation of Russia include: Russia of democratisation the to barriers ‑term successfully the wrongly of alliance is to , staunch resistance from the beneficiaries of the present the of beneficiaries the from resistance staunch

the ineffectivenessthe democratic opposition of the of pro­ political who not Soviet resistance enduring the sceptical approach among the Russian public towards h ngiil ipc o etra iple fr change for impulses external of impact negligible the due

the the repression establishment. of public law ‑democratic of only will

forged political considered

to past crisis Russian to era, enforcement the system, the a result to fear marginalised support. changes (i.e. in would which of the ever­ between exact and losing

transformation society the entrenchment ‑present

opposition as no of ­ a top be Whichever preventative still Western

same in

an Russians’ institutional their backed agencies. the and the

effective prevails ‑down by informal dominance leaders political the privileged the liberal , up takes which course paternalistic attachment in and government of among by measures way the 1990s,

of reform the the democratic system. centralised power mechanisms

stems of the is position, of well­ non­

the reforming taken,

the protests remaining could ‑democratic in ‑developed to from public. mentality and as deep the Russia, it well model. assets manner, does will be the that imperial and structures the as , productive which traumatic not at not inherited country). and genuine a section from have machine

system the that which neces enjoy pres idea has his the dis in is ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ,

7 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 8 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 vived values The waged 1 The origins of Putinism date back to the early 1990s, a period marked bymarked a period early 1990s, the to back date Putinism of origins The Ultimately, INTRODUCTION ­ a full Putin’srule, Vladimir Under impossible – matically made in in them the tivation political nism’ – has been formed in Russia. It reached its mature form after 2012, after 2012, form mature its reached It Russia. in formed been has nism’ – political powerpolitical assets. exclusivestate the up divideand to right ‘democracy’ of ideals the to appealed conflict the to parties strongly stood own employed of difficult centuries, a fierce conflict over the design of the Russian political­ conflict overa fierce of the design during Putin’s third presidential term. presidential Putin’sthird during Hence,

this the the legislative other ends. the the in in past.

supporters case. mainly inherited

the practices and the different influence to arbitrary collapse reproduces one renders similarly It concept The the reverse. As past to was consolidation power was between this transform ‘democrats’ consistency

from set of a time of

of ways), which the the use the concept ‘path

a strong undemocratic In the a specific to

itself, course

concept parliament, of the have dependence’ other two Soviet when were

both were actually fighting for the monopoly of of monopoly the for fighting actually were both state the

USSR

states, of led in powerful which the

presidential of

existing words, typical the Russia’s laws the trajectory of state

by Russian upper

should fully ‘path random entire durability Yeltsin In Russia, every ten years everything changes, everything years ten every Russia, In makes dominated methods (including and ‑fledged authoritarian system – ‘Puti system – authoritarian ‑fledged the and nothing changes in two hundred yearshundred two in changes nothing and interest of

model hand not authoritarian revealed dependence’

transformation the its power, of complex be historically

it owed or This

confused institutions in institutional organisation extremely 1 of . intentional of

groups. by the the

political system itself; the their centred his system. constitution) of with authoritarian a relevant tradition,

opponents, systemic

shaped victory One not fatalism. difficult – is in but competition, around institutional development of a result

‑economic system the Evenboth though only of

also the

status quo status following them in sustained Pyotr analytical

solutions (albeit had to Russian Boris continued who the of though norms serve

They consisted

they Stolypin the political wanted choices Yeltsin. among that under

years. their state auto reac over

also tool and and sur not to is ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ . ,

‘Elections’ (i.e. the This The process Nevertheless, itarian ­ ism; main mechanisms the two the uine marked the beginning of the consistent elimination of the fragile seed fragile the of elimination consistent the of beginning the marked manipulation power. The traditional authoritarian standards were adapted to modern to wereadapted power.standards authoritarian The traditional partite separation of powers of separation partite line is viewed not as a subject of politics but as a collective object of political of object a collective as but politics of a subject as not viewed is became ganda, One lings of democracy and the reconstruction of a centralised system of of system centralised a of reconstruction the and democracy of lings and aim and atives and and side sition stand­ challenges distribution constitution extensive anti­

strict public powerful business with ‑modernising and anti­ and ‑modernising is political the of social pluralism system secondly, needs ‑off distinctive in 1993. between to

which system. the part ‘collective narrow againstparliamenttoa brutalcrackdown oppo ontheparliamentary express the control prerogatives are and : most interactions, and

of globalisation, of adopted

is of of competition authoritarian connections. while instruments adds generally

.

characterised through

the opening minimise Its modern costume does not effectively mask its archaic, its mask effectively not does costume modern Its in government political ruling Human interests features circle serious of support the globalised Kremlin’: a strong

in the in 1993, the 1990s public the formally of

up targeted rights Kremlin, designed influence. of consequences

initiated their of Putin’s between for a market country,

at

to regime’s this

great bodies ‑democratic character. ‑democratic various but world. their

the by sphere, the the and . protest regime the vested The the also

repression president, aides). it as international government power disposal

in civic It based various is authoritarian did However, economy instinct a sort total formal social a result has a mere with h 1990s, the potential: in is of not freedoms This undertone the the

led dominance on this of

to groups. broad a change centres constitutional the for against

of individual absence head façade to ritual and as is guarantee rather state

further system self­ the absence of genuine tri genuine of absence the this partly Presidential

firstly, tendencies was

technological are of

the ‑preservation. plebiscite; Russian of to range of that process

political the of than of

frequently continued

power, Russian affairs essence of a consequence struggle

or competitive the through political state covers

political, division corporate of articulate executive authorities developed co‑existed

Administration civic opponents the year 2000 year 2000 the under is their authoritarian of for development. the that state passivity

violated, and the One

of the freedoms economic intended elections. informal Yeltsin’s political the

society author prerog Russia power of propa­ actual under of along have

gen

and the the in of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

9 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 10 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 While (covering The USSR in itarian reforms ment tical their formed ness of the ‘deep structures’ inherited from the Russian Empire and the and Empire Russian the from inherited structures’ ‘deep the of ness the political transformation of the 1990s actually provedabortive actually the 1990s of transformation political the have barriers based ontheassumption that and a solid a break state. sources of effectively civil down.

the powers social aim manifestations society to multiplication . bodies. Chapter

the Russian Chapter They foundation

regime face under with and to to of the West relations and prevented firmly Russia’s

if this continue their activists, the coming

Three the

their

institutional One in respect and paper authoritarian implant Russia. political impact of democratisation. presents

some and of influence. and lists

decade) the free to

which the for is consistently the adversely

the Russian segments on This competitive the deep to leadership human system, specific a definition main the the analyse forecast employs model

Chapter text paradigm structures durability of functioning political challenges affect rights

of also will nature of obstruct

changes these of the elections, intelligence

Western Two

considerably of attempts political the after and Russian

system, across the of

deep presents functioning the and that democratic

civic after 2024. Putin’s deep the democracy genuine developments various

deep structures, well ­ reproduction structures, the to public incumbent was agencies freedoms structures, provide

reduce system, Russian the largely tripartite

levels expected It of changes. contemporary also

upon state and the a medium their from which ruling president the pervasive the the of in of lists likelihood law

Russian institutions

the Russia. the patterns the separation becoming historical the has elite enforce Russian ‑rooted author Yeltsin . ­‑term What

steps main been prac will It is soil, of of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

A key element of the patrimonial model of state politics is the omnipres the is politics state of model patrimonial the of element A key vate The The 2 which I. THE DEEP STRUCTURES AS THE HISTORICAL HISTORICAL THE AS STRUCTURES DEEP I. THE norms, real inner the tent functions formal forms). tem, regardless of its political ‘stylistic’ or ‘grammatical’ forms ‘grammatical’ or ‘stylistic’ political its of regardless tem, between be but firstly, the ruling elite’s patrimonial notion of the state as being the per the being as state the of elite’snotion ruling patrimonial firstly,the legacy; the ruling elite view the state and its resources as the property of of property the as resources its and viewstate elite the ruling the legacy; are notbasedonuniversal legalregulationsorformal institutionalframeworks encies between them that form the foundation of Russia’sencies between themthatformthefoundationof politicalsystem co‑depend the and patterns behaviour norms, values, basic of complex ence of patronage networks. patronage of ence of derive of a small group of decision­ of group a small socio governing force driving main the as culture political and sonal property of the leader; secondly, the logic of patron­ theleader;secondly, of sonal propertyof thelogic According

FOUNDATION OF RUSSIAN AUTHORITARIANISM RUSSIAN OF FOUNDATION the a sentence conveyed a manifestation as underlying beliefs

country’s rather term patrimonial power. of hereditary a product circle. ruler the

from design state values, In this analysis the term ‘deep structures’ represents an entire an represents structures’ ‘deep term the analysis this In and

the ‘deep performed state on to The assumptions and sentiments them. propaganda. public of the with Contemporary Russia clearly draws upon this patrimonial this upon draws clearly Russia Contemporary the leader (rules of structure’ the of and customs International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences property central

the system institutions, the logic evolution the The deep structures determine the real logic of the sys the of logic real the determine structures deep The and the psychological, budget of as that by and use 2

of analysis . They are manifested in two pivotal phenomena: pivotal two in manifested are They . subjects the role private was officials give and

is rules of of interpersonal of used a political

‑makers superpatron. allocated the in order

an various patterns the that this

subjective domains, These ruler. early and in living and govern and policy linguistics system group interpretation

meaning (the for ‘surface the medieval In are on of behaviour dimension patron­ of public this

and including They permeate the socio the permeate They roles its behaviour ‘ruler’ is unequal,

personnel to performed of territory system, with a political structures’ ‑political interactions. ­‑political the ‑client assigned in form needs, of and the experience politics. , regard political of between hierarchical political to of his appointments there interdependencies,

were process its and

by states’ a great to ‘courtiers’) meaning) culture to (grammar of the between system”. them was considered the its and the ‑client relations ‑client relations president. participants, organisation is semantic extent which no private relations in “a set Political distinction which the or the ­‑ who and political , provide of like the merely the attitudes,

ruler’s public assets Other culture, is layer style with hold that con can thus the pri the in ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

11 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 12 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 3 4 The deep structures define above all the logic of the informal institu informal the of logic the all above define structures deep The The dominant role of the patrimonial tradition and patronal relations patronal and tradition patrimonial the of role dominant The 1. The historical sources of deep structures in Russia in structures deep of sources historical 1. The If the regime. mentally inextricably interdependencies mal interrelations in the the tures tutes through tronal punishments forces ues does not explain the actual sense of events and decisions but rather but decisions and events of sense actual the explain not does ues tural background. tural the given important, particularly is structures ‘surface’ and ‘deep’ the sphere tional loyalty in the Russian political system is deeply rooted in its historical and cul and historical its in rooted deeply is system political Russian the in fact that the formal sphere of institutions, procedures and declared val declared and procedures institutions, of sphere formal the that fact accepted equally contacts distort ery, and economic reality at all levels of state governance.state levelsof all at reality economic and serves to camouflage them camouflage to serves For This democratic ative Perspective ative law. expense or, domains. for are ‘state’ the or politics’ can the most and distributed – The arbitrary established capitalising ‘patronal the standards security thus abused clearly latter’s political is of universal, frequently, intertwined. for , present states. a direct between 3

In , public

be which Cambridge 2014. individuals politics’ clients to seen, such services). roles develop and further at

support). This on benefits for and encompasses universities, use in source model, codified system, a the rules laid penetrate family instance, is this system of state based In the case of Russia, the distinction between distinction the Russia, of case the In outside formal achieve see: the These down

, violence logic of of albeit (e.g. material In H. Hale, bonds,

in

interests, system vested social the on these the was the them in at networks (relating in the unwritten dysfunctionality their arbitrary not language all, legal the Patronal Politics: Eurasian Regime Dynamics in Compar in Dynamics Regime Eurasian Politics: Patronal is behaviour. informal, formed their formal interests of networks, always to a frequent it workplace

political even rights acts. such is of goods to place aim identified state decisions institutions, in yet ‘surface if intentionally Formal an and of

frequently to it specific They propaganda. or of and the widespread extent

element involves deliver individuals or

security, obligations of origin by system economic also institutions with

structures’) by state service

that In circumstances patrons mutual – or define of or overt the 4 non­ this institutions, .

on the in of The these and residence, and authoritarian

(in predominant ‑transparent exchange rewards goals model their two violation the deep and commonly are the and groups practices. albeit become logic periph mainly instru armed substi of struc infor that and and

and ‘pa for un of of at ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

‑democratic Yeltsin Yoke’ Western 6 5 The deep structures formed and entrenched their dominance in the Rus the in dominance their entrenched and formed structures deep The in in the the to the templates these past place unconsciously, patterns lective clientof by any accompanied as over due of development ened development expanding ers, extent sian political system in several key phases. oekaua – Nomenklatura Authoritarianism

the Russia. the collective modern the chy recommendations. in models at ideological Russian adoption comprehensive whose to centuries, socio­ later the (13 every in circumstances early was main political transformation the they medieval th specific Europe. of stages initially made). –15 ‑economic have development nomenklatura­ territories.

overriding times, formation time. political development state­ th mentality. resulted 5 of of

(e.g. in centuries), the and foundation still the principalities and – therulinggroup); essentially

and

the system a a despotic geographical ‑building The

was The emergence shared which authoritarian attempts constitute the economic modernisation, state did not system development; were deep

from of early unique priority Even (1990s) These appear necessarily of

the of ‑based fundamentally institutional patterns and by for nominations partly 20 survived structures driving Great intentional, model though th and to patrimonial throughout all century the

deeply a strong and over 6 conditions. features upheavals . was reform

Novgorod The the traditional form organisation the state­ of evolution force included: of the the

to there an only over which when model factors for rooted

were its ‑building state of social maintain

system course peculiar the objective of and senior last butnotleast –theimperial choice history.

(while consistent government the of Grand centuries, differed

existed In the Pskov, system would

of further administration attempt the kinds that basis societies. later of the positions

for

Their social of Russian Apart and of

society perception and perestroika Duchy ‘windows Russian

Russia. full socio­

character, led priority the alternative overturn for of stages to from were formed from reinforced despite nation­ origins actions introduce relations.

political to worldview, based state, authoritarianism. was ‑economic

Alternative, of This path the the was of that occasionally statehood. they

opportunity’ Moscow, of on ultimately political

‑building period peculiar dominance of can to formal the and perceived

during a parliamentary led lay taken physical the implemented variants

control the were a much in

be socio­ governing in to proto subsequently often solutions development Soviet government

(1980s) traced which the by changes the also the shaped templates processes Although ­‑democratic ‑political strength over made survival

of as the applied greater lack appeared of idea as under­ ‘Tatar adopted These times,

party’s monar a col state

back took non­ and rul the by in in of in ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

13 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 14 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‑economic 7 verge This The 8 which above andriskavoidance, valuedstability all andwhich sharedthe 1.1. Paradoxical 20 mobilisation repressions ing this system was therestrictedaccessof possible processes) were physically eliminated or effectively marginalised. effectively or eliminated physically were processes) lage was secured Sovietbringing citizensbacktothemedieval­ but ble belief that individualism poses a threat to the essential interests of the of interests essential the to a threat poses individualism that belief a similar a whole. areas an after community on the belief that the society should be a subject, not an object of political political of object an not a subject, be should society the that belief the on overriding distinct ditions thatwere Thisresulted ina constantbalanc unfavourable for farming. of egy circles of advocated a different system of values (based onindividual freedoms values(based advocated a different system of R. Pipes, E.L. Keenan,

th physical individual individual The

resources of was century. of early culture a wave distant of

the conformism of

from also physical One to values

system the Russia under the Old Regime Old the under Russia forms local development priority survival. achieve, and as . understood persisted ‘Muscovite of from

of of Muscovy many is between The It is interests

it

populace defenceless socio­ the the the of 7 of of . existence. may Insuch conditions worth revolution the

and

the Muscovy other values key was hecatomb military These but ‑political Political main seem their

for court subordination peasant to tasks mainly not not survival noting on traditional

the several developed – disastrous in As Folkways’ trade members ­‑industrial the development in only and statehood

of of 1917, , collective the of catastrophes New this the

in verge these that

culture: war bureaucracy routes face became itself, more terms York , made epoch RussianReview agricultural a specific peasantculturewasformed, a specific in

in 1941–1945 to the events so communities thepublictobasicgoods andfoodstuffs. of 1974. of although

complex). the (up collective centuries

interests attained and

of that physical history. the ‘survival devastating and of the

quasi­ case ‑era challenge of that to

in also individual robust the 8 . exclusive progress, the , climatic April 1986, for of ‑war swept communities. subsistence Large groups of those whothose of Largegroups

strengthened led

through survival, interests of and One 16

Russia was different mentality’

industrialisation, th the to mobilisation century) civil was of through a widely and extremely to

vol. 45, which domain rural

the a culture redistribute the which as further war, geographical balancingonthe of reasons – no. 2, the key

community subordination Therefore, the

were the Russia developed applied the

of only made www.jstor.org. features dependent (including belief

enhanced whole the based Stalinist scarcely

chance it

availa in in Socio­ them state, strat

and and that was con the the the

vil on as in of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

The The settlement This 9 10 The present­ The the 1990scameasanotherhuge traumatoRussian The transformationof 1.2. In contrasttoWestern European countries, inRussia itwas only inthe18 north­ rity rise in ruler. tury themselves political undivided nta o te etr Erpa fua cnrc i ws h adminis the was it contract feudal European Western the of Instead oe o rl oe te ertr ad h population. the and territory the over rule of model trative practices of the Golden Horde that were imported to Rus as the as Rus to imported were that Horde Golden the of practices trative values familiar to based abuse agreement, state’s contract leader. the of a property as state the of perception elite’s ruling the of clearly over on thestate, thetraditionalimperative of society. Paradoxically, For a collective Pipes’s preceded to it. The 9

to , state Power, the ‘proprietorial’ that

which

‑eastern

comparison, of on However, weakness. a commonly not based on mutually binding legal obligations but on arbitrary arbitrary on but obligations legal binding mutually on not based

work, power), rights. whole It

logic

the the (the thus political power led the

and reinforced property ‑day logic of government–society relations is a direct result a direct is relations government–society of logic ‑day

Russia identification state mentality. in latter

Rus to was of exclusive grew state,

in The tradition of Roman law and the institution of feudal feudal of institution the and law Roman of The tradition

this thus which were well this power. A natural consequence of these processes was the return the was processes these of consequence A natural over widespread government–society …, Kievan began (including largely :

system approach op. cit. op. shared

defining the out outlived offering did gradually

Here, and the Rus,

desire right of the not to

organised patronal

and arbitrary which sense of a prince’s be state the translate

dates pauperisation the a legal to the sovereign further conceptualised for expanding is the represented rights ­‑rooted in the West, were absent in Russia early of both territory ­‑clientelist stabilisation back

by

colonised lawlessness, in mechanism the violence domain, sections 1.2. princes formative into and relations.

survival becameeven moreingrained political main to a different territories. the of obligations an of guarantor

model

lands

as

the who entire in times effective and

and 1.3., of an power perceived

stages which Grand

model

would defence and

a minimal entity of of of social

This the state security

of of

of to with

early the system Duchy

government, conclusions automatically

both their Russian separate

political as ­‑society against groups This

latter property and settlements a result sense parties inhabitants of the of model

statehood.

are exercised

Moscow). main arbitrary and civil relations. settlements from thinking, of based

of rights to th

grant secu threat gave cen was

and the the the in on 10 ‑ ‑ ‑ . .

15 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 16 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 While The patrimonialvisionof politicalrights, totherepresentatives granted The first of violence and naked coercion naked violence and was 11 1.3. of thebeginning in an attempttobreakthismodel,dateonly from tion tury. Russian political tradition political Russian primarily as a result of state of a result as primarily the state the his ing state officials officials state ing benefits. ­buried sumas longhepaidanagreed of ally and sion continued of often on theabilitytouseone’s positionandlegalpowers official tomaximiseprivate dependent conviction handastothescaleandmethodsof ciple hehada free expected ated into social strata mainly as a result of different obligations different of a result mainlyas strata social into ated administration. The

existing 1960 Russia government, regime tsarism Irreplaceable share

directly of taking rulers. of inter alia inter However, emerged

‘police states imposed

state by objective …, evolved. Corruption thus became a natural and intrinsic element of state Corruption thusbecamea naturalandintrinsicelementof and to ,

in op. cit. op. the which to that

not societal modernised, mentality’ Such ‘feed’ ­‑society linked ‘possessing’ then in as similar operate 1917 revolution.

, in on organically well p. 294 Punishments a government Western even ‘perfected’

socio­ patterns the himself were one’s to as punishments ( government: structures, of кормление and

the relations his development these state ‑economic for ability imposed further. unrestricted by the position thestategave riseto more Europe

with centuries, for authorities of the out modest state; political

. for state–society Soviet position to , An of bureaucratic tributes in Russia the social structure was formed was structure social the Russia in – ‘feeding – which the ‑driven action. The population differenti population The action. ­‑driven from govern

circumstances, (regardless in clientelism societies arbitrariness money tothetreasury. thushad Theofficial official moreover, circulation regime. prevailed activity of the achievements although

above a police defined is system. from or For above or delegated

’ unperturbed and competence ), which became enrooted in the in enrooted became which ), and of even instance, of forms. on anti the of his

the specific system of reward system of the specific as the with the

state This were

all government–citizen for ­‑government their different but local capacity a model political suspected a source relations the were formed They varying to above in in built collectingthesetributes political criminal population, Russia, in a given the police, various socialgroups almost for found groups. administration, publications. on intention

all of a well­ Russian between codes regardless intensity,

self­ the were

ill­ the systems) territory ‑gotten their immediately ‑enrichment the20 ‑entrenched foundations of 1845, invented to and intentional, A combina

discredit See: Empire relations vis‑à‑vis of subjects in expres 1927 gradu how R. Pipes, th gains, most prin under cen was but and the the 11 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ .

‑clientelist model of relations with state authorities, based on the belief belief the on based authorities, state with relations of model ‑clientelist As a result, velopment To were 13 12 would be well ­ be would Previous represent nobility andthebourgeoisie is nomic modernisation the to to In the Soviet system of centralised distribution of goods and services, services, and goods of distribution centralised of system Soviet the In parliamentarism in Russia in parliamentarism that the path to material benefits and privileges leads through loyal subloyal through leads privileges and benefits material to path the that lutist Similar government and effectively negotiate their rights with the state leaders state the with rights their negotiateeffectively government and One and a rather society, ordination to the ruling patrons. ruling the to ordination communities, of ownership consistent The While

Western absolute periodically a large conditional political prices ­dispersed ership, and could tive tury, by central

trade. of

centralised relatively central

state functions development

but

the functions and in and weak and ‘parliamentary’

position also the the extent, prevented 12 This and not

of policies power Europe), authorities, major state ownership , the early the

14 including government. the the count group often in in control political th

created ‑developed and strong enough to counterbalance central counterbalance to enough strong and ‑developed

that in century licensing. territories nobility lack weak system vis‑à‑vis industries practice legal­

this rather turn were located long­ on the

of

and prevailed interests still over any which of

nobility of ‑institutional and subsequent

was

‑term Europe

the led the self­ position) a coherent performed and Moreover, granting of kind flourished in where industries and than and bodies, they different

government.

dismantling to due ‑government poor ownership resulted of although trade from

conditional . the the consequences they legal

of a counterweight the absence of a well­ the absenceof The in often land to

merchants in any

in gaining such and generated top­ provinces; was Russia had bourgeoisie, protection. the the estates

rulers first system by Russia

trade The dimension Examples ‑down, estates. in constituted social Grand

convened long­ their as feudal pseudo­ of

absolutist a firm centralised Western­

to up

the main bodies; through capital were the the led 13 the ‑maintained Duchy of For The class;

use formal . to ‘state­ of

include noblemen Duma territorial

means They adapted to the patronal­ the to adapted They nobility individual to ‑representative more, easy development

result the and of as to this of of the only

a lack of social groups that groups social of a lack ‑style land

their a mere a financial they monarchy it. ‑decreed’ prey Moscow.

see: relations the

main or system task

including state in systemic A similar

of ‑established tradition of ‑established traditionof also began and thereof after the Oprichnina later to R. Pipes, served

powers parliament production restrictions extortion could was of economic and extension driving control of ZemskySobor

periods. evolving base bourgeoisie the state model in between not to Russia group

was as situation weakness

the for bodies

terror Western were 1905 revolution. monopolies, perform represent from an Not base

political over towards forces

…, 20 the of (albeit (in of instrument

only was rights. in op state on to th

curbed economic after 1917.

. cit. . state the underde the century. industry administra build contrast , hampered were applied

Europe, private did demands,

full of officials of 16 official abso with local th

their and eco own they the cen not by ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ . ‑ ‑

17 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 18 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 “The ‘gathering would was 17 16 15 14 The logical consequence of implementingtheimperialideainRussian consequenceof The logical 1.4. Karamzin, Empress incapacitate ity: they territorial ual’s for notion of empire became the main linchpin of Russian collective empire identity. became the main linchpin of notion of idea. rial patrimonial system was the imposition of centralised political powerpolitical on centralised of imposition the was system patrimonial the annexed territories. The idea of of idea The territories. annexed the by One of the constitutive elements of Russian authoritarianismistheimpe theconstitutive elementsof One of and always and control only organism antee security of the state and the governmentantee security of economic at the expense of development developing ahead of the process of building the nation state; hence the hence state; nation the building of process the of ahead developing tt pwr ae t mosbe o rn pltcl ihs o h public. the to rights political grant to impossible it made power state theparty wasmerely a collective clientof society itself

This

territorial Nowak, A. A. Nowak, М.H. Афанасьев, community historical autocracy, The whenever may determined religious empire position have be have concept threatened of superficial want Catherine imperial

was obeyed the The of and extent the Metamorfozy imperium rosyjskiego rosyjskiego imperium Metamorfozy Metamorfozy ­‑building caused is

us” was the in expansion

, cultural communities. state. also Russia the to an first development it 17 the by Клиентелизми российская государственность broadly subordinate Russian . implied order

them of by power As threatened potential idea their and the clientelist secular the

collective the … others, the imperial expansion was above all meant to guar to meant aboveall was expansion imperial the could , presented collapse op. cit. op. so (…), implemented Great and

empire. position of lands’ that far) of

ideologue only identity the by The process of building the empire was thus was empire the building of process The it , the of annexation 295. p. 16 our networks justified socio­ is in

and . those

empire modern

monarch

According from of his the exist In in empire (

ibidem the The those ‑economic History of the Russian State Russian the of History 1721–1921 the her power who (the the in of as definition state the , ​​ sovereign, undivided, hierarchical undivided, sovereign, that nomenklatura

Russian

opinion, p. 296). of ­ a top the division a state who to mid-15 weakened, can ,

to

Warszawa to lands need 15 their offered Russian . one rebel ‑down

command reign Similarly, modernisation proposed into

th with statehood for orders populated of century) a different ‘ours’

against 2018,

, access the in Москва autocratic manner the empire a strong by hierarchy neighbouring

, and p. 35. definitions

originally and others. the according survival ­‑state. to

our ‘others’), 2000. (starting was author by their and scarce political under in central orders various rule This accompanied published 14 Russia

Theindivid an emphasises of which . will, of to resources

the apologist the with with power empires

(though empire: Nikolai system author ethnic and protects

could strict in 1816. state the the the to is ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

War As those The 18 The obsessive concern about the government’s security resulted in the in resulted government’ssecurity the about concern obsessive The The consolidation of the Russian authoritarian system after 2000 was after 2000 system authoritarian Russian the of consolidation The 2. The ‘wild 1990s’ – survival of the authoritarian tradition authoritarian the of survival ‘wild 1990s’ – 2. The in influx of regional them tegic made possible due to the logic of the political­ the of logic the to due possible made state. Russian the of ‘Chekisation’ and militarisation largely key indicatorsinceSoviet times)anda geostrategic territorialpotential –allof given perestroika a powerful as sphere inthe 1990s, siderably society. state the butalsofrom supposed aggression toprotectRussia military notonly from of centralisation of state power state of centralisation of the 1990s of centralised control and the ensuing authoritarian drive is largely independent of the degree degree the of independent largely is drive authoritarian ensuing the and The practice a great political political power. ment services templates. see: surveillance

traditional II power, depth’ safeguarded political to J. and of intact. of Darczewska

, ‘dangerous’ ideasthatcould posea threattothe‘sovereign’ autocratic For turbulent elites the the OSW, power. police,

police weakened the

led in was

For government, apparatus detail machine was identified and reality –

development Warsaw the more government to and undermined

preventive idea a period based denunciation

thus see: , This long Defenders of the besieged fortress. On the historical legitimisation of Russia’s special special Russia’s of legitimisation historical the On fortress. besieged the of Defenders late 1980s, intelligence at of information of years

they R. Pipes, of 2018, political Russian the the

accompanied concept on periods

of the with ­‑repressive

military www.osw.waw.pl. when

expense

left showed, state repression traditional system, empire

repression over statehood Russia of agencies, the on the the

were found

of the the machinery limited domestic state …, deep centralised

legal

censorship strength isolation role of the sustainability of the deep structures deep the of sustainability the

op. cit. op. gave defence . throughout that was continued by

While

socio­ provisions, its criteria played that itself. foundations of

took the established reforms,

birth full­ When and ‑economic

socio­ was (with its by from and building the ‑scale industry, The its

system ultimate instrumental intelligence Cheka, of to the

evolution on expected ‑political ambitions led

the power. building the the in 1917, initiated arbitrariness ‑economic transformation ‑economic implementation an

the to

form modern nuclear of outside of

development. the increasingly

the pluralism prototype

it agencies was

‘political use state in These could processes to authoritarian of the marked political during of of

guarantee

of geographical potential world courts

19 concept The reach Soviet governance, in the

th of are: century. the

by the depth’, law, in priority for by Gorbachev’s Russian

18 robust after for

a powerful, large police contemporary the the . party an ready‑to‑use

of

This being It Russian the extensive executive regime

included Russia public which World develop

system scale. ‘stra was was con and and full

its ‑ ‑ ‑

19 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 20 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 Yeltsin After 19 There were two causes for the ultimate failure of the democratic project democratic the of failure ultimate the for causes twowere There with similar distortions, resulting from the logic of the politico ­ distortions,with similar resulting from of the logic rule mation, nomic reforms actually version implementedledmoretoa Darwinian of issues: the to the the tion of tribution protection political Both processes that had been developing in the USSR for decades. for USSR the in developing been had that processes tors impeding effective systemic transformation systemic effective impeding tors ket, in the second half of the 1990s. Firstly, the combination of objective fac objective of combination Firstly,the the 1990s. of half second the in basis by garded. a qualitatively assets scale of seek such debates, of obstacles endeavour Soviet nomenklatura. Soviet The

reinvent Russia’s some ­popular vast Soviet lion’s

including of legal independence for perestroika the scale powers; theotherone –claimfor establishinga solidsystem of

and crisis); law. transformation Russia’s dependence on itsauthoritarianpatterns. Insteadof 1. Who One shadow push power?, political two ­ a liberal to slogan collapse share of safeguards Union, of new

political for to The the successful

of state the crucial through secondly, the political and economic interests of the former the secondly,of interests economic and political the break the ‘the

new ­ free (the

them political ‘Russia very of social economy and ‑democratic and the difficult reforms of the 1990 of reforms difficult the and factions,

wild for of property state absence ‑market strategy clout president

from

same free and the was premises 2. Who the nineties’ – were opaque state de facto de project’,

They assets), system, economic USSR, and the first from acquired

the ambitions were of not reform competition, inherited of will idea

black managed political privatisation « any Kremlin’s

or

time laid лихие девяностые лихие political for seen control heated turbulence the and among first the get of effective included liberal to the market, in results

as to guaranteeing of the parliament) marginalised date. from many model.

discussions foundations essential to scupper the by them and centralised experienced right which influence democracy,

the former schemes Thus, which of protection the extensive socio­ ». decades, the

In the to public, USSR? the in would spite fateful ‑economic arbitrarily even

had reform will Soviet a genuine by began themselves. and for the process (tantamount control,

the (above patronage offered of

been in which of hold though In Putinism. become course then dispute

new

such

elite order private over efforts the s 19 actively Russia of the development,

decide were burdened were all tripartite ultimately also

were the course that aspirations,

the of the solidifying

to the the monopoly over networks mar thefree

revealed the to property, gave opportunity These

made protect made conception ‑economic ‑economic collapse launching

supported on supported capturing economic acute two transfor of rise the separa

these disre them them main legal to core

and eco the the the the the dis on the as of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

The 23 22 21 20 vatised violence In ised nist mal the framework for monial logic – the privatisation of the state itself by a narrow circle of of circle a narrow by itself state the of privatisation the logic – monial politicians and businesspeople and politicians pri dispersed, with replaced often were authorities state the of powers the privatisation of state resources but also – in accordance with patri with accordance in also – but resources state of privatisation the Howreforms. economic of prism viewedthe was through tion primarily institutional aspects were neglected were aspects institutional Russia in administrative and as accumulation such same ever, this could not in itself foster democratisation foster itself in not could ever,this economic over of of sale appropriation of state assets by party officials, ‘red directors’ of of directors’ ‘red officials, party by assets state of appropriation sale superficial and unsustainable and superficial state­ U. Becker, A. Auzan, It is

a tool these control Soviet Marciniak, W. ­Kraków ­problem’ resources direct.com to statism scarce official partial Party contacts exploited

after 1991, build as state ‑owned enterprises and Komsomol activists Komsomol and enterprises ‑owned time an

free open in conditions,

and a free 2004, ,

institutions 22 collapse material of Russian Journal of Economics of Journal Russian by property in A. Vasileva, it enhanced the traditional link between power and property and powerbetween link traditional the enhanced it planned . their ‘Revolutions liberalisation could .

elections, patrimonialism’

question a semi In

the

the ­‑market and pp. 78–87, of by ogain ipru. pdk wąk Swekeo pwtne eeaj Rosyjskiej Federacji powstanie i Sowieckiego Związku Upadek imperium. Rozgrabione and those as

struggle , employed by political­ Soviet capital’ not keep upwith ­‑criminal central the exclusive part and goods whether bureaucratic economy ‘Russia’s economy for the introduction of formal attributes of democracy of attributes formal of introduction the and

days 350. communist civil was

of create Union) a fraction

, evolutions laid way. of government for

Journal of Eurasian Studies Eurasian of Journal and any the

political accompanied the rights on

the information

assets. long real the the positions privatisation a consumer reformers , structures, economy, December 2017, ruins alternative

. . economy bargaining in and foundations nomenklatura. before They the of Russia: In

of liberties, its under dynamics of effect, the ‑business factions . in re were by Since true perestroika In existed - intended available starting previous conceptualized:

the society; in search vol. 3, widespread process. between Gorbachev’s , ‘privatisation’ meant not only ‘privatisation’not meant

mechanically value addition January system for

pluralism the at issue 4, system that

of the It from 1987, socio­

state the political transforma political the primarily a solution 21 to . led 2017, time, The . Although

of the market . A changing the These www.sciencedirect.com. without to They 23

‑economic reality, to practices law power

vol. 8, and growing in as its political and political its as rule, and organisedcrime party nomenklatura CPSU a gradual

to political transplanted whether and gains and taking

used to the issue 1, economy, 20 led hybrid this assets, overcome . path (the institutional a weakening dysfunction of control to their it were www.science

‘primitive life – of

was dependence

informal a whole decay Commu liberalism, to

possible at of infor clans legal

was take into

state the the the the of – ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ­ ,

21 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 22 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 “Simple, violentsolutionstocomplex problemsbecamethemainmethodof ‑economic Yeltsin), (the At this point public sentiment coincided with the interest of some fac some of interest the with coincided sentiment public point this At 27 26 25 24 worth with well­ In turn, justice, rule not resentation, tween the the tence the the post­ pauperisation for tions among the ruling elite. ruling the among tions for reforms for government’s a system an authoritarian and of cumstances). ently demand for rule with a firm hand a firm with rule for demand a growing by supplanted and public wider the of eyes the in discredited

governance W. Marciniak, ‘Фоторобот Т. Ворожейкина, Т. Ворожейкина, ник общественного мнения общественного ник www.novayagazeta.ru. state political social

background taken ‑rooted Supreme lawlessness of 26 the (which noting Yeltsin,

. democrats’

higher ‑totalitarian societyina top­ This the public,demandingchange ready in the 1980s, wasnotactually but rather expected ‘socialism with a human face’ a human with ‘socialism expected rather but there of

painful into dialogue reforms,

dual in

methods российского together was (even In effect, that Council), can interaction

Rozgrabione imperium Rozgrabione of were who account. society. living and

‘Определился

‘Было for

a clear of political power society 24 largely reforms both less

with was the

and Yeltsin’s a fierce no and ли standards of with

обывателя. this led to the whole idea of democratisation being democratisation of idea whole the to led this so Large mechanisms

where

manifestation

parties возможно time 2006, in Democracy the pushing for not a pressing and with system) in be

the effective ли that,

transformation. guaranteeing no. 4

the battle as

team (though justified новый the groups …, his country, the

to a system Faced

and иное: chaotic (84). op. cit. op. Реформы through criminalisation additionally, 27 opponents the public” вектор struggled for . andduetotheweakness‑down of fashion,

public need was established a curbing альтернативы ,

of , of conflict initially pp. 260, with by political which

and

and citizens the развития understood where или for adverse liberal 25 an control . the to widespread ‘Darwinian’ 531–532. стабильность’ Economic prevailed, fundamental to was

adequate vied a chaos this of were

citizens clout. failure России?’ for solve пройденные became

reforms, of the expected economic

over for did their

Russia – by implemented nomenklatura’s the The ,

in

undivided slump, Горбачев of

not led the , the paternalistic participate level form Новая protection. deeply

the the dilemma and intense

to political и непройденные’,

imply government, politicians to and all ruling what implemented of

previous Фонд the газета curb the

these , disillusioned political

political power; more support widespread , parliament

conflict in www.gorby.ru. , in regarding and the inconsist elite. Jn 2008, June 5 The need attitudes, fact omnipo politics. formed

as model social chaos socio­ were thus It is was Вест ‘the

the rep cir for be by ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

‘enlightened authoritarianism’. 30 29 28 The weakness of the state and the scale of the challenges made some of the made the some challenges of the state and the The scale weaknessof of [ In is reforms andpreventnecessary theoutbreakof nated managed, resolving ing they the political ual parliamentarism would hinder the transformation and lead the coun the lead and transformation the hinder would parliamentarism try towards anarchy.towards try ‘democrats’ the brake blocked by garchs, Council a guarantee of of overcoming ence of erally owing of economic ening a high degree due to his informal influence on political processes political on influence informal his to due degree a high avowed ‘democrats’ more inclined to a concept which could be branded as вертикаль Quoted For

revealing the state personal the the W. Marciniak,

model control’, political completed between

more and of prevailing on inclined competing to economy regardless and by

of pluralism the from: reforms. state political liberalisation details, for of loyal

the the власти reign in barriers

president’s was reality Pinochetism exercised Т. Ворожейкина, instance, theirexisting positions, preserving andeven directly referred to the Rozgrabione imperium Rozgrabione subsidies industrial RSFSR, this to to see:

this

and conditions determined (Yabloko factions. Soviet support him” exercised They conflicts), of merely ]” W. Marciniak,

context: (which

task. 29 to opening their . 30 later through

to reforms. power were feared The . constitution and lobby. The Russian transformation, already at its early its at already transformation, Russian The as obtain masked Now ­ free and ‘Было

provenance

of also the the by “Representative statement the president’s position was strengthened to strengthened was president’sposition the to needed the

… up legal would Rozgrabione imperium Rozgrabione that ‑market , the the The maintain the ли most presidential first op. cit. op. meant “Yeltsin They truly believed thatextra ­ support policy to возможно authoritarian

the chaos, bureaucratic Union regions latter foreign to , make deputy still relevant p. 166. reforms by and dismantle the authoritarian of became its for

in

largely had Gennady

protectionism. of иное…’ it absence ideological of trade force control

prime possible decrees, a rather bodies Right a civil war. of Thebeneficiaries for

…, huge Russia underway ,

goals op. cit. op.

op. cit. op. apparatus resulting a pivotal Russia the and and minister) influence Forces) of Burbulis over have to totalitarian , arbitrary rule. which

and need the p. 15. formal investment) orientation, bring 28 economic . become Hence, (de‑nationalisation dynamically

methods At that time eventime Atthat from figure They that a ‘power considered that considered was

(then of in order, procedures ‑legal strength form

the the October 1991 was viewed system, intended the of mainly

resources, employed were

would secretary incongru Supreme continue a system . of subordi vertical’ new Yeltsin chang

‘man it gen and

the for oli be as at ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

23 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 24 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‑democratic tendencies ‑democratic (in An 32 31 was a linchpinof elections’turnedfrom was proclaimed,‘free h ya 19 poe t b aohr ietn i srnteig non­ strengthening in milestone another be to proved 1999 year The админресурс In thisgame, theelectorateproved moreanobjectof resolving tion tival the the political used merely an economic basis for authoritarianism for basis economic an merely of rule. methods authoritarian back to efforts their joined kinds various of reformers the growing influence of the president’s inner circle on the mass media mass the on circle president’sinner the of influence growing the lations thana subject. Only five years aftertheindependentRussian Federation iting of free elections free of iting branches ber 1993) could even oligarchs opinion and propaganda machine propaganda and system legal­ the for respect of a lack with tainted thus was stage, Yeltsin’s The with group, Home – as the Kremlin: the sponsored important October 1993), oligarchs high the of of Semibankirschina if on president’s not operation

the

power (however, this ‘political owned first polls a large pluralism Russia, ratings

that of results approval the was be the

would – power. 31 resolved occasion the by was political of

was consolidated element

campaign formed. see: inner the (whose of oligarch

scale. Communist their successfully ratings economic enjoyed technologies’ , movement but the issue is lost, семибанкирщина require Glossary), among circle.

also by Vladimir newly (an when stalemate).

in In victory at and It

during reforms, The ;

that

the universally informal this by aimed supported Party at conducted resorting the ended . traditional the system of free market institutions became institutions market free of system the The parliamentary time that the Communist reconstruction acquired Gusinsky)

whether which way, would Russian led (see: ). the the

clearest ranged to so‑called arrangement with time by by defeat The by

guarantee presidential the Zyuganov Yeltsin, Glossary), to spin later accepted and entail domination there were otherviablepossibilities between a new assets), prolonged anti­ the in elite opportunity election doctors, the illustration the Party became was ‘administrative ‑democratic process tactical of a reversal Chechen garnered was of constitution seven 8%

in in Yeltsin the

law, a coalition forgeries Russian leader third and campaign December 1995 initiated. pro alliance constitutional interest typical of . War of thegovernment’s manipu not 9%, over

­‑Yeltsin place of

for the

of another and gradual

due Gennady this only methods.

of authoritarianism 20%

with any democracyintoa fes and reforms executive groups, corruption key of media to (adopted resource’ of in 1996. The of lay

public sounded around Russian

led Putin’s democratic black ‘democrats’ the

‑institutional elimination in term holdings known ‘Putin to crisis, votes, Zyuganov disillusionment Once again, Once and the scandals 10% support. oligarchs over bloodshed the In PR in

rule, (Russian: in in discred while (the deprive light 32 alarm project’ Decem

which Russian office, . other

inside This rota ‘Most’ was was and who Our for for in of of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

‘liberals’ ‘democracy’ (for The 35 34 33 was It rules rights implemented againstthebackground of ment ism the power fanned ing of a nation state on the ruins of empire, and third, the creation of of creation the third, and empire, of ruins the on state a nation of ing fundamental transformation of the political system; second, the build the second, system; political the of transformation fundamental the first, simultaneously: conducted be to had operations formidable able semi­ ­society. f h eomu sae f hlegs aig h rln ta, s three as team, ruling the facing challenges of scale enormous the of Russia new the of institution important most the became suffrage universal by elected ditional extremely of disputes a national identity in a society deeply traumatised by totalitarianism by traumatised deeply a society in identity a national

The

may

‑independent tightening War М.H. Афанасьев, Т. Ворожейкина, very Kremlin Buynaksk, rule for omnipresent among this the traditional that legal­ which founded ‑criminal to once the to

pacification in fight federal of at outweigh likely be a few. by Other the and law any the military domination theoretically ‑institutional Russia about at argued had weak again state that Moscow in that Russian there cost. was

majority the law physical Chechnya, Russia. the on more institutions In time, the race

operation operation notion the The enforcement 35 were ‘democrats’) staged propaganda.

Клиентелизм the came this ‘Было pluralism that authoritarian . was terrorist and public, to government it threat , constitutional do

for benefits was and Volgodonsk of of

way, mostly as the failure of Russian democratisation was a result a result was democratisation Russian of failure the ли offered with no to of in chaos in in

thus

because financial they society. was executive возможно

attacks Chechnya,

Chechnya the the

clientelism – place alternative) defending that bodies the traditional patrimonialism adapted to the to adapted patrimonialism traditional the … artificially expected in were ,

intentionally have suspended of op. cit. op. fore. only of In possibilities the in the were could

grip.

of political were September 1999, that In seeking

the latter иное… was and

and generally , genuine their one model Against to public p. 7. plotted fact, power,

exaggerating at a series make build face They constitute period restricted

political ’, that individual able and

devised revenge masshysteria over Chechenterrorism, op. cit op. that 33 it independence by the citizens of . of

sphere

successfully time apparently merely for Since this of democratic Russian

while not

to

image . the led

the the terrorist which If their

for

social partly vitally the some interests background, more resisted spoils, such by to state Second Moscow’s benefits of then, economic intelligence. actual the and had masked

Putin the Yeltsin’s oligarchs inclined

attacks stoked interested

advancement a binding a total consolidate and prevalence calculated – than on resurrection which the reforms. threat. 34 as the . defeat Chechen and

a ‘saviour fears A strong president A strong on of a predatory to with the death and elite were The subsequent political unconditionally

residential

inner The a spectacle subordination in of were in their state

sense force legitimised in destabilising toll Chechen (including immediate This the

conflict of an of of War, influence. in concern and circle, the of First only over 300. of of

remained atomised buildings spectacle line a direct informal nation’.

terrorism human capital the

enrich phases Chechen with public called support pretext for avail

with quasi was Thus, the the tra

It is and the the to in ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ­ .

25 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 26 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‘sovereign (e.g. the At thesametime, a sortof As The The 36 3. D rights to their their – than property Relations between formalandinformalinstitutionsarebasedon‘unwrit forms ten rules’ ten ties has od ad nvra procedures universal and bonds but constitute an intrinsic part of the Russian model of rule, which is which rule, of model Russian the of part intrinsic an constitute but as and as system components. The first is the traditional, proprietorial approach of the of approach proprietorial traditional, the is first The components. external to open economy a market to and times modern of challenges called of character on personalties. authorities to public goods designed to make them not only possible, but necessary.but possible, only not them make to designed state law and bureaucratic institutions, formally based on impersonal on based formally institutions, bureaucratic and law state A.V. Ledeneva,

build informal payment the 2013. a result, the unwritten . effectively contemporary public formal eep structures during the Putin era Putin the during structures eep This an informal of

of leader neo­ Ponyatiya or incentive, depends up

quality

citizens patrimonialism, rights version that and democracy’.

‑patrimonialism. spheres. (Russian: one’s position networks what for and ( rules their of influence Can Russia Modernise? Sistema, Power Networks and Informal Governance Informal and Networks Power Sistema, Modernise? Russia Can become понятия loyalty of and The secondcomponentisanextensive, modernsystem of

influence in only their of is his which

known public manifestations Nevertheless, the

actual viewed

‘democracy’ of понятия the inner ) of is to

patrons – a standard. or the Western one only

largely personal in freedom a ‘feedback loop’ emerges, asformal powers areused services small a services. implementation there of in elite the to circle. as , The neo­ The the with politicaland insiders. the ) 36 pathological system) key paved . democracies, member was

is position formal patronage Constitutional extent interactions of delivered). of What elements Pathologies do not accidentally ‘happen’ accidentally not do Pathologies a formal The .

the viewed Therefore, ‑patrimonial system consists of two of consists system ‑patrimonial economic the and position state patrimonial are on in of at way depends the in networks. constitutes the the considered by distinction their institutions are criminal for democratic dominate administrative relations the activity)

‘court’ ‘power in values of in Putin’s professional

public contrast state Russia on model (and For ​​ (i.e. from the and vertical’ a to between over ‘state payment are prison) functionaries are as instance, be systems, frequently arbitrary of

rights a warning to of not

the the state capitalism’ code

the a provisional performance results autonomous, the unalienable written the

of (including for power historical in ill­ behaviour – , decision scope New private ‑gotten offered loyalty. Russia rather in based from and York law. the are of ‑

‑patrimonial 39 38 37 vatised state vatised ways. First, it leads to a seemingly paradoxical hypertrophy of the pri the of hypertrophy paradoxical a seemingly to leads it First, ways. two in authoritarianism Russian strengthens model institutional This ible nationalisation institutions is ing in the tions porate loyalty in the informal sphere informal the in conflict of case the in appeal effectively can one which to institutions gations gains, actual and and act state strongest system of the state the of privatisationthe philosophy – patrimonial the with line in means – cally of ever, equality on enjoyed dependences seriously undermined by the prevalence of informal, hierarchical inter hierarchical informal, of prevalence the by undermined seriously The

a potential patronage state 15 January М.H. Афанасьев, Т. Ворожейкина, эффективности the as key the for political legitimise

as the serving estimated the obtained rules

bonds universal

is of years. monopoly an decision­ and agencies by before increasing

determined political only

one’s

employer 2016, state

, privileges are, of interests since networks system public subject .

collision In share

between

traditional In www.rzd ‘body

dominance­ of масштаба the clients. ‑makers owing

formal Клиентелизм ‘Было or like agencies, legal

Russia, the on players. the of law state­ nationalisation

goals) or the

of institutionalised to as the economy ли not of - state provisions,

partner.ru. 39 of with to service

state and terms, участия the appeal’. The continuous,

возможно . . ‑controlled those whole. a

usurp

The the rest so Private­ the the patrimonial ‑subordination The has … as (understood in patrons constitutional

, much those only op. cit. op. elite the

expansion well protection judiciary, of

who государственных an 37 been provider formal the

It иное… economy

(the ‑corporate

the increasing limitation , but dismantles of Thus, members. by p. 116. as head functions of deliberately companies and opaque

model state another legal social ’,

the

settlement violence. on op. cit. op. practices.

reached the (with as them, their of of h legal­ the the public

relations, guarantees a system regulations, agencies,

, state of law

and one’s interest p. 19. portion bargaining. компаний in Moreover, of

political

35% regard interest the ‘state clients.

as pursuing is

enforcement In the financial weakened sphere ‘Nationalisation’ paradoxi ‘Nationalisation’ in 2005 powers the of subordinate patron, very pursuit isiuinl pee is sphere ‑institutional

of public capitalism’) conflicts

of the

groups fully latter to в экономике

of de‑personalised weight The

group, society

idea and but social only there are no formal no are there

real The

rights and individual

serve status 70% subordinate 38 of authorities, are entire by of . clustered serves

scope latter

does and The their transfers). the in 2015. or of ​​ personal to depends the the and РФ’ have

to the patrons the and supervisory progressive , functioning logic

not key rule РЖД‑Партнер secure goals, define of to freedoms. See:

interests financial patronal­ been the

conceal depend powers around figures institu

includ ‘Оценка on of or of to

How who they

obli

law, cor the the the the the vis ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ,

27 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 28 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 The values mostly appreciatedtherein(loyalty andobediencebefore skillsand The well 42 41 40 The second major consequence of the Russian institutional model, per model, institutional Russian the of consequence major second The The overexpansion of the privatised state, together with social atomisa social with together state, privatised the of overexpansion The However, not ideological, is independent institutional instrumentally the system the government hasbeenconsistently impedingthedevelopment of undermines public political fixed ficial petuating the anti­ the petuating tion, has led to the entrenchment of clientelism as the foundation of the of foundation the as clientelism of entrenchment the to led has tion, lawlessness actual legitimise laws written the that knowledge) based been financial flows into the hands of the few. Special care is taken to ensure to taken is few.care the Special of hands the into flows financial lic politics understood as transparent articulation of collective interests. of articulation transparent as understood politics lic state system of horizontal social bonds social horizontal of ents. authoritarian logic that is clearly visible on the macro level macro the on visible clearly is that logic authoritarian state institutions is not so much to provide public services as to redirect to as services public provide to much so not is institutions state For A.V. Ledeneva, Erdmann, G. often www.tandfonline.com of linked

subordination as

an struggling exchange as Furthermore, in more on but

legislative

on presented ­Elusive a whole. clout place participation

‘patronal on are to many is

ethnic, make these networks reproduce, on a micro level, the same the level, a micro on reproduce, networks these make the public system forms determined any and Concept’ Engel, U. Can Russia Modernise? Russia Can in once of specific abuse for

fact levels,

An goods particular

make to procedures.

of of survival. regional identity’ ‑democratic tendencies, is the atomisation of society. of atomisation the is tendencies, ‑democratic trust . and arng ntok ae etcl n hierarchica and vertical are networks patronage that ,

the

individual features privatised the omnelh n Cmaaie Politics Comparative and Commonwealth social formal ‘Neopatrimonialism in and profits as for public could judicial, in patronage by the

all. of activity. state

resources. means or institution the Moreover, is institutions patronage …,

capitalise patrons also from as professional Their The

and

mere op. cit. op. cannot organs. supervisory anti­

that fluid, networks most arbitrarily Civil lucrative

, overriding ‑state networks fact p. 19. These Reconsidered: participation fill

but individual make on

society At as to important of its

rather public activity. affiliation. networks the

the assets being see: to

deals, and critical a free exploited a much

same H. Hale, logic in aim law and trust permeate Critical born are Russia based , The underdevelopmentThe

patronage in

February choice: is

of points . time, enforcement of group Patronal Politics Patronal formally

It thus impedes pub impedes thus It civil on larger to

in

40 patronage connections Review on

. has expand

a broader it Thus, there society

42 the 2007, with a mutually participation identification . for extent networks owned and institutional the task of of task the 45, vol. many , is

grassroots, trusted …, their i.e. in bodies, networks networks Elaboration

no op. cit. op. scale,

than are by other years su 1, issue

bene own

the not are the

cli on l as as in is 41 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ .

(i.e. with 44 43 Russian importance importance resources ranks. the decideonthepatrons’positioninsystem: Two first, mainfactors mafia in to to tives the president perform In this model, formal institutions the facilitate operationthe ‘deepof state’ model. authoritarian Russian Russia the‘deep withthe‘official’ state, inparallel state’ doesnotfunction telist good will of the authorities the of will good by between letls mas ht oh niiul ihs n fedm ad the and freedoms and rights individual both that means Clientelism but has rather replaced it at the level of politicalpraxis. These twobut hasratherreplaceditatthelevel states of supplicant, of relations between various state administration bodies is also clien also is bodies administration state various between relations of evolution cerning Putin’s biography alsoincludehisalleged connections withtheRussian crime on conflicts) cerning are bound together by the president the by together bound are it and legitimise areconditionaluponthe access tomaterialresourcesandpublicservices H. Hale, See the the Russia. the their ability 43 : theactualpositionof 44 inter alia inter . constitutes vested authoritarian

president . In authoritarianism the A clear public leadership’s state

Patronal Politics Patronal the of is they depend Due Russia, to is

to is

strength perhaps : deeply K. Dawisha, interests president not force the the politics, to offer functions criminal . as treated the Thiscomplex of a specific capacity on superpatron. this ­‑embedded their the

their regime.

…, the clout whether universal of Putin’s Kleptocracy. Who Owns Russia? Owns Who Kleptocracy. Putin’s means

of op. cit. op. big and

superpatron,

patrons,

most as and clients his and trait clients in to formal institutionsinthepoliticalsystem depends business, a subject , illustration the

pp. 31–34. A citizen, cronies , shape informal those

that constitutes important rewards deep and in and

individuals It is

to in their the opaque, oftenexplicitly illegalconnections backing therefore who comply. exchange systemic structures. expectations – based of and the clientelist positioned

,

ability relations downgraded and politics. who of stay state qualitative intelligence Putin’s

how on by punishments from However, subordinates on depend nature for the to the security patronage At backstage). networks with personal exert loyalty above , his ‘patronal security the New as

to of change on inner such agencies; the

same York what

influence the these sector the the and will contribution ‘collective 2015. networks the supervised expectations role services pyramid’, circle,

patrons time, degree is in support; connections, public work

and of the accounts of

and the nature the paramount

those a client organised history of is as of function Kremlin’

interest

resolve headed second, loyalty by

of incen to lower (con who

con key the the

in in or of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

29 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 30 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 The widespread 45 1.1. well as a few businessmen who have been friends with Putin for year for Putin with friends havebeen who businessmen a few as well of consists circle This centre. command state’ ‘deep of a kind form who and himself, president the by supported and trusted especially are who several in clustered are power of system Russian the in figures key The 1. The key players in the authoritarian game authoritarian the players in key 1. The It is II. THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS OF THE DEEP STRUCTURES STRUCTURES DEEP THE OF ASPECTS PRACTICAL II. THE in is ising in rary the petuate Representatives of this group have a different impact on the Kremlin’sthe on impact a different have group this of Representatives policies, yet all of them are relatively independent patrons, able to con to able patrons, independent relatively are them of all yet policies, trol sprawling clientelist networks, and they report only to the president president the to only report they networks,sprawlingand clientelist trol bodies, security and enforcement law the of representatives chief the rus wih r prl itrikd Tee rus efr various perform groups These interlinked. partly are which groups, functions and have varying degrees of degrees havevarying and functions administration. are eficiaries dysfunctions as their superpatron. their as some of the ‘oligarchs’ heading state companies (the ‘state oligarchs’), as ‘stateoligarchs’), (the companies state ‘oligarchs’heading the of some Those their the the is important of that special

tightly IN PUTIN’S RUSSIA PUTIN’S IN three The first group is Vladimir Putin’s inner circle – those individuals those circle – Putin’sinner Vladimir is group first The Prime analysis in Russia political their Russian formally system this personal it. individuals

trust Minister

and attributes intertwined. roles influence, ambitions circle should pathologies,

but of fall of their will authoritarian in

the has As

Dmitry within the loyalty the who, that

has no most encompass strategic and functioning practical

that political

major regardless Medvedev, the assets been manifesting big

The to The powers

likely which ensure

influence Putin; politics, said main motivations and regime. goals. of dimension system, formally of of the falter the are their his

loyalty above, personal survival the

‘deep on binding cabinet identification It

big inherent the long the On position should if state’ and to

key

business these second ­‑lasting Putin the Putin of (such of influence within the system. the within influence

domestic and security were force on

the its one also most on pathologies in as of

the friendship weakens not a high members energy numerous deep

politics, hand, of at

important and and categorise taken of other,

least this guarantees –

the foreign structures policy).

state position into they with occasions, heterogeneous or some most boil they business person have account

policy departs the security lead the down of effectively president, important

in become in

issues, here. he systemic in

Russia. to its as

the earned and contempo numerous the to members these One interests

even

system. maxim Deprived play norms public group scene. of Putin’s

those ben them and per­ are

less s 45 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ .

‘patronal Within A special position inside the president’s inner circle is reserved for Igor for reserved is circle president’sinner the inside position A special rela close whose officers, KGB former two oligarchs’, ‘state the Among 48 47 46 Petersburg Defence Naryshkin, However, ipating including overall controlover thepoliticalandsocio­ the the the the the ner, as permanent members of the Security Council Security the of members permanent as ner, Putin’smembers of innercircle, butalsoina moreinstitutionalisedman decision­ the on impact prominent most tions with Putin date back to the early years of his professional career, professional his of years early the to back date Putin with tions bers). based and sectors of domestic and external state security. They exert influence not only as onlysecurity. not state influence external exertThey and domestic of currently head key state key head currently often ence oil of Sechin The Both Patrushev

the company Transport, Leningrad is of the the

defence Federal Secretary current military, foreign still the among leads Leningrad President on. Among actual president, of , this in they 47

Presidential a permanent who them, . politics’ even the served (Saint position Mayor’s which Security and group to the policy. CEO the in

have served like law of them period. of conflicts implementation ­ a quasi the the civilian Director

intelligence Petersburg)

provides with Putin, the Administration of currently that in member enforcement the heads of the chief security forces security chief the of heads the been Russian resulting All

the the Office

Rostec Service Putin as Security served ‑feudal socio­ three ‘inner

no key Putin’s of placed industry) of

of Federation in mayor’s formal

interest the in 1991–1996. ‑owned companies. ­‑owned as

Leningrad’s Corporation consisting players ‑political circle’ the agencies (FSB – enjoy reshuffle KGB in 2016. Security manner Council

assistant in grounds of office, Foreign bodies officers of

and charge on Russian a large another which a service include: Since Council Issues

KGB and and and for Nikolai 46 but of

would in and ;

then, He his his Intelligence in (controlling when

Dresden and of, former 11 permanent of a hand is economic must degree despite ‑making processes in the sphere the in processes ‑making the 1980s, foreign status friendship Environmental

not also Alexander intelligence he and with Sergey Tokarev, not

has they silovik during only

be in his These said the in of served change the the Naryshkin policy); dismissal resolved ‑economic sphere);Sergey

, with shaping

both relations latitude Sergey manages council. Shoygu, scale to the Service a significant largest

the are: Bortnikov, as Activities, and have Bortnikov final

(a consultative a Special agencies) worked the ( Ivanov, CEO from of

Nikolai worked siloviki Sergey 17 ordinary years Russia’s by substantial

in scope their (SVR, general the in Russia’s the of Putin managing also Environment is Representative of the

with position at unclear. Minister Transneft , the

the

portion Chemezov, ambitions Patrushev, силовики began of

ae the have co‑partic the domestic state USSR. him

himself. logic head powers, largest

of mem Saint during influ Ivanov

body at head are the

and the of of of of 48 of – ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ .

31 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 32 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‘deep state’ ‘special Yury What The 51 50 49 Ministry 1.2. The second faction is formed by broadly defined state security insti security state defined broadly by formed is faction second 1.2. The However, institution interests of influence ness iation to the their their funding the authoritarian regime authoritarian the bodies) enforcement law and services (security tutions financial resources but share one strategic interest, which is to defend defend to is which interest, strategic one share but resources financial Guard – Rosgvardiya, ­ a long and stantly eral’s eral on solely on personal ties to ties personal on solely However, Putin See:

maximise was Office. classes. Petrov, In 1990 munist branded specific the FSB role regional Guard partners Kovalchuk, informal enormous Office, etc. ‑lasting all M. Domańska, with the public expanded operations’ and has of and It is Party a leader Kovalchuk His of

individuals head the the ‘inner circle’‘inner the individualsincludes also whose based is status as on

50 their intelligence is Arkady Putinhimself,which makes themimportantplayers intheRussian

security been a ‘bank believed evc – Service Internal . co‑operation

illegal control the levels, of of individuals shaping from procurement close clout, support the the of business main Gennady consistently ‘The supervisory Rotenberg the They are permanently vying for political influence and and influence political for vying permanently are They was of Soviet Committee or that and Putin’s income the relationship

increased Russian interest Tambov agencies Affairs; over this Федеральная служба войскнациональнойгвардии among for Shamalov’s Федеральная with advocate state agencies Union/CPSU. early 1990s ‘besieged the additionally

friends’. empires society became mentioned Timchenko aspects ­‑Malyshev Timchenko groups the 51 Putin for authoritarian from market.

policy as the strengthening and or External founders noticeably son, the in See: of friends of at large with

Investigative corruption Tellingly and . repressive

the fortress’ for any the shaping Kirill, They gang. only K. Dawisha, (the and but They “Panama Relations служба of

cost. years, strengthens to Russian above the state­ regime as and Shamalov Rossiya they one The

one brothers teenagers – isolate are enough, after president, most of ‑controlled Nikolai state bank, syndrome. scandal”’ as its that owing the of powers, have Russia’s Putin’sKleptocracy and have Bank, охраны such system Committee; the dates one position

Vladimir Russia managing likely policy friends can Leningrad Arkady extortion. they of does their in financed been , to Shamalov) back richest OSW, its as is offer common, of their attended ; not first

safeguard This companies. from in their to well the

over position 6 April power, flows of successfully people, Putin the mean and line with (Saint shareholders them …,

the his privileged SVR; as means

early 1990s, Within :

recent institutional foreign op. cit. op. of the 2016, the 49 money Boris that with access Prosecutor is youth Petersburg) corrupt came both . in broad

same Putin’s in They the the www.osw.waw.pl. FSB; , they pp. 63–70. addition Apart the

the they from years. Rotenberg, this

was on influence. martial to money, financial to and when will National building position son‑in‑law. and have the logic system. central budget Gennady

the power, group Mayor’s strive defend from busi affil This ; the Gen Putin con Fed Com arts was no to of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

plunged intochaos ‘reinstate order’ina country 56 55 54 53 52 which 1.3. The isbig business thirdmajorgroup Their overriding goal is to maximise their assets their maximise to is overridinggoal Their viki U.S. dollar most many the tee them tions andinfluencingthecountry’s laws) their the the largely but glorified Conspicuous Chechen of dering erences; enrichment on

Interview Already Some J. Darczewska,

their

Although ‘Власть 30 August 2004, They the gust See: inside influential ness including ence agement abroad, the second

of use state they oligarchs at influential powers with

Russian cases maintaining the that would have 2018, myth state procedures. due supervise of of the assets half via

and had wars by бизнеса. by them Swiss

in

did violence for such billionaires. the policies www.echo.msk.ru. elite, the than time specially to with the 1980s, of state requires system. include: making of not years has built public be displays mafia. also the the de facto de counter Defenders of the besieged fortress besieged the of Defenders made rankings

because all opportunity the they defenders www.novayagazeta.ru. Olga include impossible was Forbes people, decade. owing act been acted major use propaganda most established their In

speak and the However, and as - Kryshtanovskaya: procurement it intelligence the to the Russia’s of refraining

as Putin’s to senior составил former do of business hostages KGB easier enhanced FSB Some

of

emergency ‘custodians’ their bring the volumes mid 1990s, economic

multiplying and not public loyalty

The of officials began the state private unofficial necessarily in intelligence resources direct KGB

to the some oligarchs for transactions, 54 of opaque первый the analytical an precarious a democratic accumulate about .

officials, transferring associates.

accustomed of them homeland to there from these delegated access companies, of by end same

contracts and belong lucrative the ‘Операция the ‘cashiers’, measures. the their рейтинг

and reflect were one’s system to to …, report can despite safe actual agencies political Kremlin. Kremlin political

the

especially the op. cit. op. the They to 56 almost the symbolic networks business status to be state

. all president, , CEOs provides Theauthoritarianregime fortune, and

taking investments wealth , consisting влиятельных role

openrussia.org. all system.

turbulent awarded to «Внедрение» lion’s began Putin’s the found of The the administration no the of of

on 53 leverage to in nuances tax do regime of care with Over share formal legal

of state . large permeating Thecontinuedexpansion of the of strengthen are a unique declared

on ‘special the status

not private in breaks; ‘inner while The of

unrestricted

the ­‑controlled most ­‑institutional (through often without companies of KGB an his the the legacy positions of россиян’ of provide

the threatens завершена!’ abroad, Soviet main throughout the illegal profitable unprecedented agents

viewed

in around rankings bodies, the Communist circle’ past into operations’ property actual mission professional foreign the of companies,

their and , assets.

in competitive access sources same and state financial Эхо powers KGB as few

a total banks Russia system, the 1990s which oil balance (see being informal one criminal , the Москвы agencies Новая to and position See 52 of

trade Party’s years, of loyalty the 1990s, in and of information. . whose hundred

much above)

security The

below. Russia’s of gas who the guaran the regime, of Russia. makes big opera clout based groups,

ethos , газета,

scale, their power sector. latter. assets in 30 Au pref influ more two and ten man silo busi the

the in in 55 in ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ . ­ ‑ ‑ ‑

33 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 34 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‘Kremlin (or 60 59 58 57 1.4. ment illicit misappropriation rity independent icy: Western time to privatisation food port the authoritarian regime at all costs all at regime authoritarian the port tion with mafia groups. mafia with tion tem has changed his generous compensation from the state budget) is least determined to supto determined budget)least state is the generousfrom compensation being at of state, including Putin himself, became allegedly involved in co‑opera involvedin allegedly became himself, Putin including state, of confrontation of on close See: The The K. Dawisha,

take home ‘maintaining a deteriorating ­санкций’ 2018; April 27 certain himself. revealed in of officials embezzling developed of a period a widely such foreign patrons) stint apparatus When the Stalinist imports he the

of contacts income Tambov particularly tradition Петлевой, В. criminals. control criminal

late 1980s. was 57 the privileges. in oligarchs’

of publicised . from links ,

markets It seems that this group group this that seems It Ведомости compared in close the repression. funds Mayor’s Putin’sKleptocracy economic (Tambov one in order’ players overcrowded

for of of

the Старинская, Г. 58 was between with groups of and See: relations St. cooperation cooperation .

It

real This was the time when the current top decision­ top current the when time the was This of from

After Saint St. Трифонова, П. . a portion investigation in derived of

In the economic Petersburg reportedly have telling,

­‑Malyshev) illegal the the the , but

might Petersburg 2 June 2018, huge Office, In

due Saint

the the estate, the Swiss Petersburg to sanctions camps that Gulag West. major

also mafia income been collapse the 1990s, between period have with between to Petersburg’s

…, incomes There period, counter business Штанов, В. as of

(which conducted which the op. cit. op. gang – camps. forced

as been and situation

paying ‘Дерипаска

economic export www.vedomosti.ru.

participants from Mayor’s the handed Mayor’s of criminal well weakness of

hierarchical security - to senior have the are , intelligence linked included an pp. 75–76,

Criminal Yeltsin’s extortion, government, was from ease fuel USSR, them the role of organised crime in the sys the in crime organised of role the organised by schemes ‘Дерипаска numerous

as a price

Office. revenues not members to the

( groups and over services Office provoked at least those who cannot count on count cannot who those least at then снизит an the turnover the former persecution trade Spanish 106 only adversely to bosses criminal energy analytical of

racketeering, government Members organiser Darwinian of

criminal severe redefine to for and and

headed

state , of

with готов and the in 1991–1996. долю KGB

especially in

the (Russian: the publications were judiciary further. the Russia’s complex. including raw groups criminal and inter alia inter officers

of criminal Russian

report

state institutions. продать of group En+ в the External deficit political

by in this supposed materials their the of played The capitalism, the administration. in вор в законе вор with They Tambov , Putin that

became из‑за aggressive openrussia.org.

affected theirposition group groups gambling the the 2000s. power against early 1990s. turn долю prisoners) of

with their business deals was by collaborated Reportedly,

describing

racketeering санкции’ Relations

60 as of 1980s foodstuffs). became

an elite, dates the . formed группе в own

(the They to equal Viktor ) the gang business attractive This the were that

they be including See: geopolitical in back system More foreign

and 1990s the state latter , strategies in investigation exchange

backdrop 59 closely managed ‑makers tasked Ведомости, spent partners involved J.M. Waller,

Leningrad ГАЗ

became Zolotov, to subject Depart and than during Putin’s at asset of the secu

This case Putin из‑за that rules and from with with pol half was on era for for

of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

‑owned черный нал черный 65 64 63 62 61 h rls f oxsec bten h sae n ognsd rm have crime organised and state the between coexistence of rules The This governmentThis ­ ment inals mafia military information. the this the then prime for for home head of business Organised and similar osis of criminal of osis Putin’sera. in changed cyber expanding circles enabled officials days of See: M. Galeotti,

For

‘Organized the общая М.H. Афанасьев, ‘How The Journal of Post of Journal The www.ecfr.eu; based which espionage intelligence relationship. corporate as

abroad, bodies more, and attacks, bosses, K. Dawisha, National minister, close the theInvestigative Committee, Sberbank, functions a broker on

mafia крыша’ are activity. intelligence, bodyguard Mafia the the abroad. see: control Crime criminal ) also

‘Crimintern: to results are do

Illegal Swiss not Semion , latter and vested О. Ролдугин, leaders

as and Собеседник Putin

Putin’sKleptocracy Guard ‑Soviet Democratization ­‑Soviet and not agencies Клиентелизм Dmitry believed in used, ‑mafia groups and law enforcement bodies is thus one thus is bodies enforcement law and groups ­‑mafia The well Tellingly in only Politics ‑mafia symbiosis is mutually beneficial mutually is symbiosis ‑mafia Herman counter of over This subversion the Putin’s

funds the provide Spanish hamper 64 groups of interests mafia’s . Mogilevich to Russian as How of for GRU) have

the system, Merge win­ Mayor - , Kozak,

intelligence continue

to After 2000, 8 May 2018, ‘У the to took accumulated the instance, contacts enough, investigation … Gref business «друзей ‑win buy have ,

found services State. are the In op. cit. op. room …, and Russian Kremlin 63 (e.g. during Russia’

control Anatoly op. cit. op. 62 . using former

influence

The criminal also Challenges cooperation

. links 1994, , analytical and for benefiting www.sobesednik.ru. p. 517. Путина» for shelter both with , to uses sphere Alexandr andCEOof Bastrykin, Radio against acceptance of the vol. 2, Federation, used naked political manoeuvre Gennady to finance of

defence by Sobchak, Russia’s various the mafia

state the Free

to report the groups’ among no. 3, и «авторитетных the the in operations by U.S. – also criminals violence from Europe/Radio Tambov Russia Tambov in shadow

criminal , became www.demokratizatsiya.pub. mafia Russian anti­ bosses assassinations openrussia.org. Petrov, Russian includes kinds minister, obtaining of is

and the was illegal illegal

‑Western the said gang). but (‘black in networks 61 gang, Western and to Cooperation’ economy gradually currently the conducted . new who

intelligence Liberty, the Other

to activity. the trade also activities, бизнесменов» Anatoly the dominant illegal have pursuit including: rules are money’, : Kremlin, propaganda in the fraternise siloviki 65 www.rferl.org Russian in establishment. Europe’ . , and

wanted reduced, Demokratizatsiya: Demokratizatsiya: served the confidential h symbi The Key law of income by Serdyukov,

of

in thestate­ the

agencies criminal , Director perform Russian: party оказалась Russian Russian enforce

April 2017,

private both deputy return senior those game crim with (Data and and and in at ‑ ‑ ‑

35 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 36 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‑arbiter ‘great vidual 66 1.5. A broad base for Putin’s regime – and the environment in which its which in environment the and Putin’sregime – for base 1.5. A broad The mutual relations between the key interest groups and individual and groups interest key the between relations mutual The ing influencing sectoralstatepolicies, thesehigherranks of intelligence the the thoritarian tion rent’ to the fierce main actors operate – is the state administration state the is operate – actors main a more actively presentinpoliticsandbigbusinesscircles. share of the important components of the Russian ‘deep state’ ‘deep Russian the of components important the of one’s one’s expansion echelons (occupiedby ministersorgovernors) of form a group enrichment ­ a zero of logic the by guided are actors Corruption the Kremlin. As the past. status own political game’; middle­ a common competition interests or law. is The 66 the territory less of . into Thisissimilartothesystem of model rent – services as

‑ranking it ‘owners administration highest effective influence; their rather members new predominates see: strategic (ideally, involving and – Glossary. official and spheres of body performs and

implementation the ultimately – criminal holding of lower of with interest:

positions state’ the

is tactical, appeal of in not

the most more economic ones) these and back interests an function only in would important allow fluid resources allows independent are this would relations. of the known ‘feeding’ from stateofficials ‑sum game ‑sum

driven the activity coalitions rivalry. converge. them lead them of preservation mean Kremlin’s

a conveyor patronage to to to by The theambitionof Aside from to being plunder) Various and actor milk the

(bureaucracy). letting to avoid . president

bureaucracy(similarly It striving prospects serve decisions. marginalised. profits implies in networks, of competing liability belt the competitors , guarantees directclientsof

where group the authoritarian guaranteeing from to as a consistent of current maximise the for

Its business, and personal they ‘corrup groups Hence, upper super­ break them indi into are au ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

Chart 1. Source: SECURITY INSTITUTIONS TOP BUSINESSMEN (PRIVATE SECTOR)

own Federal Leonid Mikhelson Security Service Novatek inPutin’s Maininterestgroups system of elaboration. Vagit Alekperov Vladimir Potanin Ministry Lukoil Prosecutor of Internal Affairs Norilsk Nickel General’s Office

Nikolai Patrushev Secretary of the Security Council Arkady Rotenberg SMP Bank, Stroygazmontazh Andrei Melnichenko SUEK, Eurochem Investigative Mikhail Fridman Alfa Group Committee Aleksandr Bortnikov Head of the Federal Security Service Federal Yuri Kovalchuk Guard Service Bank Rossiya Nikolai Shamalov Bank Rossiya Sergey Naryshkin Alexei Mordashov Director of the Foreign Severstal Foreign Intelligence Service Intelligence Service Vladimir Lisin NLMK Sergey Shoygu Gennady Timchenko Vladimir Putin National Guard Minister of Defence Volga Group of the Russian Federation Alisher Usmanov (Rosgvardiya) USM Holdings Viktor Zolotov Director of the National Boris Rotenberg Roman Abramovich Main Directorate Guard of the Russian SMP Bank power of the General Staff Federation Sergey Chemezov Rostec of the Armed Forces (foreign military intelligence)

Nikolai Tokarev Igor Sechin Transneft Rosneft

Putin’s inner circle Alexei Miller German Gref Gazprom Sberbank organised Close ties with Putin crime Institutional affiliation STATE OLIGARCHS and close ties with Putin 37 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 38 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 vention, The 69 68 67 The proprietorial approach of the state authorities to public institutions public to authorities state the of approach proprietorial The In this Empire 2. Pathologies as the essence of applied authoritarianism appliedof essence the as 2. Pathologies inefficiency, reproducing the the position power for private gain” patterns primarily that in a law in that phenomena towards therulingelite, gives riseinpracticetoa numberof lic is a foundation of the Russian system Russian the of a foundation is linked to corruption to linked Corruption, present in all areas of life of areas all in present Corruption, and abuse and at servants – ogies. cases, or corruption contracts and public goods, together with the widespread clientelism of society of clientelism widespread the with together goods, public and Definition It See: hundreds medium­ officials www.pasmi.ru. was org.ru ber 2018,

state government services. issue social involves

of it in ‘Коррупция – latter In . and in

135 is can of the at Russia, to

TI the of inflicts significant losses on the state and inflicts significant th mentality, the accompanied ‑ranking

bribing by as behaviour of position every placed the

education, be of the law case, micro­ The ‑abiding state would be clearly recognised as serious pathol serious as recognised clearly be would state ­‑abiding Transparency the

public’s a tool everyday system

billions divided Soviet authoritarian to for officials Russia second миллиардные by level widespread business out ‑corruption redistribute for officials the

contrast, are of of response imposed on , 67 Union, of maximising 180 and healthcare of into

which . life), sake power. International by

a list

type

These abusesalsoincludeviolence an

its dollars (i.e. it public interests coercion

two indispensable of and organisation. of убытки pertaining is countries and they model misappropriation is from found

Such will to servants, the macro­ resources types. citizens broadly annually) systemic and (TI). thus form vested the для not itself practices, above intertwine or of which ‑corruption, In citizens’ and The бизнеса

profits arbitrary government. deeply be in the to , trying part defined –

blat 69 the directly and These pathologies are primarily primarily are pathologies These interests do instrument explored challenges, 68 TI first relations . from

. not

By group ( Corruption

блат и государства’ Corruption, of widespread accruing buy rooted combat with everyday to contrast, one

everyday violence. of ) – as of major gain meaning responsible loyalty,

of highly see: is in public “the ‘big between corruption on business

Perceptions in major an for micro­ access Glossary. this from public the politics’. , corrupt contact macro­

abuse attempt Pasmi.ru, both strengthening as Corruption life outside paper, large­ funds ‑corruption political players. a matter , viewed by pub their , to www.transparency. lower­ and in for Index 2017 states). procurement ‑corruption of public ‑scale with the 25 August 2015,

to

(estimated the privileged and since entrusted the permeate ‑ranking adapt In Russian In culture of allows public state’s , goods fraud. Septem reach mass Russia most

(the it con and to is ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

70 view The state with rowed transgressors. tem. tions practices, principle unwritten Entire organisational units of state institutions are engaged in corrup in engaged are institutions state of units organisational Entire to rank’ to tion. state. Russian the upon feeds that pyramid corruption the of superpatron the president: the is elite’senrichment the of scope the the assets is the principle of intra­ of principle the is Secondly, Since be bodies be helps to eliminate potential competitors from the economic sphere, and sphere, economic the from competitors potential eliminate to helps are several obligation funds collective compromising controlling of one’s ents economy, of See:

subordinates distributed punished public subject jointly of protection

Thirdly, it

involvement and The the Glossary.

from

as and the key

see:

(Russian: a betrayal applies the unwritten rules include the principle of ‘stealing according of principle the include rules unwritten the public which also political control. individuals they accumulated inthisway allow politicalpower tobemaintained rules. . involved Kremlin. state and С. Соколов, principles Entangling criminal for A special participation in corruption is not a matter of choice but of of but choice of a matter not is corruption in participation proportionally legitimises materials continue from disciplining to excessive allows is Often,

bureaucracy, here, (in in This those life. accustomed

брать of in form ‘Война This Russian their corruption

slang)

corporate in meaning

(‘unwritten these the The ultimate arbiter who decides on the scale and scale the on decides who arbiter ultimate The the is everyone of collected above charge ‑group transparency ‑group unrelentingly strengthens

greed, the an у «бассейна»’ по чину по possible superiors key management 70 obshchak associates. practices. among . they

illegal to This them. influential to

mutual interests of is disproportionate enrich in , the in are

брать не по чину по не брать is concealed rules’ – these due ‘transparency’ in this all advance , a ‘pool’ seizure Новая The omnipresence the feedback loop: political leverage political loop: feedback the known case interested Corruption Should loyalty mainly as themselves

of practice institutions as krugovaya poruka krugovaya groups, (Russian:

газета

Russian: the corrupt of the of are from

as trouble and insubordination

basis , corruption to . private 12 October obshchak ready If бассейн is parties, including to the

provides one’s solidarity. schemes the

income ­ a quasi понятия and by ), one’s of and and nationalisation meaning ) – to

very means property socio­ 2011, impunity superiors, see: , be in their ensures position общак rent ( ‑mafia takes www.novayagazeta.ru. law круговая порука круговая Glossary. corrupt fact used accordance are ). ‑economic of Firstly, is subordinates rear that enforcement governed ,

and

state by the expected against a term method the of in More the loyal

officials its one scale form corrupt the loyalty

of funds. there latter on head, with rela

bor can any sys the this cli by of of of to ) ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ .

39 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 40 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‑corruption years The The The The fight against corruption is practically impossible in Russia, because Russia, in impossible practically is corruption against fight The 2.1. including in independent rupt the the tion tion to to tion priation punished), there is no state institution that would remain free from it. from free wouldremain that institution state no is there high between but groups, games. Compliance result a anti accept bribeswould quickly losetheopportunitytodotheirjobeffectively, due allows a small and, of often

its Russia, ostracism the Embezzlement publicised

description even ­‑corruption key institutionalisation of goal ­‑ranking or scandals of given practices, weaker (with revealed phenomenon

one

‘sensitive’

On the other, extortion everyone; fragment including types of of the if of are through

to the loyal radical public numerous settling

campaign’ with such official media. by representatives. understand

presented resurface state motivations of

system’s when let of their

participation campaign

systemic information, the

of

practices otherwise from funds the the alone sanctions shadowy

officials.

Details of corruption schemes are disclosed selectively of Details and scores remains the of rules it intelligence

peers. high­ rivalry corrupt that serves

budgetary impermeability of the not private below. puzzle but eliminate the

pathologies, is ‑ranking and illegal between

is has unofficial is as transfers

are Rather unknown. often rather the logic ‘Money for thus a great in as to practices

interests a consequence is

been not business

intricately the

an

siphon practices control shown agencies of enforced

them. and not due federal paradoxically,

instrument employed, state

the corrupt mules’ deal conducted (including to revealing intended state of to and

whole

themselves foreign to off On over agencies of

the serious

decide requires and the by

designed

top­ and scepticism funds system the company parties of the cash picture,

a public regional public ‑down of

bank

illegal) by the one sham the

to

to threat conflicts

as state

in from flows. the the is reduce fails close leak fight hand, illustrated

system engaged. accounts political in

generally control even contracts servant should spheres Kremlin supportive funds officials propaganda.

of each official to information interdependencies Such against

direct between this guarantee if the would

case. the of be

Probably

and controlled who The so‑called

conflicts of campaign scale

having reliable

by

over circulation, are the attached repression, exact

public misappro

participa However, business the does collapse.

interest Corrup

usually circula of recent to safety scale been ‘anti­

only and cor the not are life by to is ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

‑owned 73 72 71 Russia regime. poses used high­ accumulated state). a covert beneficiary of many transactions of this kind. this of manytransactions of a covertbeneficiary

Quoted

• • • result mated to panies Putin’s piggy banks – a secret fortune in tax havenstax in fortune Putin’sa secret banks – piggy favourable Sergey based activities. shell Е. Артемьева, Д. Травин,

‑level his in which In 2007, In 2010, Russian Roldugin’s in turned tract, transaction another cancellation. ers and 71 A great deal of indirect evidence suggests that Vladimir Putin is Putin Vladimir that suggests evidence indirect of deal A great companies . companies such They in the from: from elder value at belonging Roldugin spent officials tax Просуществует ли путинская система до 2042 года? система ли путинская Просуществует a large

Roldugin Billions was state­ out cases. ‘Panama in for

enterprises include one ‘Тени havens, one contracts one daughter) of a so‑called on

to companies soon

Roldugin ‑controlled was Roldugin’s (also

registered of be profit (which Путина’ (musician, of measures (e.g. to These

to Papers’ of

associated Roldugin’s

Roldugin’s financing signed although received written Russian

dollars registered signed (up , , and is funds The 3 April 2016, means and purchase ‘pool’ have the fortune to viewed at New in company on

close flow off oligarchs clearly US$400,000–500,000). he the with with compensation tax then formal subversion companies the Times, companies on (see

an in for does through same friend havens). www.occrp.org. a tax next numerous is real the as increased serve

Russian one footnote 70), 29 January disadvantageous US$372 million not indispensable Rosneft. owner Russian (many estate) time. day

haven) US of officially to these and concluded

These received

Vladimir sold increase dollar. state­ 2018, of Under share worth occasions of oligarch propaganda contract A or for

companies,

them a number , them

‑owned Санкт www.newtimes.ru. contracts to are

engage the The in 73 for the a US$6 million acquire US$750,000 the Putin . an used on

­‑Петербург for purchase ‘owning’ are Their

Alexey 72 the lending bought terms

personal agreement to Some banks his in hidden cancelling and for of operation are previous while activity any stakes huge

contractors. companies Mordashov of political 2016, extremely of godfather

the shares of company and business

the the for the wealth behind

profits shares pp. 326–327. Russian in outside with own loan, com con esti of funds, the the state­ in pur

the ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

of

‑

41 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 42 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‑controlled 74 For in tions that piled under corruption concerning The • • • transferring у Путина?

obvious people ‑owned allows leave Another Their US$260 million, Kamaz Part Fake Russia’s indirect its intermediaries tional ter’s that to the thanks trolled and assets. companies company debts

entities amounts an open main

held Cyprus­ was of wedding loan companies are purpose Как is like (an advertising these for reasons,

us by the and Avtovaz. These to

Vneshtorgbank. metallurgical extremely mentioned evidence linked grossly important a 100% журналисты shareholders carefully Rostelecom. to another a total ­ a multi mechanisms donations Roldugin money credit was ‑based transactions. assume, include was took Putin’s linked to invested

unfavourable

stake and including ‑stage range price line indicates that oligarch, his to concealed difficult place RCB source и аналитики are with buy to industry banks.

henchmen. giant. worth Igora in between accumulated to name of also are scheme, merely the In 2010–2012, bank, one Bank

luxury Instead, in 2013, in two a high

of Suleyman that US$60 million Yury tied ski president to Russia at The is

74 of

S50 million US$500 funding giant) to . US dollars, estimate, Rossiya least оценивали

not

money resort, The which the they Roldugin’s including real the total

degree However, Kovalchuk as all mentioned in companies in US$650 million, paradox bank. and well estate are property Kerimov. the Roldugin was the from value mules where (the was состояние automotive of as used bank

as

and Roldugin form the

in from companies the and likelihood the bank controlled Russian shares of is and

serving the Putin’s S20 billion. US$200 by and purchase in In

belonging volume accounts that trails yachts Putin’s had

of президента the Putin) the any of form Nikolai

assets ‘loans’

in the sector

unlimited ‘Putin’s received under years 2008–2010, state oligarchs that younger of as (if (a great to Video of fortune of

by main and of of the intermediaries

entities not to are

evidence ­‑controlled loans Shamalov). such

granted

России’ companies Roldugin’s ‘Сколько Kerimov’s a contract the Severstal, friends’ – documents strategic registered Interna certainty), around ‘owner deal daugh access or built transac state­ from ,

con Медуза,

state­ денег com of to on ‑ ‑ ‑

of

‑ ‑

‑systemic ‑fold. Vnesheconombank 75 The Kremlin Russia’ ные 2.2. is redistribution tracts. tory for from the election campaigns of opposition parties opposition of campaigns election the power’ of ‘party the and ­ an ‘anti approved certain of consulting candidates, companies. draw Another

then domestic (no 5 April 2016, The cooperate, in made for the of or of the director authorities. boxes’, son election кассы Slush members mechanism ban

exchange the federal Firstly, it takes the form of overt or covert financial transfers to transfers financial covert or overt of form the takes it Firstly, assets regional data estimated of Another distributed places ‑corruption’ by governor amounts governors’ Putin’s Kremlin. widespread regarding on

on inseparable of ones). businesspeople beforehand –

budget they funds Saint the Rudnov’s or The from policy. campaigns. holding www.meduza.io. for dirty fortunes cousin;

of illegally to budgets

are (parks, donations, (such Kremlin; widespread Petersburg

Such donors

due effectiveness Political their entities of of other usually in of

money element wealth in Businesspeople

and

to Petr which the cooperation and financing cash of bank churches, political , money a highly the to Shelomov United by families.

obtained Russian they Kolbin, to countries.

persecuted may Sberbank). finance Secondly, special ‘black cash boxes’ cash ‘black special Secondly, is ‘de‑offshoring’ television, shortage

of linked Besides parties

the to any pooled available). accounts those

the party win in practice Kremlin charity then administering is

a friend

with Russian regions. Presidential Russia, and opaque projects lucrative major parties political Roldugin, of often Putin

to by who

funds which Kolbin they are in funds. regional count Е. Артемьева, projects, etc.), them. local either

The abroad, political from illegal These

aimed is not donations by public officials are deposited also backed manner reach should supervisory The other in the campaign. activity Putin’s money on private authorities their

These are allowed seeking receive tax

effective at scene urges procurement Administration US$573 million slush allocation ‘money lucrative Anatoly imposed boosting ‘voluntary’ regions which ‘Тени havens, youth; 75 finance responsible

is are

. goes business institutions,

to with the Russian

with mules’ funds) is

collection (both direct to Sobchak’s election

Путина’ cannot The beneficial

and the in and the decentralised

obtain tenders. into public ( in 2013 de facto de of fact the and while popularity include: corrupt thus or Sergey

latter the opposition

instructions be are used to finance finance to used are grants , of big US$550 million and are a common op. cit. op. tax election state­ unregistered

proof funded for this for officials

as In

systemic sponsors compulsory) procurement Rudnov, officially Mikhail business service on

turn, includes

obliged businesspeople state­ system United ‘black its of ‑owned of money

and (Russian: state from campaign United their if subsequent

‑controlled or the Shelomov,

they should cash’ of in subsidies the respectively prosecution from pool

and

‘black usefulness

officials without Russia’s to son donations to leading Russia a statu charge refuse is regional banks funds is in 1996. offer with of non­ two­ proof since, con

and чер cash

the the the be or to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

43 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 44 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 76 See: • • • • The Kremlin’sThe boxes’ – cash ‘black opposition and business as government’sas business and dependants opposition выборах: проблемы обеспечения прозрачности финансирования политических партий и избира партий политических финансирования прозрачности обеспечения проблемы выборах: тельных кампаний в Российской Федерации в Российской кампаний тельных www.transparency.org.ru.

Almaz­ These were United Kremlin’s Right In 2007, In 2016, 30% smaller manifestos reach machine­ ing turned the tenders parties, formed from half Subcontractors by given entered exclusively candidate controlled of ‘«Черная

Tatarstan a company the Democratic

a million

used US$150 million. the Forces to ‑Antey. are campaign Russia out that were pursuant with касса» into ‑building the the

‘black who regional in Kremlin­

by sponsors that and than spoiler it in 2014. Kremlin­ preceding such for won the roubles Кремля’ the was controlled received would

slogans Party cash the for the preceding agreed intention to by industry. contracts state­ running ‑created

budget sums parties: the large , of election The box’.

entities ‑approved The The not was of

years United ‑owned closely one decision

and New Russia money

by receive appropriate granted transferred Shortly public in was the The of million (these Citizens’ political the Times, paid during related campaign the

Russia. confusing ,

resemble parliamentary Rostec ( Трансперенси company transferred budget was state­

of Демократическая State the procurement for before 10 December to

data the other roubles to donated the by money. ‑owned

parties Force In 2016, sum to Duma corporation. donors). governor of to do the

United the spoiler those voters. belonged election

was the the not

( sponsors.

Интернешнл 2007, (almost Гражданская election election to Instead, by whose weapons 61% election State paid

oppositional

cover of company a Russia’s contracts a company parties of www.newtimes.ru; It

of genuine campaigns).

also to Altai by

donor One Duma партия (similar US$30,000) names, 76 the the a United the

sponsors in ­‑Россия, manufacturer subsequently bank were party Krai, the cases year

money are

opposition companies was сила indirectly from

Union Republic России schemes political

account

Москва around a grant earlier, almost was Russia where

to set ) Деньги на на Деньги

was dur and

the the in of to 2017, ). ‑ ‑

‑

‑linked (e.g., (Russian: 79 78 77 legalprocedures theseschemesistheimitationof An essential featureof Another The 81 80 2.3. inflicted includes, idential tracts the tender, pillar It should be assumed that part of the money earned byIt should be assumed them goes that part of to Putin by companies himsel earned due Under For According . e z, t Ger B. In 23 August 2018, ках Minister www.freebeacon.com. Forbes’ roubles rose report ordinate embezzlement allocated budgets Misappropriation access payment, practice August 2018, undue more of has в России several f business as huge decrees).

79 , Russian Oil and Gas. Tickling Giants Tickling Gas. and Oil Russian the 2017

frequent Putin’s obvious Forbes.ru, among (around of .

распи details been Medvedev for of

well Embezzlement ‘Putin to to various

­‑fold, the restrictions food estimates sums of оценили information

even reach and www.navalny.com. Navalny’s decree as present increasingly

on л million) US$15

regime embezzling others, Corruption supplies circles,

and 22 February ) financial levels The frequent

the 77 practice granted 2 trillion individuals on though .

the issued by It logic на National narrow of subcontracting Anti to experts, involves quality 2 трлн 80 Arkady

of the and to of the the .

­‑Corruption roubles Network by afflicts

Because

about 2018, bid losses the public is and competition state was National exclusive

restricted Prime рублей large due Guard of rigging to one group

www.forbes.ru. commissioned linked stolen foodstuffs Rotenberg administration unjustified (around certify rigging

eighth

the to even on Revealed’ Minister ,

procurement commander, www.globalstocks.ru. Guard sums в год’ of to status Foundation regularly

this of the beneficiaries

favour

Western to of 81 US$30 billion). Gazprom’s the

, main the deteriorated. . of Newsru.com,

way. the

are of bids company from the Medvedev. , Russia and The supplier state concrete funds inflation completion is legalised

For revealed Kremlin Viktor beneficiaries embezzled or works Washington publicised Gennady public (around sanctions details, security allocated

awarding to subcontractors funds ‘«Распил» investment ‘Короли

It is 10 June 2017, Zolotov and

of a company the have of

340,000 personnel). see: by estimated tenders procurement is annually. scale

thus for Timchenko. the

of known sector – Free specially

госзаказа – ‘Картошечка (in corruption targeted public

not

госбюджета of a project of contracts

value

eebr 2017), December owned www.newsru.com. embezzlement on Beacon,

see: public been The that projects, ­ and

procurement

the as the the total by around of issued at 2018.

public ‘sawing up’ completed.

treasury Sberbank

Arl 2014, April 7 They

a former Росгвардии’ contracts and на contracts.

contracts strongest After scandals, Kremlin­ amounts without

госзакуп Рейтинг which of 1 billion issue prices have pres Prime in funds con sub CIB the 78 of ‑ ‑ . ‑ ‑ ,

45 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 46 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 84 83 82 Official

Slightly • The This ing the El Dorado for public procurement – procurement – public for Dorado El из the FIFA World Cup marred by the shadow of corruption of shadowFIFA the bythe marred WorldCup lion, Gennady Chart 2. and another tothepersonslistedbelow) withcompaniesbelonging contracts signed construction Source: 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 сторы ‘Золото коррупционной crepancies instead and businessman, 50

0 списка ­The Saint The Its ums but public key the [billion roubles] FIFA modernising Arkady Rotenberg was 70% и подрядчики

С. Титов, initial

of data. мундиаля. actual different also

beneficiaries cost Forbes’ was of Themainbeneficiaries occasion bread?’

351 the are World Timchenko of funds. For Ravil beneficiaries most

significantly which estimated not most of Petersburg , and

more, , ‘Миллиардеры политики Forbes.ru, data OSW Commentary OSW

Ziganshin, Доклад construction Cup likely only It чемпионата

(after are sports modernisation expensive see: was Oleg Deripaska was

in 2018, a result provided of grossly I. Wiśniewska, о , and of 11 June 2018, cost 2017, manifested 41 завышенных

the the the is funded Zenit facilities exceeded listed на Arkady of contracts. was www.yabloko.ru; мира Winter ,

public in no. 286, футболе. the an World inflated

and the Arena among government’s 7 billion indisputably из www.forbes.ru. from

report J. Rogoża, Araz Agalarov of списка theWorld Cup(thetotalvalues of and расходах modernisation 17 September by procurement Rotenberg Olympics Cup

the Инвесторы the sports 39.3 was repeatedly

during the

Золото мундиаля Золото key the

costs roubles Forbes’ in С. Титов, ‘The 2018 the beneficiaries federal на efforts history – accompanying and главные record­ 2018, и подрядчики prestigious Gennady Timchenko the in , of Forbes.ru, were to

and transport Sochi) FIFA similar inflated ‘Миллиардеры contracts www.osw.waw.pl. project hide and of 32.9 ‑holder арены

(50.9 billion the drawn it World traditionally

the most regional 11 June 2018, cost for final links facilities costs implementation, ЧМФ event, чемпионата

Cup up infrastructure. infrastructure. misappropriat relating over in football

Dmitry PumpyanskyDmitry in 2017, between 82 in

- cost на roubles). 2018’ this of Russia –

budgets футболе. served US$13 bil www.forbes.ru.

building , 12 reached

respect. abroad. Центр where among мира the to stadi These

circuses the official

84 as Инве 83 Tatar анти ‑ ‑ ‑ . dis

‑ ‑ ‑

The wrongdoing concernedmulti­ MoD. 2.4. in 2012 tation of tion scandalthattookplaceattheMinistry by One as • •

bid the

The of of It 48 billion (a financial The mation transparency than 18 billionroubles).Thusthestatebudget mighthave lostasmuch pose zlement. launching less St. Several bles. government as and contractors). opaque, earn of construction one due case

rigging. of

ministry’s the

involved and state

failing 30 billion

Petersburg the control main than against to officials of a serious as Estimated most resulted

irregularities

Moscow’s strategic much investigations about activity non­ The

3 billion They to roubles allegations serious investigations widely

meet functionaries inspectorate) by the ‑competitive roubles in crossed scale of as threat in orders in administration include siloviki

budget connection Magomedov the possible

army spending the Luzhniki). (while the irregularities publicised roubles of stadium

(almost

to deadlines during made a red dismissal the for have

modernisation losses Russia’s factions the the was on illegal

companies selection (Kazan revealed and line ‑billion roublemisappropriationscommitted funds by investigation with been the cost the US$500 million). scandals not in brothers – related

Transparency

the of (among of in image. in activity Kremlin’s Kaliningrad. construction of over corruption

launched the the

Arena) the (including

the their

Oboronservis

an irregularities of

World to cooperating FIFA sale

then of analogous lucrative programmes. subcontractors Apparently, Defence (MoD), which broke out them other put desire

businessmen the and against of flagship

World

minister, in Cup

at as assets past International However, the a former 15 billion facilities connection of risk The Accounts such to

schedule,

spheres Zenit

facility company decade lack worth high raise Cup with project. and these the but Another Anatoly of involved real and referred Arena, timely officials vice­ roubles range the the rather the 12 billion abroad

businessmen was public

with which

estate, against the linked ‑governor) stakes reason main Chamber the between Serdyukov. implemen important and the lack embez (in of to in is

could infor corrup

as

sub­ risk rou and less to the the the the the the for of well

the ‑ ‑ ‑

‑ ‑

47 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 48 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 vying 85 sphere of Source: • • The gold ­ The Regularly the the the practices band lucrative smuggling in the hands of law enforcement officers enforcement law of hands the in lucrativesmuggling scandals enforcement of ‑post.com 26 July 2016, www.novayagazeta.ru. Бельянинов

bitter ‘unofficial’ ROSTEK ROSTEK. ROSTEK East In 2006 2008–2009 20–30% market its importing involve toms later, agents and shares other one beneficiaries for Federal borders is revenues Д. Зотов,

such corruptpracticesisforeign trade, where the the one of ; customs Germany, А. Сухотин, conflict ‑bearing borders – borders – ‑bearing have Service continue customs Belyaninov’s

www.moscow

publicised ROSTEK’s

were was не huge a comprehensive of Andrey Customs not company of

According bodies. хочет

the ‘«След goods not fees

the reduced the only from closed profits warehouses. (in between of

most yet расставаться Other agencies ‘Борьба state­ regardless for where share,

Russian Бельянинова» the Belyaninov - to subsidiaries. The the 1980s charged post.com; scandals Service commercial led tasked unimpeded Russia). important by advisor sources: ‑owned illegal to obtainable from only с to partly he the findings коррупцией: law their that Federation М. Хайруллин,

с carriers

with most

tangible handling of (FCS).

И. Варламов, 714 FCS. ФГУП activity enforcement concerning Those he Belyaninov’s в «Ростэке»?’ ROSTEK became

reshuffles due was offered

key Over sources to activity was passage the

In likely from of «РОСТЭК»’ to 313, However, nominated закрытый figures agencies

with the 2008–2012, effect functions an change time, the of suggest

the ‘Таможня transferred services ‘«Крыша» and cross­

Accounts met officer , of to customs of The forced standard the among ,

agencies, of corrupt the wife director

the Версия being shipments 200 of Moscow показ’ ‑border

Vladimir each smuggling subsequent that even company state that

не of head от of Lyudmila acquisitions to the the ,

дает ,

punished, Бельянинова’

procedures 3 February 2014, Chamber, a customs time. refused Новая the

fees, customs income. the Post, only them control number of budget. mainly management machinations. of добро. KGB

across Putin). most 6 July 2015,

the but газета the siloviki a few attained of

scandals were held Или

to goods also It is state­ residency checkpoints Federal over the and in , outrageous of agent , of The offer the 16 February 2017, percent related почему

arefiercely One

the linked www.versia.ru. shares

stakes a subject extorted customs www.moscow FSB ‑owned corrupt Moscow 85 at border. contra across of is years (they their least year Cus that

and Андрей law

in in in of to to Post, ‑ ‑

­

86 The • • • • had

(FAS) The This Putin Belyaninov himself In In 2012 By Following management in 2012. ninov no investigation was underway againstBelyaninov. He metwithBelya­ income the protection), foreign head have larly handled likely bribes associate and scandalous successfully smuggledexpensive alcoholtoRussia (partly owing toFCS companies. charges. contraband. ously collaborated operation close March 2016 billionaire the Eurasian affair as relations accused meant received of criticised belonging from went the end for a result currency)

Alexander that was the by Since According

of next a series turning ended of 2011, photographs

individuals also to entrepreneurs, with

FCS. This FSC­ was both Belyaninov, Development the with of Belyaninov tens then, an he day, the its

‑related ROSTEK. to

arrested. FCS with Shortly element amount, were head, took illegal of Romanov, Belyaninov a blind ROSTEK’s 86 around FSB of thus to

. the complaints InJuly 2016, searchedhis house, and FSBofficers of

Yevgeny the millions investigators’ full leaked linked

for of being of entities FCS, supporting charging afterwards, was the himself. These

Dmitry

voluntary eye This however, Bank. shoe control unnecessary 0 newly 40 Putin FSB’s a former Murov. subsidiaries. to to arrested following slow to removed was boxes roubles companies the might the to attack smugglers. ordered Mikhalchenko, over of to the

used media. FCS is him resignation

estimates, he collect filled established on

honest advisor only have Federal and the FSB as publicity the Belyaninov’s management was as in ROSTEK Furthermore, bribes Federal Tellingly

way with took a pretext

sentenced representatives a fraction the obtained. Part customs nominated carriers to Antimonopoly conflict his in 2010–2012 banknotes over of Guard ROSTEK of a businessman and from private

to

service Belyaninov this enough, duties. for the announced be guidelines,

Service. or of and on foreign with the income the closed chairman

an assets the and corruption companies (including dealt accepting from attack FAS Vladimir previous Mikhalchenko

the corrupt Service he a close as down previ trade

most regu with who may FSB. that FCS has the on of ‑ ‑

49 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 50 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 88 87 with which 2.5. institutions. ment take over thecompany’s stage, assets. theentireoperationissealed Inthefinal to companies, oftenincollaborationwithcriminalgroups,profitable law enforce people harass involvesa massive assault Corporate Corporate and sensitive data.Subsequently, forged documentationisproducedinorderto extortions) corporate enforcement cally, These These • the ной 31 May 2016, checks Krasnodar launching real imported of of did er’s the under between Corporate

a court the investigations ‑generating

Vladimir an prosecutor Patrushev the had sentatives not

final agencies, maximum, intention жалоб often to firms data 200,000 cases losses supervision – investigation of see the FCS. state previously declaration, raiding goods goods. raiding raiding investigations Krai the were is бизнеса ruling www.osw.waw.pl. leads resulted prosecution

that agencies agencies, of general the goods One at Bulavin, and

А. Сухотин, collected the raiding to 83% intelligence (the

the electronic aims including most

are Saint consists to (together pathologies the в Генпрокуратуру’ investigators launched favourable that of state while of from was this inflicted Security bankruptcy.

the without is his unwilling FCS actually to a pretext Petersburg. after border. frequent launched facilitated decoupling an those launched entrepreneurs take ‘Борьба authorities first against

and procedures FSB a special of

serving in adequate

by

who with was crossed Customs agencies,

billion­ over to private Council which decisions the in 2016. с transferring general abuse

See: supervised businesspeople the to коррупцией…’ to to the cause , on

the A classic corporate raiding mechanism raiding corporate A classic channel illegal seize profitable РБК revival the evidence confiscate В. Дергачев, voluntarily officers electronic raiders. ‑rouble lost 88 on fabricated system tax The ,

or . border.

for

7 February 2017, assets. a mass Secretary) Small of judicial their and state­ largest the services of was

investigations customs

at of complaints is of communication

electronic the , Given companies. scale, losses were See: a widespread According former procedures

their power companies op. cit. op. highly and ‑controlled ‘Рейдерство the number the border

charges M. Domańska, relinquish authorities submitted including the and medium­ restoration in became clearance money on company’s www.rbc.ru. circulation highly opaque Russia’ subordinate checkpoint of This for the supervisory submitted practice). to complaints between and стало and massive goods to launched ineffective , strongly state data entities to ‑sized OSW Commentary OSW the court

their P. Żochowski,

and of then this and private of самой did clearance of documentation In 2014,

However, from goods, customs businesspeople new undervaluing budget (which not corruption­ arose

suggests

business gives FSB of exploit assets. supervisory by communication taking частой authorities see to

head early 2017, Nikolai accounts, business only

in proves which documents and repre the 87 commit as

the ‘Business Moscow, . that , a result причи import no. 212, them 46,000 Typi actual over of of and law that and ‑ the the

‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

(such vice 89 However, raided. individual personal See: • ­ A two Actors: Ivanovich – Igor to out loses businessman A loyal vate weak was Putin’s Igor the this the Kremlin vs. Bashneft Kremlin the head he another state­ on www.osw.waw.pl; ber 2016,

companies) strengthened the while Investigative In 2008, tion trolling unfavourable for Sechin’s appropriating order. as Russian fully transaction J. Rogoża, Ivanovich oil ‑controlled of to ‑stage the other, contacts inner a price Vladimir such

corporation www.osw.waw.pl. of Yukos, fend illustration entrepreneurs Bashneft’s loyal oil

The Bashneft. stake efforts ‘Areszt Sistema, system contacts operation circle. and off it the

to several Sechin, accusations S. Kardaś, was which with

was Yevtushenkov, company both Sechin’s Committee the gas conditions Władimira the in relations to Owing quite Bashneft of stakes of In Bashneft Igor policy Kremlin. companies, following company’s do the buy

was power. times the the September 2014, ‘Pseudoprywatyzacja: are was not economic advances. Sechin, exceptional. the Rosneft Jewtuszenkowa: to precarious belonging CEO 89 taken especially and makers with conducted always of launched the lower (owned company On from His

the the the of Yevtushenkov’s shares takeover large over the who

the the to only owner transaction). Kremlin’s position than suffice and the take to state by vulnerable. one status

state­ by holds Unlike an private and władze Sistema (Yevtushenkov failure Yevtushenkov in 2014–2016, government AFK on Rosnieft’ its Rosneft of of investigation over hand, administration ‑controlled to was individual

of AFK real a strong the of Sistema). instructions, kontra protect Mikhail

banks Rosneft

a majority was private placed were rapidly przejmuje the arrest value. Sistema In in 2004), biznes’ to the case or position

of a company seized have Khodorkovsky was which negotiation and under company property The

refused were

In into growing major case , Bashkiria Basznieft’’ corporation, OSW, of stake April 2014, generally acquired accused his protectors

beneficiary Yevtushenkov Bashneft under the of big house preceded allowed 17 September 2014, in trade own due

in in privatisa , Rosneft. Vladimir Bashneft, from OSW, the a court channels. region, Russia, of business role arrest, to a con and rely

(the was mis and 12 Octo the the the pri being too by in of ser ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ on

‑ ‑

51 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 52 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 Viktor 91 90 violence Its officers 2.6. in ing in thecompany’s (a mechanismknown as profits the Racketeering is an organised system of extorting money by means of of means by money extorting of system organised an is Racketeering facilitation formed Kryshevaniye broadly defined protection defined broadly activity, of examples of can After

• •

exchange confiscated Internal ских В. Петлевой, with Russian nal mosti.ru

latter business

be Kryshevaniye Rosneft Bashneft 2017, May In Bashneft In Due 270 billion nationalised. porate his Sistema. Affairs.

Zolotov). organised спецслужб’ provided the n 2016, in in coe 2016, October

intelligence release . (threats, are of to liquidation not exchange Affairs, of On

for raiding. kryshevaniye by the ‘«Роснефть»

100 billion supervised or contacts drugs only crime. the in 2010–2014. In (ironically, a real , the Krysha roubles Delfi, by headed from krysha conciliatory basis

agencies blackmail, and eebr 2014, December of the Rosneft protected Federal criminal See: 91 for In the 5 March 2018, . or of house with

state­ FSB),

и «Система» ‘Критики racketeering the refers information ( service, roubles a regularly in illusory still by by

крышевание was connection end, administrative ‑owned Drug this Rosgvardiya,

sued derive Putin’s offered This as arrest groups drug physical stance both some the Кремля well 90 ru.delfi.lt. as krysha transaction . income available, Control was AFK

помирились’ umbrella of mafias the

to and paid long­ to Rosneft as its or Sistema’s of ,

видят in protection business violence literally with result private Sistema . powers from

law the ‑time Yevtushenkov, sum fact it the Service but can bodies. drug за the withdrawal , enforcement extended bought Ведомости were Federal контрабандой of another of was also be security personal otkat ‘offering

trafficking, entities

shares alleged and

for a settlement, concluded protection taken against (FSKN), made One named total a kidnapping), , Russian: the National , attempted over over 22 December 2017,

of mismanagement in companies in the the of most profits bodyguard, that majority наркотиков

competition agencies their the by

liquidated charges Bashneft ‘privatisation’). money the sum roof’) representatives case likely the most Sistema откат Guard

legal drug Ministry from of act in ended means the means sometimes stake (currently or

collaboration уши (Ministry notorious against

almost or of ). www.vedo General traffick the Service, were in 2016. a share

paid Krysha and

of illegal россий cor of in in of Inter sale ‑ the

to

‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

An 94 93 92 agencies spread

S. Lain, • • • From criminals to criminals From the evolution of racketeering and racketeering evolutionof the Гуров, А. ‘Как в современной www.ttolk.ru. ReiderstvoTactics important

(i.e. among At After The might in remained those the that tling there people frequently first law led among against strongest eteering criminals, easy economy 1970 в control –

exchange

the over by Corporate Raiding In Russia. Tackling the Legal, Semi Legal, the Tackling Russia. In Raiding Corporate financial

enforcement history attempt the despite prey рса мафия Красная was the companies former - have turn х still

them harassment. private element «воровской sum swallowed

России’ position started collapse , no under individual to RUSI resorts exerted controlled had criminal of

of

for crisis, of the to the way security criminals

racketeering the 1990s Occasional

,

business. to

protection ‘civilise’ www.ecsocman.hse.ru. a share siloviki

of law , criminal agencies legalisation which to seek to among Москва мир» to of state

both up contemporary develop As groups seek

brutal entrepreneurs enforcement the as officers). 30% protection

private Paper, стал – – in institutions extorting the much were 1995,

formally and It those USSR, legal

money took

kryshas profits. serves of criminal влиятельной dates unbridled or July 2017, in

the 2000s, 315; p. company of engaged as private business protection control offering the Protection

the kryshas 85% private at 10%

back two and in .

Russian funds In Волков, В.B. agencies At USSR. www.rusi.org. became and the weakening

methods of the

main informally – present, system security in to of системой’

revenues commercial of ‘protection’ was sphere

after speculators - in mid business

the Legal and Illegal Practices that Constitute Constitute that Practices Illegal and Legal illegal the

from an Small from economic

goals: increasingly exchange and banned ‘Силовое entrepreneur’s - times business 1990s, of of Russia , agencies of the

extortion. extortion

Толкователь 93 of financial the entrepreneurs ‘persuasion’, extortion

firstly, .

privatised

activity, by state FSB, when to entities,

under judiciary, struck criminal предпринимательство reality recovered entrepreneurs. law for sphere

founded stronger it which institutions, was the

operations In 1979 protection , is enforcement was Soviet

a deal 4 uut 2015, August 14 business is income

and violence an

shadow 94 has kryshas offered the meant . made:

authori

quite from were Only rack and and law, the the set wide 92 ‑ ‑ ­ .

‑ ‑

53 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 54 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 As 95 without warning). Legalinstruments, includingtheweb of which Having Public However, 2.7. in mutually nel tration tration) tarian toolfor disciplininga large of segment position frequently monly through offering them lucrative posts in the federal and regional regional and federal the in posts lucrative them offering through monly to expand into lucrative positions in business and (far less often) in the in often) less (far and business in positions lucrative into expand to large Since become moreorderly, thoughnotnecessarily morecivilised. Bothracketeering Over the past few years, a new generation of the Russian elite started elite Russian the of generation a new years, few past the Over a patron. as and accept as a sense and appointing of Russian society of cials, or administration, or in business. in or administration, state administration. state See:

unpredictable the a guarantee close www.fpp.spb.ru. long Nepotism for in kryshevaniye state­ top­ the other Преемники 2.0 Преемники 2.0 is authority other similarly of ‘feeding’

of tried friends, is as in supposed ‑level contradictory In

the

commonly the ‑controlled ‘protection benefiting see the the personnel. party this people and downside patronal logic patronal of the system ‘contract’ representatives and

regardless unequal , way, ways. (i.e. one’s the

( financial tested be аристократы may to ‘protectors’ andtheprevailing socialdistrust,bothinstate institutions (unless cronyism

they siloviki exploited ensure from the corporations

services’ The act

of However, These regulations, is people

terms prosperity works power that performed arbitrarily

political well­ only it of they

with their ) as ,

their are incompatible a report there

to offering ‑being,

of salvation market in it of belong stands seamlessly,

it ensure the

a constant offers

loyalty forced

the 95 law competence. is leverage This can . is by of by (for sons also no the critical personal

enforcement the to protection every became always

criminals a corresponding mechanism privileged

‘cooperation’. is Peterburgskaya to instance, guarantee a close a consequence and

entire to with the and society;andsecondly, itisa chan the inflow

find chance points daughters be safety Kremlin. This is expressed most com most expressed is This dominated position ‘protected’ standardised circle family

used a more or

mostly launch status that of bodies constitutes Politika law of of and

against of rent

the becoming the is

of

in

measure enforcement powerful of for non­ family against a corporate enhanced secured,

Foundation,

high­ the by system and the from contract

entity family ‑transparent or procedures entrepreneurs siloviki state ‑ranking atomisation the and a clear themselves. corruption,

of hereditary. krysha may

is members and 30 May 2018,

heads status adminis friends). security. will , raiding viewed bodies, it one’s have illus

offi and last, has for as of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

96

Yury Chayka. Itturnedoutthattheseprosecutorswere linked toorganised • Artem Actors: The key The tentacles of the octopus: the family business empire business family the octopus: the of tentacles The management, its tions tection taking over companiesinRussia andinvesting profitable theensuing prof Chayka. are of the Prosecutor General and the mafia the and General Prosecutor the of cartel contracts crime. ‘«Чайка». Foundation

abroad. Artem via with transferred the to purchase prosecutor’s porate Oblast. acquisition stage skoye of out over excluded between

VLP collusion court shell Chayka In entire by Artem by was Фильм sectors the became

in turn, Parokhodstvo, awarded medical raid. Chayka law for The The December 2015 companies, rulings involvement real found from sum. the Chayka, Фонда those ship enforcement is to enterprises Igor In 1999, of takeover (these office. of a dollar estate a massive

his chemicals ­ a state experts, earned

tenders to Since his repairs, dead борьбы Chayka favourable who foreign

his entities In 2002, Igor is business a company and in available Верхнеленское

mechanism ‑owned are in millionaire. the companies с of his Switzerland. no коррупцией’ Chayka – were under the attack agencies, his and has industry

bank allowed local loan first investigation are the proceeds to own on built then taken interest river YouTube. accounts. was various interlinked Chayka financial associated VLP on large

the garage under , as and bore his For including demanded the a film nonetheless over director transport bidders sons

tranche from fortune пароходство are: concrete years, company’s pretexts, enabled the 96 made

was rigged This with (despite supervisory with of and waste selling classic by

opposing undertaken). prosecutors bear Prosecutor he money the the of on Alexei company

controlled Chayka manufacturing. bids. him has fully

and money public disposal, management suicide early all active its hallmarks – Navalny’s earned

to was the assets His the repaid, VLP) the bodies granted take repayment General procurement help (Verkhnelen owing

hallmarks later reporting competitors mutual

being hostile by A sequence landscape in Anti were money over Chayka). the of and and Irkutsk used ­‑Corruption to

a loan board ruled a cor Yury then take­ next rela VLP pro the the by of of to to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

55 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 56 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 The methods illustrates the authoritarianism. of one’s corruption • •

the Kremlin’s

family ‘GTA family A scheme villa The gang They Despite Krai, Russian Kaluga real itable the tive part hotel by Oblast. Chayka a grim an sia companies of dismissed of cial company due phenomenon,

the Kuban ostentatious Olga used to regional of

to

Committee value, of to gang’,

the

Leonid business hosted committed scheme, so‑called

buy companies blackmail

the on

the reputation provide Oblasts. Very tacit the has Lopatina, holding by full was belong Sugar public involving from Prosecutor real Krasnodar was and responsible law conviction

also These likely, Korzhinek, prosecution representatives permission. spectrum for

of

who ‘Tsapki estate it office opening also refuge the enforcement to never They to company procurement, from many

invested

dozens is the from formally as maximise the are: criminal

competitors local impossible used formally the Prosecutor in 2014, Krai were General’s in

prosecutors. revealed wife to gang’. of years for nepotism, of the ceremony). who

Greece, most prosecution

the by of authorities. members

Kuban with income the numerous

of acquired

the salt Artem serious

groups

their protected of agencies

This members

had after Alexei supervises cruel key links

for impunity ex‑wife ­‑mining their Office, the were General including Sugar. personal organised business corporate it from

such pathologies Chayka of Russian were Lopatina bandits Staroverov, with crimes, was for connections authorities assaults

In successfully and the

by and of of

The practices just his industry turn,

revealed for

(the the actively the the

another gang Yury the links profits. to in

a luxury political criminal in raiding, business remaining around including a small

prosecutor is underworld, the fight the patron and judiciary. Alexei Russia’s also in 2010, of the Chayka’s to to wives case that

helping

with to in gang, killings Russian

the eliminated, take former against a co‑owner ­‑business 20 years, fraction take extortion, hotel, group the of Staroverov activity he of Chayka recent officials mass

shares of

the ­ a wide of over Given

the

had several Irkutsk deputy place

the

two in and Krasnodar senior

terrorised kleptocratic co‑owned corruption) Investiga so‑called Moscow used selected murder. of earning

owners history. elite in in family. bosses the ‑ranging criminal partly of ‘feeding’ without

from their

prof (the Rus was this and

offi the his scale

at ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

The 97 99 98 Kadyrov: 2.8. reasons. taining turning policy power property from liar abroad’ addressed sonal state ern Russia is the Kremlin’sthe Russiais ern Chechnya.with relations domestic does cult’ criminal domestic For

• • A criminal khanate at the Kremlin’sthe at khanate service A criminal служба И. Яшин, Р. Сааков, lin’santi

The ‘personal mafia regions not power federal Estemirova, Politkovskaya, Kadyrov’s Representatives up pline for loyalty aratists eration. more (e.g. Chechen over stability of a blind , to Firstly, in methods - a number the criminalisation policy, of 24 April 2015, Western policy Western politics,

details, mentality the Угроза национальной безопасности. Независимый экспертный доклад экспертный Независимый безопасности. национальной Угроза open ‘Кадыров and the twenty practice

and the in to state territory and union’. The Russian republic check. Putin, pacify eye the see: autocratic leader, threats where he in terrorists. to the known institutions, human a thousand и силовики: M. Domańska, the and methods of is , www.bbc.com/russian. apply has soldiers OSW, effectively journalist a Kadyrov

at unable the One example of employing criminal methods to govto methods employingcriminal of example One political Kremlin of and Federation, 98 republic. he paying in left the to

. Warsaw 2017,

the Putin local victims in serves rule the the of the its same This of rights backed regional the oбмен highest to state has Conflict

mark spirit inhabitants residents. huge holding killings federal is including readily accepts manage effectively republic, Secondly, as outfit time backed of murdered on уколами it power www.osw.waw.pl. activist a bugbear -

the on subsidies dependentThedeterminantsRussia.domesticof the Krem Kadyrov’s is of numerous siloviki Chechen emphasising siloviki onto ruled

within such resorts the resorts archaic the Donbass by law which или Kadyrov are way resolve state. it murdered . his insubordination in in Many 97

конфликт enforcement for is to and almost to ‘death . to authorities Russian As an private patrimonialism. occasions Moscow an 99 is separatists), demonstrate criminal This the utilising autocratic outside clearly bound the acceptable of Chechnya’s is squads’ opposition.

officially в верхах?’ a useful them includes

in Often Chechen army, decision­ n 2006; in to Grozny revealed manifested methods the mafia are agencies. are Russia for called way include and , consisting price his Russian BBC ally responsible , independence treated keeping former ‑makers Москва two conundrum; Russian groups above by News n 2009; in indivisible in Natalya in to by the for apparent He Ramzan Russian Anna foreign his disci 2016. a pecu Русская Fed as ‘inner sep main all ‘diffi even view of and per law the ‑ ‑ ‑

in ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

57 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 58 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 • • •

Administrative n 2012 In National Kadyrov’s Kadyrov Russia It is Kremlin Dubai, its rov’s rage in to the they the tary the their the unit federal law him had been Chechen Circle. and agencies abroad. organising of of ordered

Moscow Kadyrov’s co­ Nemtsov’s staff – federal Federal assassination brothers enforcement been believed led of is committee have operation most openly involved guilt

respectively; affiliation permanently deputy authorities, reports by Chechen these (which Guard, opposition supervises switched off. (including people, an ever influential and the in 2015. the siloviki Guard protect personal that Ruslan armed murder, murders. in murder despite notorious of Directorate been should appeared General on is assaults, agencies

criminals following with of Adam

the but Service an Despite security it

Boris who Kadyrov’s unit the criminal questioned, and located the friends extremely was State interventions. Chechens of the be their committed Delimkhanov, Neither Viktor

were FSB) Chechen Sulim Sulim Nemtsov, consisting criminal assumed murders, claimed on as were international many of orders holding Duma open and in and the

the Kadyrov’s groups. killed freely enemies. Yamadayev. the Zolotov, forced Yamadayev, Kadyrov generally carefully years cameras despite protectors anti­ President

support ‘from mafia, ‘impossible’ Zelimkhan in an (where between President ID racketeering in 2008 of operate There ‑corruption) opposition the Kadyrov’s This of

cards to at is the He criminal ‘Moscow

numerous investigations nor close covering protected immediate least active believed avoid for he of The is has very were in and 2009 leaders the of

anyone in Hotel wanted the the Israilov Moscow. sits

investigations to several Chechen US led responsibility Chechen Moscow. cousin top’. politician both syndicate, cases and Russian identify headquarters’ killers. is in officially the to to belonging clues area) of

responsible The from be vicinity in the blackmail, by in conflicts

aka murder dozen when anti­ conducted and Moscow one intelligence Interpol Russia head In killers some suggesting parliamen Federation They those murdered ‘Bes’. his ‑Kadyrov Brothers’ a United suspects the of against federal people of owing entou to

of scene Kady form have with who case

The and and and and and

the the the for for by ‑ ‑ ‑

The examples presented above clearly illustrate how representatives of of representatives how illustrate clearly above presented examples The tutions upon state and society and state upon the Russian political, bureaucraticandbusinessestablishmentparasitise become state exceeding authorities. ( property. sible Управление are intertwined

their

for subordinated

providing statutory They

делами with manifest ,

government to with private powers

Президента the the

vested to property, and active what

engaging services interests ). extent or This and tacit

is and to in state of the involvement what overtly

the managing federal property

ruling degree criminal agency

elite government of the in

the Russia state members, respon activities. highest insti has ‑

‑

59 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 60 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 The dominance of the deep structures has persisted in Russia over cen over Russia in persisted has structures deep the of dominance The 1. Deep structures vs. the personal dimension personal the vs. structures 1. Deep However, Putinism III. DEEP STRUCTURES AND THE PROSPECTS THE AND STRUCTURES III. DEEP interests reproduction model resistance the tutions. turbulence tem, permitted free from turies, regardless of the different personality traits or leadership styles leadership or traits personality different the of regardless turies, limited is templates authoritarian the has leadership. ing the authoritarian state authoritarian the ing be toguaranteethecontinuityof Given and a specific age system. strong significant of the superpatrons. the of of decision­ ernance,

of authoritarian power of authoritarian the privatisation networks’ emerged, social from FOR RUSSIANAUTHORITARIANISM and power that ruling the inherent Hence, ‑makers where his

is of hl te edr ly a udnal sgiiat oe n rul in role significant undeniably an plays leader the while superpatron under public expectations to relations occurs. challenges Vladimir The

usually will the current any elite, of whereby dominance some

persistence Putin authoritarianism barriers leaders, naturally the of as control. durable regardless

the regards characterised in Russian presidential experts Putin plays in

the effectiveness of the leader depends above all on above depends all leader the effectivenessof the Russia, This state. or of the to who systemic in

By super the lead is of a much possible democratisation, the dominance constitution, coming and the These

of the (which the elite significantly naturally to

­‑arbiter, system), authoritarianruleandtosecuretheinterests the logic opposition term lie as self­ qualitative central changes, and more guiding systemic inevitable an more years. ‑replicating is of (2018–2024) the extremely a logical has .

strived his impact on the reproduction of of reproduction the on impact his the important ‘path Although figure the in public The principles, limit even leaders always the long­ changes will changes. architects reshuffles dependence’, most very for in the ‑term consequence if deep most are personalised is

in temporary the role expect resonated maximisation the room important

logic in the always which structures,

likely Russian prerequisites of than the last among patronal­

Putinism that of for Russian a feedback consecutive

focused govern any clientelism foster manoeuvre with socio­ of his model of political the

of the ‑clientelist along

departure these of

‑political effective the the will political political political

around patron for of power, insti with vital loop

face will and gov one sys the of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

‘Manual The roleof 100 with all constitutional and informal powersinformal and constitutional all with vestedup ends often him, in struc deep the of logic the to rule their adapt to able they are whether most authorities.regional Thepresidentmostly intervenes inthosecaseswhere the interventions right the tations understandable for presidential centre of power, which is the very essence of authoritarian of essence very power,the is which of centre presidential their performance as arbiters on based is leaders of status The ownbenefit. their for it apply and tures legitimacy he lishment. lobbyism; ism. bies groups, Given becoming a hostage to certain intra­ certain to a hostage becoming antee a leadership change. They canbeexpected toonly back a personwho willguar state set opacity of decision­ of opacity of concern or sian political model as a highly ‘personalised’ one is largely a result of the the sian politicalmodelasa highly ‘personalised’oneislargely a result of This

exert the balances imise primarily manoeuvre, deep at

The apparatus probably to the these key refers different allow the against approve ‘manual control’ gross structures

president continuation This is a direct result of the lack of effective control over the over control effective of lack the of result a direct is This their theleaderislargely circumscribedby thisbalancingact.Theirroom personnel interest of inter alia inter systemic the

him the by in retain violations the is main only albeit vested levels the the control’ or by system to largely

appointments to groups backdrop veto and can the remain gubernatorial imperative case ‑making processes ‑making to their restrictions, task of quite interests of a few freely mainly

president the as government. over

of based of the could is influence a whole

citizens’ extensive, the high­ major to previously of insiders. authoritarian selected bend elections – in

balance on serves of key ineffective be of ‑profile the widely the

the

‘feeding’ bureaucratic over business affected. key is arbiter the over rights made at Regular opaque system of spheres ‑elite factions ‑elite the is factions. the the the stake rules scandals.

limited the by to ‘proper’ interests formal in status quo status the political that state the transactions, Besides those ‑shared perception of the Rus the of perception ­‑shared political­ or for reports the of Kremlin. elite. inertia;

where are However, results the by means filling system. institutions. These outside of the this, committed sway state’s . Thus, ‑economic on ,

of the politicaland whose the it boundary voting key state either the scandals or reflects These of most the strategic activity, the the superpatron, the

regular state operation various merely administration rational latter narrow his by powerful domain factions the positions most conditions federal serve as exclusive interests business personal are interest logic long expec of estab to often after fully will

legit lob the or as of 100 ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

61 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 62 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 (mainly These The 102 101 ity in 2014, image imacy the they though personalemotions, preferences, affections or animositiesarenaturally tarian this context present he hasabove Russia’s allpersonified power great ambitions. bodies Given legitimises the political regime and personifies the state the personifies and regime political the legitimises and afflicted as aganda sation sional of Russian authoritarianism, not because the current model of rule is rule of model current the because not authoritarianism, Russian of agencies intelligence and agencies enforcement law of interests the of often decades. determine whether the authoritarian model will survive orcollapse determine whether theauthoritarianmodelwill significantly more personalised, but rather because Putin symbolically symbolically Putin because rather but personalised, more significantly style affects the social perception of the regime, yet does not in itself itself in not does yet regime, the of perception social the affects style This The a glorious

Muscovite of as and trollable the seems of incumbent politico­ decisions should reliable compared

the formal authoritarian elite partly are this is and solidarity to power and failing machine quite and in a fairly the

Russian In the result ostentatiously faction above every his official

court wider economic and due ‑economic 101 the FSB), not rational, since period to collective is frequent . taken to the charismatic his to

president oligarchs: first struggles. be largely of bureaucratic data. they decision­ all has implement society informal predecessors context, not then,

considered biased given

in

the regimes, personally practice, years manifest The for development, only share Russian issues) E.L. Keenan, interests the based Cf. against siloviki directives procedures. years under ‑making leaves. information

the constant

of Putinism differs from the preceding versions preceding the from differs Putinism inertia. due leadership even in their with

the motives his order after on that absolute history, created . though to

by the Yeltsin’s are loyalty Putin is both a product and a proponent a proponent and a product both is Putin

of As president’s rule, Moreover, ‘Muscovite the changes the the to process

define Putin not

the backdrop in for the freely indicated its apparatus president, to

peculiar fulfilled,

cherishing contrast style he favourably provided and departure precise either. the in authoritarian rule. parasitize

(regarding the primarily the legal Political and president exploited in Russian directives scale partly intra­ of provisions This

by order ‘Chekist’ should the to

of systemic by Folkways’, but on is research of standing myth the and due

difficult ‑elite state the officials’ image

those personified

personnel also the to to highlight the state and chaos elite not of

the prove portray

mentality balance violence. op. cit. op. authoritarian the to because systemic who president’s economic ultimately assets reluctance unrealistic be Putin’s leadership 102 on assess out omnipotent , and his . thus underestimated, quite the The enjoy and from

appointments

exceptional due the order, tensions of poverty his giving sustainabil to Thus, and

state to to goals power problems, Putin telling avoid previous his the take changed tsar positive authori

profes stabili between leader, they absence after trust. prop by uncon even action legit status that are era the set, in ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

(see (born when 104 103 The change of leadership in Russia will probably take overplace Russiain leadership will next the changeThe of The main challenges during the transition period will result from the from result will period transition the during challenges main The 2. The main challenges to the ‘post the to challenges main 2. The ness nant influenceondecision­ in 2024–2030. run, the the power passive upon face key legitimacy. lapse Since becomes few years. few be no more simple recipes for success for recipes simple more no be a more allowing and associated secondly, chronic, systemic problems that the Kremlin overhas been facing the past of of a smooth succession of power advance.in of succession a smooth decade, and the Kremlin will make for every efforttopreparetheground decade, andtheKremlinwill See: Statement

shrinking rule. Generation pp. 35–47. growing current players below). businesspeople of which of when the mid-2018, in 1952), various A. Kendall is

orderly persistent state towards It is even them usually expiry the

from with

Since 2014, to total Firstly, means and system repressiveness All

quite ideology assets, Preserve need centres Putin ­‑Taylor, more

this Olga to departure public this the succession. the struggle of assumed accumulate

economic Kryshtanovskaya, succession to probable

guaranteeing maintaining is another

‘patronal likely would E. Frantz, His gives the have kleptocratic neutralise of capable and support Legacy’ the

negative political inside from ‑making processesinordertoneutraliseany threats when been rise by propaganda, not increasingly of

‘How six problems; “Putin’s that , Bloomberg wealth pyramids’ yet

should the of to for be ­‑year office fuelling

Autocracies the the quoted the

the

serving the the power another a transitional effects regime. the authoritarian the predecessor elite potential

fragile with greatest 103 question presidential personal be

from president president Businessweek, and . leading start

expected controlled ­‑Putin’regime bitter frustration , of begins” the

Fall’, H. Meyer, such authoritarian These impunity,

Western balance thirdly,

Considering

interests to The Washington Quarterly Washington The for fear of security struggle as to and compete but regime variant 104 spent

will

1 February 2018, whether I. Arkhipov, public by term flooding the is . by the would his

of among while around 2030 economic that become them,

erosion longer of power policy and towards of for diminishing will dissatisfaction leader.

for Vladimir the

everything

and elite ‘Putin maintain keeping the the after the the while be elite www.bloomberg.com. in inside pressing has

of to sanctions, economy

redistribution Is members This implemented

state Russian loyalty power 2014,

Grooming the what thirty at been in there will will there Putin’s the the his effective the vol. 37, scenario

regime’s the officials will falling or extent public issues of in latest, years domi elite;

with elite. a New

long

and and had no. 1, age the the col ‑ ‑ ‑

63 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 64 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 nte iprat ak il e o urne a tbe oil situation. social stable a guarantee to be will task important Another This will The main task during the leadership transition will be to conclude a new conclude to be will transition leadership the during task main The Kremlin­ Fears macy in institutions that that would notimpedethepoliticalprioritiesof the tions the the petrodollars It may also be problematic to further maintain the fragile balance It betweenmay maintain the fragile also be problematic to further political contract political tions the and rent corruption with elite the ‘feed’ to allocated resources the likely, in the patronage networks patronage the in become funds streamed to fulfil the necessary minimum of the state’s minimum of the necessary public func streamed to fulfil funds government acceptance agencies, thebureaucracyandkey oligarchs, regardingtheirloyalty tothenew sion ence decision­ ernisation could of opposition content at least minimal economic growth in a dysfunctional economic model. economic a dysfunctional in growth economic minimal least at depend on the new leadership’s skilfulness, so as to preserve a balance a balance preserve to as so leadership’s skilfulness, new the on depend

social sanctions, most annexation Western scale could (so would and . with of of

obviously such The

incapable ‑linked the may ‑making far destabilisation inefficient resistance. back economic effectively the would new modernisation and of new require repression will (as can economic result will

any West, aggressive of leadership actors. civil in 2000–2013) leadership be bring prove require centre

create Crimea). of new

of and economic in resources. economic

at Suppressing society, adapting weaken

secondary preventive, only least It is sanctions principles has

explosive of reach (the the a thorough activities

would will the likely and been temporary temporarily. , appearance which and loyalty the

while to a lasting modernisation system or have The stability of the system will primarily primarily will system the of stability The new applied new be importance. that that dominance as spectacular bureaucratic governing all disproportionate abroad limited in sources to possible a system grassroots political of challenges. the affect due turn overcome

results,

consensus the selectively) The key issue will be to guarantee to be will issue key The of new in to to

may of a more siloviki private the changes of an the a selective, liberalisation propaganda

deprived in government, corruption theauthoritarianregime. This aspects while

the activity attempt distribution cause pursuit the outbreak

between will deep constructive intensification business targeted adverse genuine in of uncontrolled of be the unsanctioned to

superficial structures. the of rent.

achievements ‘safety build of crucial)

seeking

(democratisation) both law formal system, of consequences

at interests mass economic However,

political

both enforcement warmer attitude social valves’ the system social of and reform a reform increase political

repres by lifting of legiti influ their most mod (like may rela

and the the dis of of of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

‘depersonalised’ model of governance. of model ‘depersonalised’ Another challenge would be to creatively redefine the current ideological ideological current the creativelyto wouldredefine be challenge Another Another with which 107 106 105 will be made to replace Putin’s inimitable charismatic style with a more a more with stylePutin’s charismatic replace inimitable to made be will likely,attempts Most style. leadership the redefine to need the face will For improvement imacy the the the the tion the traditional authoritarianforms. Theseefforts may temporarily improve public undermine perception of possible lead level, foundations around suggested by surveys, sociological the‘besieged fortress’ narrative and conflict ship system steps sons crats’ cess See: The For сантъ 13 December 2016, These courts the system Russian peculiar absence fossilisation annexation the of is the (see will the made and instance, digitalisation for quality ‘«Эффект on has

already ‘managers’ , the improvements time for can regime 3 April 2017, that and difficulty West below). have some the on been pass flag’ the the by public. with of of Russian to even being, rapacityof theregime, buttheentrenchedfinancial the their improved management of Крыма

the underway. thorough have impartial to of credibility selection prevent furthererosion the of to

noticeably reaction, of of the www.tvrain.ru; small

elimination During

invent www.kommersant.ru.

public the

Kremlin a dead may interests Crimea overall the refer may Further such прошел»: operation so political indulgence positions verdicts system. e.g. to services. far be quality at relate

systemic its a reshuffle and projects end. it the These of goal more of has weakening been over exploitation the is handling own почему lower

in this and В. Хамраев, of unlikely education for High The intelligence of to largely non is of

in the include: willing the

entrepreneurs the

founding levels public maintaining to administrative

strategy ­‑political reforms professional state are central россияне surge citizens’ most search past at most of developing been since the that ‘Экономика bureaucracy state agencies of to of services

nominating of few of trials. One egregious affairs theimpactstatepropaganda

and helm in will effective curb the стали

myth.

the for work administration patriotic public would exhausted mid-2018 the years option current and regional public perpetuate new, compensatory at хуже their standards of 105 culture collide уводит long local officials In on

, the administration

may and pathologies. tools

attractive относиться spite at enthusiasm offices, relatively a limited is financial support run for with state, ideological 107 россиян a central governments, has to apply creation indicate involved would

and of 106 socio­ the base of inertia, improved which

. at the governmentthe instilling

repressive The the function the к от some for ‘packaging’ ambitions, ‑economic in scale, young most any Путину’ is Крыма’ A number that theeliteand and of racketeering. fact provoked new partly agenda new in the apathy ministries

personnel. a national new recent probably regional logic but this gradual that, ‘techno , , regime, genera a ‘rally linked leader­ of Коммер TV has on legit

of years. may it this and Rain, pro rea but for and the by as of is to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

65 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 66 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‑economic ‘safety would 108 h to e qetos bu te post­ the about questions key two The Russia. 3. Stability or turbulence? or 3. Stability require ios manipulative narrative to the uine It is an open question as to whether the Russian authoritarian regime is regime authoritarian Russian the whether to as question open an It is may emerge in the first years of the post ­ yearsmay of emerge in the first democratisation the likely how to hand, one the on relate, rule of model the prerequisites for a gradual evolution of Russian authoritarianism Russian of evolution a gradual for prerequisites the any have will they whether hand, other the on and be, will tendencies e still be authoritarian at also against attitudes; an socio­ capable of a gradual evolution towards a ‘softer’ model of power of model a ‘softer’ towardsevolution a gradual of capable of authoritarian ­ of success of chance exert, of domestic The

the present control Possible scenarios for power struggles in Russia in struggles powerfor scenarios Possible mately the enduring concerning growing lead ‑political political Soviet

Russian state’s and

mean valves’ In turn, the undemocratic, fundamental led to

politics so will backwardness and thus (mainly the state the grain elite far, weakening organisation, tendency partial changes).

deep Soviet techniques trends, succeed in manipulation ruling was

the to withdrawal apparently there

of may various ‑democratic hybrid regime in the longer run longer the in regime hybrid ‑democratic

overcoming no (i.e. whether government structures.

rivalry due thinking longer replacement changes class which have require for ic 2012 since yet Based to 108 fear of

used spheres accompanied . being

technological for long, imply been more the the from to are for would in on lose Putin’s some repetition

the dominant on they persistent a large no given the held current control effective that the

of for of authoritarian mass a grounds transform decorative by mindset

will

anti­ typically fully public legacy none of escalating traditional, the over section the limitations), result ‑Western knowledge, Ptn vlto o te Russian the of evolution ‑Putin influence ‑Putin era and may lead to a kind responsible scale. even the deteriorating in late 1980s of

to can life). of system. masking

expect Russia these of repressive in changes

anti in the paradigm. Unrealistic be

repression

the the the scenario, Effective ­‑Western narrative that ruling outlined. scenarios several Russian such implementation into face a more for and in the living when the mobilisation, a state instruments changes. of elite the

The legitimising management deep will

as and possible formal country’s elite, The flexible the future, would standards and it latter . degeneration not closing that structures may long­ but However,

in changes (despite which only lead scenar of which model would would ‑term social could socio­ seem with

gen the

off ulti go in of to of ‑ ‑ ‑

‑economic What may have more serious consequences is the failure of efforts to sta to efforts of failure the is consequences mayhaveserious What more A section would will 109 not icant to tendencies. their position. However, such a trend is unlikely to continue for long for continue to unlikely is a trend However,such chal main the to respond successfully leadership political new the If factional fervour tions fac influential most the between assets and power of distribution the regime the lead key be game lead to a temporary opening in the window of opportunity for political for opportunity of window the in opening a temporary to lead above presented lenges bilise thesystem. fromseriousimbalancesin Thiscouldresult primarily bilise a relative ance between thebranchesof subjective changes and a softening of authoritarian rule. authoritarian of a softening and changes of of democratisation of consensus). Such a scenario would most likely repeat the developments of the 1990s. of developments the repeat likely most would a scenario Such At

change power competing the power the lead beneficiaries stand to Yeltsin’s , reshuffles legitimisation (e.g. the be lose Russian result greater became for to struggles it This among of balance every factors establishment) the serious their due .

The change, time Such the In of ‘patronal decentralised may Russian dominant pluralism that elite to this establishment

slogans among chance are ­ a top significance the a scenario of (such objective of turmoil accompanying pluralism result

case, strategy), in

discussed Russian elite is power ‑down based political order pyramids’ high­ of as of due

a temporary role is (which in

in or

opting becoming in systemic to circumstances drawn to in is ‑ranking the transient power mightbe enhanced).Theseprocessesmay neo­ a bottom‑up a great the impulse as to on the of highly may further the this will provide a measure of stability to stability of a measure provide will this system strengthen soon

ruling economic ‑patrimonialism political the the 109 means for the ruling up. extent capitalise .

liberalisation consolidated However, cut­ president logic probable, as officials, change (initiated escalation in This and elite, or slump, ‑throat resulted a new they this elite, system. one (such of even unstable arrangement their

and on text). of and ­ a ‘zero will (such in from or given pact as could

rivalry leadership, society’s by set as Russian of thus the

On of own even well under would These ensure

a deep objective a section intra­

covering new ‑sum their pseudo­ as that the absence be to as political rather leadership depriving mass

changes the reduced ‑elite contrary, become a Yeltsin­ may official disillusionment effectively the social economic political game’. circumstances: ‑democratisation but ‘new

(the the political social of than of assert conflict, faced

these and

stability the political rules a tool could distribution and This could This team’. the ‑like barriers the ­ a win clout, a formidable protests). crisis) business the political­ redefine current slogans the culture system the of model either signif in need ‑win

will will and and state bal the the or to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

67 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 68 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‑sum ‑lasting While this scenario is not impossible, it will most probably not lead to lead not probably most will it impossible, not is scenario this While Another possible scenario behind upsetting the balance of power in the in power of balance the upsetting behind scenario possible Another handmay re‑emerge.with a firm Pseudo­ would is in tantamount the outbreakof the untrammelled pyramids political Russian system is a ‘colour revolution’ a ‘colour is system Russian lisation last be lasting systemic changes. systemic lasting a tactical a superpatron. and and accepted strength same), struction. effect of ever, clients demise of ousted cal

collective

the expected the challenge pyramid’ of of and political only (as the political power game, this thereof post­ neither political leader which obey and business in tools of monopoly until of by a leaderisanticipated,theirpositionimmediately weakens (because alliance requires would also turned As society

of the ‑Soviet

social ambitions

its strong

key serving expectations, establishment. to building to the formed

to was would opens a new previous power

opponents. the be any such revolution would meanthatPutin’s successor was not take out elite game break probably patron elite protest between durable area a prior to rather emergence

enough a national and during will

power. to be leader the factions be that grows was leadership against the stronger maximise

demonstrate, scenario) the reside under window the

unpopular is by weakening which employ nor dominance in state

to the

As Firstly, emerges, presidency Consequently, destabilisation rooted tired

the or than the enforce

of the skills the on lead more leaders the by

act the an counter phase ‘Medvedev’s of a split of its equally previous the social interests in expectation of to

debris

alternative of opportunity like the in among one the own of they Russian a qualitative Dmitry of genuine public. of

‑democratic pluralismwould probably

the then of the

within increasing of a self

the protests strong ­‑elites, , a rebellious

undemocratic influence usually struggling the the i.e. the pyramid’.

of experiences government’s president. regime’s Medvedev the of deep

Soviet political the The

­‑fulfilling key

democratisation. that patronal the the enough public. most for will state,

crucial large­ structures, This empire. broke breakthrough to elite. chaos, establishment. (2008–2012). other in apparatus

their breaking for public

most was thinking. likely ‑scale, line rather In

of to methods prophecy. A partly pyramid, out

The succession, partly factor weakness

clients colour competitors. the take a longing likely with and when combined latter At such effective due case

than competitive of the on that in The Each in a section

revolutions not to in the will prevention

which such

the When pluralism Kremlin’s the the of time

would Secondly, its the than the ultimate for and be

idea Russia, low role do of recon politi ‘Putin’s mobi cases rules How with zero­ long­ model rule

can level the the the the the be of of of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

​​

‑democratic reform project will be the determination of its opponents, its of determination the be will project reform ‑democratic ­ liberal the of failure or success the determine ultimately will What A genuine 4.1. Russia’sto democratisation4. Barriers works 110 rights include: ian indispensable revolutions to the taneously: to the that proved for thembutdetrimentaltothestateandsociety. beneficial Inthat the fect through the reforms the through transformation, systemic any of undermining active an to hand one the on linked be will democratisation to barriers The future. foreseeable the be basis ble factors present that will sustain the authoritarian deep structures for structures deep authoritarian the sustain will that present factors also sion sense, consistent ciples. ered changes. and on the other hand, to the absence of sufficient means for pushing for means sufficient of absence the to hand, other the on and For assume correct accompanied

Resistance system establishment model) necessary collective products enhanced of around of more among the and Such

powers; depersonalised the The details, errors main grassroots responsibility

democratisation firstly, would of civil revealed organisation a scenario the

of same the state to character financial their

see: authoritarianism. opponents ousted and liberties. from by seizing and state if entail is

H. Hale,

institutions, effective qualities the determination ready the qualities pressure shortcomings . vested bureaucracy, will head active resources the procedures power implementation traits for Patronal Politics Patronal of This to of of

minimum only difficult free supervisory that of relinquish

the interests part on Russia 110 which

of in state,

performing . be the and

determined toppled those They turn but in of in feasible and while government,

…, reforms. (a successful were which restoring society fair boundary the also

op. cit. op. the would usually figures the bodies of regimes elections; implementation obtaining not to benefits

allowed if rule their effective is their build

However, two require conducive those determined originated and who conditions of

and statutory were

break conditions success

their of law. a genuine them bodies the practices led secondly, guarantees

authoritarian the at there are too many too are there political They with own the to not from the of creation

enough of in being functions lasting

various only the appeal gaining same the patronage are would of tripartite if a clique

nous

governance a section above met. for authoritar met to to systemic time rule of acquire serving have human

ensure on colour that power,

simul These via a gath prin divi

and per net the of to is ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

69 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 70 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 As Putin, who will fear losingtheirpositionandprivileges, andwillnothesitatetouseallpos 113 112 111 The first line of defence for the authoritarian regime will be the intel the be will regime authoritarian the for defence of line first The ing operationsabroad ing requiredfor military their the likelihood of ­Kremlin from rather than that of its supporters. its of that than rather logic benefit back federal and regional power elites power regional and federal ligence agencies and the military the and agencies ligence ­ a ‘win a ‘prisoner’s are at siderably security, sible ous losses to large private and state­ and private large to losses ous organised eign erty. alia The The Even their ский with cution See: potentially fewer extremely to before staff superiors provided assumes greater transparency of public finance, would bring seri bring would finance, public of transparency greater assumes impunity), dreamed policy win, means In inherent loop both subcontractors. ‑win’ ‘prisoner’s logic О. Романова, a partner cuts. though Центр cases from disposal the authorities. the , they coupled raise the might of which and of the Meanwhile, partner rare modus operand modus have designed event resistance would to dilemma’

Карнеги many must political huge main that of dilemma’ theoretically repressive institutionalised torpedo in become in the a lot pactfor reforms, concludinga conciliatory even if

owing than an ‘Почему court currently be trust A greater does their of with of the stakes corrupt to the addressed , patron oligarch’s can

24 August 2017, judges engaged crisis, lose so. proceedings is one to the lower Democratic reforms would also be opposed by the by opposed be also would reforms Democratic and power ‘old the mindset, the a term российские be to legitimise may in another. objectivity system explained currently in reformers, i ­‑ranking the their will 111 political mutual team’ of drain in to members incomes offer the used . active courts,

case and career Russian then in resistance The the game. www.carnegie.ru. in rather carefully of судьи of Russia; form and using the will siloviki economic resistance game distrust greatest democratisation.

and second it, transformation. domestic , most ‑industrial lobby.­‑industrial a greater in and and

including state a group of The the including не maintain thus This theory. kleptocracy,

‑controlled companies linked to the to linked companies ‑controlled the would the 1990s than

выносят the example most benefits other their likely judges judges against beneficiaries may budget, developed 112 deeply in of share react It assets political­ the rewarding . rule the describes

turn Democratisation, which ability prove almost will оправдательных profits of senior choose to the of best their high indifferently fair are the a prisoner. and ‘not rooted have reforms. together would as ­‑paid himself They judiciary. ‑economic always and a situation now guilty’ overwhelming. variant levels to illegally guarantees from patronage officials fewer and to

state of These put transparent This will inside follow dramatically

choosing However, take to verdicts the tasks,

privileges administration is the ‘Not of with remarked, political up приговоров’ is in to have the

current because groups defence acquired which who guilty’ betray aggressive ­ a long elite which the the would side hundreds for networks of guarantees changes, more the both co‑operation zero­

elite, currently of verdicts the The personal will they will ‑lasting, rules mean (includ the benefit system , reduce Москов “those career spend officials. partner of inter ‑sum prop lead would tools feed prose face them con their for that are 113 of of to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ . ‑ ‑

‑patrimonial system of Although various vice 4.2. The Thus, would 115 114 The beneficiaries of authoritarianism will have a powerful machine of of machine a powerful have will authoritarianism of beneficiaries The generations younger The ment machine that themselves tutions. the assets, inbotheconomicandpoliticalterms.plying theirfamily Beingperfectly political repression at their disposal their at repression political the most ardent advocates of Russian authoritarianism. Russian of advocates ardent most the lapping, influence and apparatus of coercion at their disposal are at the same time influence and apparatus of business elitedoesnotoffer muchhopeof and aware are of the authoritarian system. authoritarian the of opt difficult of of a state due to their position in the system, would have the necessary resources, necessary the havewould system, the in position their to due differ much from their parents in terms of their status as beneficiaries beneficiaries as status their of terms in parents their from much differ

H. Hale,

the тутов ‘Демократия often for The patronage economic gradual but the (…), given be state of maintaining sources, в России’ Additionally,

as multidimensional

during logic to apparatus hard tightly Patronal Politics Patronal the it official all a source

from is build the apparatus generational profits ‘purges’ и качество difficult institutions, of to networks , fact Коммерсантъ including the intertwined

competition.

in neutralise its an droves. of that change the

linked of …, operation efficient these

are values andareequally andmulti focused onpreserving to kormleniye and государства.

op. cit. op. prevention highly successful forecast that change pointless geographical, in ,

serious

and networks Many 6 February (often of to , due 115 pp. 115–116. order

support leadership their ‘coalition .

unequal They often will to

taking Владимир [feeding]” the view graduates its financial to reforms if

privileged 2012, and be

have future maximise opaque derive the dispersed the it professional access preserved.

place , www.kommersant.ru. of repression as will a change inthecurrentsetupeither. state the Путин been current

114 the require a source scale their resources, of relations . one depend inside of service position,

their willing’. о Western formed and

развитии the of legitimacy inherited system The

an and its widespread the of own wider primarily is extensive

permeating use, it rapid by

kinship effectiveness Russian they universities) Those groups that, groups Those perceived демократических would benefits are the it public

from Their and and will can same based on bonds, be character, mobilisation political power easy be and most Putin’s to the state resistance extremely not patronal­ assumed political on protect of do not do enrich loyalty which as likely инсти from

insti over this and era. ser as ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

71 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 72 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‑regulation, who were 117 116 The preventative measures serving to preserve the Putin’s system havePutin’s system the preserve to serving measurespreventative The These moves are accompanied by specific ‘poverty management’ meas management’ ‘poverty specific by accompanied are moves These ism is in mean thatcitizensmustviolateatleastsomeof ruling nents through disproportionateapplicationof to their they tive prodigious Russian state law is another powerful preventive mechanism preventive powerful another is law state Russian ures two categories. Firstly, those aiming to discourage citizens from active from citizens discourage to aiming Firstly,those categories. two lin’s gence of wide public dissatisfaction with the government. The first cat first The government. the with dissatisfaction public wide of gence blackmail). forms of protest, and secondly, those serving to impede the very emer very the impede to serving those secondly, and protest, of forms grassroots en eeoe fr lot w dcds n cn e rkn on into down broken be can and decades two almost for developed been egory includes ‘early warning mechanisms’ warning ‘early includes egory of control electorate continuous Anti For

to pressure the the March 2019. Many www.osw.waw.pl. tents ber 2018, (as apparatus

political

do discourage remain as almost everyday instance, ­‑extremist event and siloviki elite, in not seen over voters the social regardless 116 independent manifest initiatives them These incomes surveillance government .

internal of See: which completely the loyal in were

dominance. they to networks. regulations

in political lives; recent M. Domańska, citizens the Internet ready to

the did of to also the deprives exercise

new not the any thus, contradictions, from face to clear Further years, include through are launch vote ‘insubordination’.

stripped Kremlin, from (including activists, try 117 ruling opposition of often The trend everyone . exports J. Rogoża for

to self­ regulations possible the they a full any communicating used strongest co‑opting of buy team, ‑censorship. repression a protest public candidates of

­‑scale , even in are as ‘Russia:

social of widely their an sentiment), is as well socio­

imposing and even absurd campaign raw

potentially if vote legalprovisions oncombatingextrem of well opposition stricter selected

independence it other peace

The on as ‑political a genuine seen used materials. targeted is way, or as The stricter

suppressing the against than during at freely overarching Internet thelegalregulationsaspartof ‘persuasion’ its e.g.,

through that infiltration) as against efficiency ‘scare ideological United guilty arbitrary in well censorship time turbulence. parties the against the in alternative censorship’ the Authoritarian regional among tactic’ Russia case the as in

and political the

wishes through anti­ the 2000s of goal public of (CPRF online those ie threats (i.e. redistribution opponents the enforcement, representatives. of reposting can ,

is elections the ‑governmental OSW,

Russian political of implemented

of to be were threats:

individuals administra sphere the and tightening

13 March 2019, the their : punished neutral

and regimes adopted its in electorate. regime LDPR) Krem Septem to

oppo

over own now

and and the the con all of in ­ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

which have 119 118 The second category of preventative measures includes what is broadly broadly is what includes measures preventative of category second The The language used by the ruling class intentionally blurs or annihilates annihilates or blurs intentionally class ruling the by used language The Russian statewillfor resourcestoprevent a longtimehave financial sufficient nently mass not rative means the to the principles: passively nipulation. The latter consists of: the perversion of political discourse; political of perversion the of: consists latter The nipulation. understood as state propaganda and a carefully designed system of ma of system designed a carefully and propaganda state as understood the meaning of words the meaning of memory. of politics the and institutions; mock of system the living lacking be gans: ‘parliamentisnoplacefor discussions’ assistance at as arching cynical owing toenormousfundsremainingatthedisposalof emergency of durable, This

manipulate, a minimum a tool income expected М. Росс, op. cit. political of развития государств ­развития statement only very protest the demands standards of is in remove relativism , State goal such a misquote

doubt p. 159. for existence and the fact accept slogans Нефтяное проклятие. Как богатые запасы углеводородного сырья задают направление направление задают сырья углеводородного запасы богатые Как проклятие. Нефтяное is

is was: firstly, potential access situations Duma. a critical that of generally opposition transferred much the resources “I believe

the the for level to these and the in of even This opposite signal

in to reform. credibility efforts link ideologies of Russia Boris , more content enabling as abundant interpreting

is catchphrase practices objective description that can under : an in: between visibly Gryzlov’s 118 its and an to

successful Травин, Д. . parliament from important are

of (…) main always The intention economic of

to democracy, the

of [but made survival;

was mounting. statement is oil state information, falling imbue

logic anti­ function a word

to for] burden of reality. and later be should рсщсве л птнкя итм д 24 года? 2042 до система путинская ли Просуществует confuse

‑government constructive, to propaganda. the in source alleviated of contrary frequently

gas sectors to the made guarantee avoiding and and

not world, this are a critical is of All Thus, resources Russian be not 119 in 2003,

the Western of its secondly, which particularly this a stage or‘sovereign democracy’,which redistribution

or cited effective growing to to true to audience, in while democratisation, geographical

is name narratives when a basic the level, neutralise by for the public expected is meaning are

theauthorities. Itshould media economic political legislative intended real ad he unequal ‘manual and public which therefore was

revealing). hoc, income to outlets. with one, explain battles, serving destroy but is to the (the activity”. targeted

dissatisfaction, could regions redistribution sanctions, based to an and make control Gryzlov’s also political

for much for make famous as than attitude but to the language The generate fighting question

citizens citizens on perma where rather Speaker original social mode’ those more them over two nar the slo for of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ,

73 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 74 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‑governmental An important element of imparting Russian public acceptance of author of acceptance public Russian imparting of element important An yet with Russian In NGOs); no mount interests, illusions to the the tion the persistence propaganda purposes. Thisserves topretendthatinstitutionalisedchannelsof unions. founder there is no viable alternative to the entrenched authoritarian system authoritarian entrenched the to alternative viable no is there in Russia and of recruiting new elite members elite new recruiting of and Russia in itarian rule is the banality of violence, which permeates the official ver official the permeates which violence, of banality the is rule itarian greatness group government­ history that is convenient for the government. According to this vision, this to government.According the for convenient is that history and anti­ alism. social opportunities other of quests of are established with the intention of appropriating the public sphere public the appropriating of intention the with established are Similar goals are manifested in the operation of mock institutions. Theyinstitutions. mock of operation the in manifested goalsare Similar sion of history. of sion

artificially turn, Russia borrowing place they instigator memory ‑democratic

opposition and a special than activity Moreover, memory in

made pseudo­ The need the aim of the politics of memory is to shape a vision of Russian of a vision shape to is memory of politics the of aim the public

of about for the conflict they is the of

an empire that

‑society rulers presented

of create the a pseudo­ by pantheon of development and in mission ‑opposition remain

organisations (with the of circles). mass remained

imposed history sentiments

Russia’s the the an state, as It is

authoritarianism

access cannot real a sort a path empire dialogue imperial­ desired repression the and ‑democratic usually likely mainly for or value of of modernisation to exception of by tolerate a victor as

suppressed

all political historical to the public

models national and to surrounded the direction. the ‑great (so‑called of still greatness presented mankind. as be nation

in these state discredit the destiny the in co‑opted. exist funds. façade the is parties; from of power war. unity, history

figures, presented genuine

contrivances is such and for 20 While

in GONGOs, is and This either practically These concealing th outside. of by The Russia, narrative the many intended century. society. built

and social a martyr Westernisation of enemies. is is

a great official autonomy liberal

as institutions its accompanied as remembered government­ around decades, Even an the and niches proof rulers As for

is All to authoritarian non­ by acceptable deal canon opposition. nation government­ expected individual, is Presenting disavow articulating Peter these offering the

‑existent of of expected and as of historical

Russia’s social include: ruling leaves the ‑controlled

but citizens that the measures not of by

to the

intelligentsia rather price military them

suppressing institutions, Great, The so family content class is among strengthen ‑organised to practically confronta

exception very collective fake much invested memory channel have

history for career as as serve trade

para idea non­ con and the the the the for no as ; ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

visible 4.3. 125 124 123 122 121 120 works real necessity ing in transformation. tensions problems It is increasingly difficult to predict what sentiments will prevail among prevail will sentiments what predict to difficult increasingly It is focuses mands for change in Russia. Furthermore, the ‘Crimea effect’ no longer no effect’ ‘Crimea the Furthermore, Russia. in change for mands for support the deepening, is policy) foreign (including policies ment protest and awareness of civil rights are growing are rights civil of awareness and protest the Russian public in the coming years. coming the in public Russian the has litical heirs apparatus difficulties conducted official and confidence in the president are falling, and the readiness for active for readiness the and falling, are president the in confidence and This See For

the Левада VCIOM Ю. Старостина, ‘Фоторобот А. газета последствия’ www.osw.waw.pl. with Levada in from ture the Paternalism stock long income

the Липский, to more KGB—the the rivalry : can as longer protecting absence 23% level,

in , on their marble. ;

one surveys prevailed 5 November 2008, Center центр М. Дмитриев are clearly for held details, (among to respondents’ of in 2018–2019, “the

(above of российского 12%

since 2014

rising a state , repression share but with ‘Фоторобот ,

the predecessors’ Комитет

u – run have 22 February Russians’ by be conducted the of between ‘Реальные see: history causes seen also

‘Chekists’ of state’s a national pointed and the among them all, Л. Гудков,

respondents palpably & seeking might in

гражданских co.,

for in

1997 West trust обывателя. the www.novayagazeta.ru. constantly interests by российского 123 the

perceptions, 2018, доходы these of ‘Признаки to are state­ tax the social disappointment with the current govern current the with disappointment social dynamics ), and Russians

the

in atomisation potentially state the

‘Повесть cannot great independent www.levada.ru. among

consistently great development changes. increases Putin 2018. who between ‑sponsored intelligence has упали

История…’ ideological

инициатив associated изменения increased of violence,

The achievements on обывателя. deteriorating power positive о 125 offer

the пятый See: the советском share the , Levada and

agencies’ the decline’ and ‘Россияне become Russian ,

sufficient since great the of op. cit. op. and status” pop portrayed of год , общественных strategy 11 October 2018, the ‘authoritarian which

respondents

сои – История void Russian Cheka Center According the negative подряд’ человеке’, 2000 ,

culture, image OSW Commentary OSW first power стали 120 social a sustained 122 public standards of with

and from . is

. , compensation

associations presented The are РБК state shoots as

the утешительница presented лучше political society who Ведомости 22% narrative which komitetgi.ru; heroes, настроений , 121

leading to . governmental 25 January representatives The to basis associate . propaganda

sociological personality’, Thus, относиться 41%. of decline in terror of ,

linked no. 297,

television results escalating tendencies ,

Sociologists living) 28 December 2016. not for to as and 2019, the and the и их J. Rogoża, for to growing de growing

research жизни’ a historical

only democratic in 13 March 2019, KGB repression the к the www.rbc.ru. возможные in narrative and domestic 124 ВЧК citizens’ and surveys Cheka primarily the ris . from on which geopo of ,

social pop ‘Cracks

Thus,

that – и КГБ’ Новая centre

the the the

and the cul fell ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ,

75 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 76 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 As There 130 129 128 127 126 will become an essential driving force of democratisation. of force driving essential an become will However, reforms is ing imacy that they tively tionally the highvolatility of ponent political political the coming years, this does not automatically mean that Russian society Russian that mean automatically not does years,this coming the a new stabletrend they canbeviewed of asthebeginning has acceptance adaptation’, support sentiment over longer periods cially democracy

In

The See Passive the вызовы, тренды вызовы, Russians 16% would 14 January ‘Застой экономическую Pro et Contra et Pro holdings 2011–2013. in due over 60% that ticular ual expectations been society may the

survival that reservations affect expectation Levada to crisis’; are 46% 129 past the has for may process. features regime adaptation в экономике, provoked . once owned since

of stated of at Paradoxically,

choose welfare 2019, Putin’s is

of Center’s an Russians little as would , strategies their

will a political least January–April so See: not

understood

authoritarian

again they of authoritarian that , www.levada.ru. by

concerning

these far, политику’ Москва he a democracy experience Russia”. ratings means of Рогов К. system pass the to

living most two of contemporary above

once wanted personifies,

но each greater rather publicsentiment already do oligarchs

choose a ‘special’

phenomena не 2019, that recent the fell reform reasons nature. A further with

в сознании: , 2011, the (ред.), standards, again time TV than all “a special such the significantly: by

“like test www.liberal.ru. government’s

survey Rain, social Vladimir www.carnegieendowment.org. by to did public the and readiness on order Russians 127 regime. Russia he Крепость врастает в землю. Год после выборов: стратегии, стратегии, выборов: после Год землю. в врастает Крепость in follow become of Thirdly, 19% a view the

protest .

for democracy which the

21 January 2019, developed in

Although theneedforchange may grow in adverse has

democracy concerning responds another сможет wanted justice

are government’s the 1990s decision is Gusinsky and scepticism. as in 2000, managed at activity. 126 work: the Secondly,

well relatively of least in indicates to an even stability. . ли the European Moreover, thisisPutin’s fourth ‘legit

to 128 effects democracy tried various that participate that

this ‘Деятельность political­ население object the partly and same when . as Л. Гудков, with

Even 130 www.tvrain.ru. mass governors government’s issue would Boris lead to . and kind

Firstly, the a democratic and growing This

thereof – new, the regain social a strong rather There

ways, (published though public Berezovsky; Kremlin ‑economic suit to пережить American of tested ‘Инерция

cyclical democracy would may would in

another правительства’ it is unclear whether unclear is it the policy

public public policy is what protest than support dissatisfaction national was state. the patterns social go in thus no which countries”.

стагнацию

пассивной mean in January 2016) , especially given taking by longer nature in a subject very “as transformation. and clearly

late 2004/early 2005 identity support dissatisfaction focusing a serious activity, interests tandem was welfare for would

, be the over a return Левада of concept Furthermore, in

of и изменить elected; адаптации’ systemic

prevails ‘passive on the increas the

for crisis – revealed public of and individ

tradi nega центр USSR”. with espe media com

risk the the and par

of to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ , ,

133 132 131 h drblt o non­ of durability The idea ritualistic illusionment withreforms gave risetoa craving for orderandstabilityasearly to totalitarianism. through portions Firstly, the memories of the traumatic transformation of the 1990s are the 1990s of transformation traumatic the of memories Firstly,the for rsne a dmcai wr toogl discredited thoroughly were democratic as presented pation in civicactivity.in pation tioned atomisation of Russian society.Russian of atomisation tioned for respect than important more is country ‘order’the that in prevailing iour observed so far among the Russian public has two principal sources. twoprincipal has public Russian the among far so observed iour by government; human right human as and and state common interests and the customs and aspirations of collective partici­ collective of aspirations and customs the and interests common Secondly, an important ally of authoritarianism is the historically condi Secondly, authoritarianism is the historically of an important ally still alive still The Having Towards domain. the culturalthanreligious in законов’ пенсионного www.levada.ru. power nomic important necessary raised for and the towards time sion safety, shit) an rule a predatory, almost

as power the example, time memories system 29%, internalised (a popular still the with boom, the in as subordination have mid-1990s; witnessed , the of . are identification) the respectively. Газета.Ru have the Thepseudo­ well in pension

than political only should reform’. twice idea now”. Russia end a heroic a firm human hands s возраста of now a strong as 133 play human dramatic of There is a deficit of solidarity, collectively shared values, shared solidarity,collectively of a deficit is There of 2017, Darwinian towards solid . See: a decade age comprehensive turbulence , as “on (

of on be 22 December rights ‘Это been sense hand. The in then a single ‘Ответственность many words в стиле a permanent impact

rights, permanently military summer страшное foundation only ‑democratisation of pauperisation Levada the to were of dmcai sniet ad atrs f behav of patterns and sentiments ‑democratic

reversed The the in of Whereas 17% and the growth very on while person, claimed 1990 version the 1990s prioritised

limited 2014, community, social 2018, Center’s system of the economic collective past; слово state, - notion basis”. х’ Russians 39% , beginning in 2008, www.gazeta.ru. the Новый while of attitudes. for of

за concentrated transformation, «реформа»: expressed lexicon: society in 1989, surveys and that of Kremlin of 38% to

by успехи which national years

40% reforms. capitalism the were a minority день were ‘community’ 51% crisis an of this

and Against the The It is demokratiya believed but as the withchaos thatperiodisidentified following: theimperial­ и проблемы’ , of did Orthodox categorically 132 the of largely only 16 July 2018, in: the majority Кремль respondents economic should It is the . not not of 1998

rather identity; opposite Д. Розанов, Society at large also believes also large at Society chaos of viewing

opinion in allow 25% that indicative 131 respondents. bonded

– the . запретил results of of

As democracy this crisis, symbols never , of backdrop of religion www.newdaynews.ru). the opposed dermokratiya view. mechanistically, led the Левада

it that hands believed

­ a consequence,

as Russians ‘«Достойные the kind officials Russian that to these a threat together “it Thus, from говорить happen, Towards центр increased concept

of is to

at when combined of (the that proportions necessary that governance the to even public

experienced one that to , use the believed these ‑great 11 December 2017, concentration the order their macro­ refers люди» the о повышении organically, during

individual, the are these of time. government with legacy end sometimes, existential support was term

mainly values reluctant were strong model values, power против ‑level of 2014, more dermo an at

that more pro Dis­ ‘pen that 62% eco of of is – ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

77 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 78 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‘responsibility’ According As The sense The with 136 135 134 ht os n rud hm aat rm io ise ta fl within fall that issues minor from apart them, around on goes what Russians Russians institutions national identification) nism identity, time, that that underdevelopment future the orbit of everyday life everyday of orbit the history a viable aware and medium­ army, theintelligence agencies andtheOrthodox Church(thus, theinstitutions actively dered activecourages citizensfrom participationincivil society, thusimpedingtheir current

This a result, Левада 24 January ‘Институциональное ‘Доля Levada have or of their bank, memory are

enable mutual distrust in of this collective a of development. full belief their желающих situation

of 2013, associated passive engaged situation alternative

identity. Center. culture центр the do

genuinely control awareness Russian to of trust

hometown.

2019, collective the level of mutual trust in Russian society is extremely low extremely is society Russian in trust mutual of level the typically was www.sberbank.ru; ‑sized business, localgovernment andpoliticalparties, areviewed not 136

marginal the , of solidarity at 31 October Since 2008, is

. among for repeatedly www.levada.ru. over

adaptation work, участвовать This abortive view and in widely evident. Alas, is statehood. with mentality the of their politics

Потребительское поведение через призму доверия и ответственности to доверие’

that the only associated value history. clearly

may activity an democracy the 2018, role situation they family at Russians the expressed shared limited 10% intermediate the least democratisation These в политике have imperial­ www.levada.ru. , ‘Oтветственность 134 to of have family Левада claim idea have demonstrates life institutions three In

. that a repressive in these Nevertheless, constantly

with and belief, adverse everyday that are of in the increased to in - been центр as quarters allows

surveys approximately ‑authoritarian empire ties Россиян the one’s they institutions

well­ public democracy, something , level an individual is unable to influence to unable is individual an deliberately 4 October declined. country can or long­ ‑established, of conducted inner россиян most for life достигла 135 state. have that and respondents and bonds sphere of . ‑time since 2018 One the

(the 45%

social an While 2018, strong the trusted social

circle organically and such in Against за impact are максимума for consistent with state symptomatic micro­ and происходящее consequences, their www.levada.ru. Russian destroyed 90% convinced were many the relations

as horizontal atomisation power). is on could

by of as the their the ‑level country. of readiness this the traditional a

Russians years a binding the the

за mass public situation declared that inherent 12 лет’ background, reproduction potentially opinion closest (the throughout Conversely, by public identification), в стране they feature

believe the group media, At , since is in meso­ has Левада to can that independent the perfectly the force sense are: in their become friends. influence выросла’ mecha that engen the bonds country of

‑level it small same offer центр ,

Sber level they the the the the the dis for of of ‑ ‑ ‑ . ‑ , ,

Yet, (Russian: These inRussia isbeingeasedbyThe ‘institutionaldeficit’ corruptionand with with 140 139 138 137 The public has learnt to function on the margins of the oppressive sys oppressive the of margins the on function to learnt has public The USSR Kremlin regime, the public usually Paternalistic, authoritariansentimentsamongtheRussian publichave so for help. Thelattermethod,if ute tostrongpaternalisticattitudes patron in the eyes of the public the eyesthe of in patron tem of formal institutions, owing to patronagetem of networks compliancehave resistance. been muchlower the costsof thanthecostsof best – far notcorrelatedwiththeir living standards. far authoritarianism. able state of the centuries­ the of during citizens

Two This Worker ‘Фоторобот www.novayagazeta.ru. Вертикальная For more participants in ditions their strong most among the various patronage networks, the state remains the main the remains state the networks, patronage various the among to

the a firm the 137 and

­‑thirds and two sphere, approach effectively employers the . form waste is witha patronage network Identification substitutes for identification generally independent (due in

interests protests pressing бунт на коленях на бунт which details,

believed often some perform transformation of

hand российского in business an Russians to

was featuring general мобильность’ locations (patrons).

in see: important the fear give ‑long process of adaptation to an oppressivean to adaptation state,where of process ‑long was manifested address Russia However, trade distrust of problems to J. Rogoża, in similar only –

do overtly Blat

of rise Russia’ bring one’s initially

in not обывателя.

unions

Similarly,

are repression), ( Moscow in бла

, trust to op. social ). distance 139 , highly way ‘A stinking platform period, in 2018 democratic т professional OSW Commentary OSW much functions

this mentality is highly rational. It is a result a result It is rational. highly is mentality this This the ) – leads , cit. complementedby loyalty sufficient totheruling are any but a natural

see: Oblast, local to

Вертикальная dispersed phenomenon needs. state during . workers themselves often means better protect Glossary. which Paradoxically, public protests business. for but institutions. caused

, which areintentionally fostered by the as the countries. accompanied, These rational calculations contrib calculations rational These political (clients) and result ,

results group by that during is no. 283, support protests oneself are from by Environmental viewed their appeals

мобильность’ rare the social

politics. See: branded to of 27 August or 140 mismanagement

scale and and against Even thoughsupport for rule it strike the

the . and ‘Фоторобот for local is as focus to protests

remains times civic the democracy financial secret one’s not the the the issues,

, 2018, as

community Новая on exact

outrageous participation only ‘humble rebellion’ ‘humble by

highest российского specific and of www.osw.waw.pl. limited. family. protests , aimed of

газета criticism perceived shortage informal same municipal problems political failed issues, The blat authorities , ecological and 30 June 2008, 138 at state обывателя. absence deals big , ( solving and

landfills. to which

of блат in in as actor money seen

that rise their

with the the the the con of ). ‑ ‑ ‑

79 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 80 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 As The currentprospectof The was was 147 146 145 144 143 142 141 ring native in to to tive their ber 2018, based government great and and and share democracy, ordinated of developed only crises, A.V. Ledeneva,

See: ‘Administrative

This The

bow the the social стоят фобия’ the Т. Ворожейкина, Д. Травин, меняется угрозу и современность www.osw.waw.pl. see:

145 thus feared middle opaque under expected economic 13% interest bulk . discussion its

M. Menkiszak exceeded 70%. first Д. Травин, political

security is experience the to

The на , one войны Новая sees engineering, of financial

56% the месте’ to 144 Russians of a sense все,

military

decade latter of Просуществует ли путинская система до 2042 года? largely respondents class, state has the

. society government no the in to of газета с between а Can Russia Modernise? Russia Can , values crises rent’ – Просуществует ли путинская система до 2042 года? TV другими

of за 2001,

‘Государство state been highest reason liberal compensate Russian (ed.),

privatisation

200 – may Rain, which the of well­ of of , comprises

28 August threat traditionally no. 6. see:

appreciates the

Late The Putin. end of growth, the end of stability recent may the to before quite threat Perceiving

23 June 2018, ничего»: state employed indicators ‑being be странами’ long­ Glossary. for economists political the

claimed in

respondents 21 further at thus и общество from

changing st successful, the

public: 2008, andtheriskof ‑lasting economicstagnation and decades century, the a crisis and for on почему the …, since 2000.

schemes , add West www.tvrain.ru; Левада time www.novayagazeta.ru.

other Konstantin the values, ‘administrative not the op. cit. op. low focus nostalgia

that themselves participants enhanced among to в России strikes, некоторые

individual, improvement the shows, only is living of , центр when Russia were the states p. 98.

at on 141 considered

See: economic such model least Sonin . in survival,

them pro­ , A significant и Латинской for For ‘Более 30 January

standards. of the ‘Фоторобот living by during 146 Russia had as страны as ‑authoritarian

and more until and .

the an of gross more the “The weak which civil rent’ половины Alexander

enemies, governance. empire hardship” details standards

opinion in beneficiaries

to which notion , periods but быстро recently, 2019, op. cit. op.

российского

Америке’, 142 their exaggeration more rights it be and , , Whereas is . is OSW, op. cit. op. elsewhere. on www.levada.ru.

part one , Россиян Auzan: atomised an p. 336. that развиваются, significantly the of financial 20 years inferior, that

the 143 of 147 Warsaw ,

survival were great in effective of of Общественные науки науки Общественные Russian p. 337. .

. In

prosperity was

Moreover, ‘«В обывателя.

society

offering their this the of сочли in 1988–1989 turn, России 2015,

improving.

power outmoded of

In and respected middle pillars later Russians situation class

country а реальной impera threats Decem pp. 26–29, during means другие – is recur limits за ready

alter Ксено that this sub class, 5 лет has the the

of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ­

As values, vre 4.4. The which 149 148 The patterns of passive adaptation and paternalistic attitudes are also are attitudes paternalistic and adaptation passive of patterns The The ruling class remains the dominant player on the political scene political the on player dominant the remains class ruling The monopolised inadaptingtoa democraticsystem (especiallyno difficulty sincetheir attitude no interestinpolitics ration orcompromisingwiththeKremlin,andtheir roomfor politicalmanoeu including there the that towards their the planning parties that is strong and effective enough to become a driving force for change. for force a driving become to enough effective and strong is that has as characteristic of the young generation. young the of characteristic opposition. question other socialgroups, hadthelowest expectations of ent Although Gelman, V. well ется 10 August в России life more negie.ru. sources indicated game, weakness relies been surveys The Russian best support is attitudes not от popular while (the as no the своих of arises able serves current careers upon seeking массовый a large only surveys for information 2015, alternative This West latter conducted ‘The

the government’s than can many for above, and to родителей’ shaping www.tandfonline.com; offer as the the

only Vicious subjugate political refers conducted television the is in section спрос not fragmentation their to state clearly of current Kremlin’s be is public a sense how government 148 the

still being them felt на , Circle to

. the in 2017 both place Ведомости

Although representatives of of (the

изменения?’ over in sphere, very functioning they the of more not the the expectations administration capacity

remain approach of main allowed of to the the low. in present interests, long Post

can only stability revealed the opposition the past favourable , channel Therefore, non­

Russia is currently lacking a counter 5 December of А. Колесников, - was run. Soviet , become ‘licensed

Московский most few system. vulnerable the ‑systemic to for See: model the (repressive and years of sit Neopatrimonialism opposition. but, is that state effective their of of Д. Волков, highest. in 2018, one

autonomous funding

than or show They the A major the above opposition’ propaganda), parliament). impact of people Центр Д. Волков, in www.vedomosti.ru. of opposition,

to public rule), that public that

large mostly the the ‘Чем any change inthestate, and or prevention on They all, Карнеги the As share of young peoplewould have under 25, possible of “liberal”) main Kremlin’s российская but high Internet (imparting

the state­ the

‘Мы and opposition in older bearers also and adjust , Russia’ prevalence also of 5 December establishment ждем changes depend factors salaries. ‑run the

generally the young generations), is and as the adopted gradually , to propaganda молодежь перемен. elite of Post non­ corporations, compared in a belief

the of bulk democratic underlying repression, Sve Affairs ­‑Soviet structures, 2017, on mentality people independent Independ ‑systemic in rules showed collabo becoming www.car by Есть of a way отлича ­‑elite have

that

and the the are the and 149 of ли to ‑ ‑ ‑ . ‑ ‑ ,

81 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 82 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 Alexei This of The group The would will 151 150 was either pushed out from politics over many years of repression, or repression, of years many over politics from out pushed either was Those few relatively effective opposition activists who rely on an inde an on rely who activists opposition effectiverelatively few Those nication, risky its image recognise ing isational the the the 1990s, pate form porters. sup active of base their expand significantly to unable are they posal, Khodor­ Mikhail Navalnyor Alexei as such base, organisational pendent infiltrated by the Kremlin’s agents, are often at loggerheads with each with loggerheads at often are Kremlin’sagents, the by infiltrated largely are groups These scene. political the on survive to struggling is independent funding sources and their own media outlets at their dis their at outlets media own their and sources funding independent gram. government. opposition,which hasa well Theparliamentary ­ kovsky, remain marginalised as political figures. Although they have they Although figures. political as marginalised kovsky,remain authoritarianism. system other and are distrusted by the public the by distrusted are and other of ers The In

their flicts the survey deserve

CEO the Russian opposition’s most August 2018, in group reforms, of CPRF opposition It remains give Kudrin, politics have of regime’s ­ , defection atomised

of 151 www.levada.ru. base This

and the likely and power, in

. up also the includes: more parliamentary so‑called‘liberals’,who actively supported themarket reforms in public actual and their even 11% who is let contributed activity the (mainly state­

not interests because poor of support difficult linked alone In rather may individual respondents Chairman currently careers then

‑owned rarely aspire needs turn, has German performance count at political elections. to been to they illusory. protest than their the and for the so‑called democratic and liberal opposition liberal and democratic so‑called the

of significant spread and to corporation effectively declared hold

of municipal

on protests, them society weak Gref, has tend the the 28% sense

the changes. public sentiment

It is senior position status become government, would beyond that the to to in Accounts paralysed of or convince develop they hard financial those which CEO

support vote security level) to

Rusnano. in positions of would

a collective Russian present due internet­

for to leaders of and by few Chamber; the also cannot imagine

the on support the 150 which to citizens benefits, in areas the politics. ‘party , government. Their a small

in their does has an largest order

‑based among political the the of lead appealing holds beneficiary where been that not power’. LDPR and consistent that current state to makes scale state­

to forms help back the ‑developed organ these However, the and Anatoly perpetually democratic any See: engagement they administration,

‑owned 9% counter purse and it any status political difficult Levada individuals would qualitative of to of do failure internal

prospect

take improve Chubais, commu Russian strings. partici support Center’s in bank; ­‑elite. serv lead and pro the the con of to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

4.5. would bemostlikely viewed asa minorobstaclethatcouldbecircumvented by would 154 153 152 Furthermore, ment, intentions onthepartof informal it isbacked by informal pressure. By any thislogic, formal change tothesystem tem the 1990s paradox upon theinformal influencethey exert throughpatronage networks, patronal­ public, functional, failure, that consolidates the authoritarian regime at present at regime authoritarian the consolidates that quasi­ of application the tate institutional reforms would require resorting to the same patronal logic logic patronal same the to wouldresorting reforms require institutional breakthrough Consequently, Considering thesystemic weakness of as aimed authoritarian solidify thecurrentsystem whereby thestatelaw itself shared self­ dysfunctions democratisation. of n aie rm shs isd te oenet elite government the inside schism a from arise and A.V. Ledeneva, One

well key Ibidem. Russian ‑organisation The of would example

be

at formal influential as democratisation in Russia would have to be imposed from above from imposed be to havewould Russia in democratisation distrust unless ‑patrimonial is paradoxes clout. citizens futile eradicating the when

that they sooner 154 thereof passive 152 system since rules Can Russia Modernise? Russia Can reforms

accompanied while whilst . This chose the

. of also

Thus, Most The customs,

groups. was politicians than declared the rather seek

could enable of widespread and would system the main being the likely, of radical attempts to eliminate informal practices informal eliminate to attempts radical the leader’s reformers, thiswould meanrepeatingthescenarioof weakening

society’s to to paternalistic the patronal­ easily In cast the the top­ expand causes require under by goal the and formal the …, and protest ‑authoritarian methods ‑authoritarian underdevelopment ‑down public deep reaction

position

op. cit. op. informal ‘new lead of facing Russian ‑patrimonial the the of

than effective votes authoritarian the institutional changes ,

thepoliticaloppositionandcivil society, more p. 14. this democrats’, to attitudes to Kremlin’s democratisation belief dominance during the strong cope restrict in co‑dependencies reality, include extremely towards the

tools that in regional with resistance prevailing Russian mentality. the political the system it would it themselves for practices supporting of the the unpopular of dismantling informal elections scope

hasnorealvalue unless civil breaking

the consequences absence system . would monopoly. . Even ‘deep

among from society, This of make . However, than pension was de facto de Dismantling

their sphere products the the would take with of be structures’ the relies

to the the the

system opposition the grassroots doomed powers. resistance accelerate to effective establish state necessi new the the another of that Russian merely mostly widely of

reform. these streets. best

dys sys the the are 153 to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ .

83 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 84 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‑economic system to Western democratic standards Westerndemocratic to system ‑economic 4.6. world 157 156 155 The belief in Russia’s uniqueness and self­ and Russia’suniqueness in belief The creating alternative,without first effective mechanisms to address social The anti Unlike External ment institutional is the part o ee te ulc em t eesr t ajs te usa political­ Russian the adjust to necessary it deem public the even nor from and themselves elites the both from resistance face might needs, ues distinct from that of the Westhe of that from distinct ues power its bases that of centre independent an imageas desired its to utes imperial role the play would that group interest influential no is there Russia in Secondly, global influence, both in political and cultural spheres, on a system of val global influence, both in political and cultural spheres, on a system of ­ liberal to resistant is lic and and sation, of ‘Westernisers’ of ents ducted of society as a whole as society

For

determined imported ‘Демократия ‘Национальная в умах ной центр widely Obstacles

a significant 62% of claimed

has summary

history” консолидации’,

in their Russian by , ­‑Western sentiment is another major reason why the Russian pub 28 October своих believed templates

‑great power idea, which is key to Russian identity. It contrib identity.It Russian to key is which idea, power ­‑great

the persisted it the shared is systems

understanding integration that особого Central of жителей’

independent both governed 156

the идентичность to society. 2014, . section

that Russia . external Levada Even belief

.

In for for типа’ by Контрапункт , of www.levada.ru; European Левада general, “Russians

domestic

systemic decades values, , if Center’s

with Левада by of “should in ‑democratic patterns of development. of patterns ‑democratic

the

и гордость’ Levada Russian центр anti thereof Russia’s impulses the центр respondents surveys , neither the political elite, nor big business, big nor elite, political the neither

like

and, and ­‑Western September , factors reforms

are

4 February 2016, continue ‘Величие Euro­ Center t ,

that

society, is , 155 has 14 January 2016, special a great to Левада on usually . ‑Atlantic for some these This

of

and been 2016, вместо have sentiment

in democratisation центр liberal playing naturally topics, mention international nation, belief,

by November 2018, extent,

‑sufficiency derives from the from derives ‑sufficiency o 5; no.

consistently somewhat www.levada.ru. limited демократии: , region. the 17 January 2019, www.levada.ru. see:

democracy. ‘Западные

the shared current of

Л. Гудков, East characteristic the impedes

impact special role in Firstly, vague need European как order

status

by stoked

обесценности’ of state www.levada.ru. Россия ‘Механизмы the 88%

In importance in a great the it for (see to a survey and results Russia.

government of by of acceptance embark

democrati догнала This of

countries, above) the

respond Kremlin identity.

power”, a large ,

кризис Левада senti West. from This con США for 157 on . ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ­

‑Western ‑Americanism) The latter, The 160 159 158 Ukraine, EU Russia initially ness investors nomic isolationist tic the tus, prejudice. propaganda. preferences patterns It does not seem likely that the West will be able to support pro­ support to able be will West the that likely seem not does It from foreign trends in Russia in the foreseeable future. foreseeable the in Russia in trends for reference of negativepoint strongest the been years for Westhas the long hysteria by adverse social collective identity, especially at times of crisi of times at identity, especially collective ern of during domestic

See

the the ‘Отношение Л. Гудков, нам of growing member anti­ significantly establishment of run.

business inter alia inter government–business

problems West, и санкции’ sanctions desired

had

the the ‑Western policy effects

linked

unleashed of betrays sentiment, crises. arising This The treated

propaganda ‘Механизмы early great begun development : costs may and к the states Despite

странам’ cooperation apparent rise became international from stance to , survey Левада will regime, over their stages sentiments, power boosted prove disillusionment from of to as in

usually by and

painful such and lead be , conducted periodic the anti­ the кризисной Левада центр readiness

seems an state narrative the of narrative. easily more since 2018 European imposed the (mainly following Russian ‑Western ultimate instrument policy.

to war , with fears 6 December

institutionalised центр systemic media relations a stable whipped fall image to by respected fluctuations reversible. консолидации’ against the have Russia, to

, Although antagonising in proves 20 March 2018, associated in citizens’ with Levada

accept 160 manifestation business attitudes years outlets support of response 2018, , increase two reforms, of up

under seem Russia, Ukraine, the regardless

Center that political worldwide under www.levada.ru). the Russian sources. If

, it self­ and course in op. op.

to for Russian with it is evident

anti­ to Putin’s in www.levada.ru. The lawlessness to cit.

public ‑esteem in it but falls

Russia result not November 2018 Putin’s by the the may marked Moscow’s s ‑Occidentalism conflict public of growing 158 authoritarian

material of of the Firstly, rather impossible on 159

Kremlin’s . prolongation rule.

Russia’s

since serious society Russian moods once The not .

and rule,

the annexation and The support by during from long­ Secondly, from that fertile again they the ‘provoking’ resistance (see: aggression well­ reached fed softening the and risks faces great reforms ‑term quasi­ that mid-1990s ‘Отношение the is a redefinition ‑being), seek awareness system anti­ the return (mainly soil for preferences, characteris

of to of deepening belief long­ power their ‑isolation ‑Western the period effective

‑reform Western Western benefits

of of the Crimea. of against backed it

in ‑term

to social these some West

к стра peak

anti­ anti­ into that was eco the the sta of of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

85 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 86 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 As window 162 161 their those the growing popularity of that tinue to thus threatening relations with the West at face value face at West the with relations to undermine the chances of Russian democratisatio to undermine the chances of and risks. and ern elites will continue to take Moscow’s declared intention of improving Moscow’s take to continue of intention declared will elites ern of domestic stabilitythanonpoliticalchange inRussia withallitsattendant costs For

any a result, events Д. Травин, i t n a s ’ n i l m e r ­K points or absence in infringes strengthen country to few more the long­ instinctively dressing to prevail, The deepening crisis of liberal democracyintheWest liberal The deepeningcrisisof who myth the details, unless ‑term of

Просуществует ли путинская система до 2042 года? система путинская ли Просуществует European y c i l o p n r e t s e W ­‑ modernisation correlation will on are the of see: EU aimed ‘reset’ Russia it be

the genuinely Kremlin’s could or . Domańska M. seek at security. enemy, of US , risk at op. cit. op. in impulses launches the nationalistandpopulistmovements) their somehow interests, lifting mutual of strength determined

political founded losing Guided by economic interest and fear,Westand interest byeconomic Guided , legitimacy, in Conflict Western Russia another relations, or they improve ground. weakness ‑dependent Russia. The domestic determinants of the the of determinants domestic The Russia. ­‑dependent legitimacy. which on , would even act to sanctions. confrontation in was promote the Russia’s as of of

though seen

sooner Western large­ Russian ‘besieged However, in , Should the ‑scale

op. cit. op. economic democratic

stake n liberalism it past. 162 with authorities is fortress’ , .

aggression

pp. 345–347. merely As it the their will alsoserve will the would a consequence, and situation latter West chances reforms (including

the syndrome a form

will The not presence abroad course 161

author . lead con and on in of ‑ ‑

Therefore, The The The legitimisation of Putin’s of The legitimisation hasclearly becomemoreproblematic regime Russian ing onerouspoliticalandeconomictransformation. Whenanothercrisisarises, more is is amongtheelite, who arelockedincreasing frustration inanincreasingly fierce ment’s tic tions, tions their power public not automatically lead to a serious crisis of Russian authoritarianism. Russian of crisis a serious to lead automatically not the hands of a narrow group of decision­ of group a narrow of hands the patterns traditional the sphere, public the in pluralism greater or tem, leadership litical ­future given CONCLUSION although and struggle of political culture will enhance the tendency to re‑concentrate power political culture will in of entrenched on citizens ested authoritarian regime stand every chance of being reproduced in the in reproduced being of chance every stand regime authoritarian dencies persist over the coming years, the possible crisis of Putinism will dencies persistover Putinismwill thecomingyears, crisisof thepossible since 2018. large atomised imported political dominance analysis values:

powers. will in susceptible

and its system aspirations, oversight, . image. enough will maintaining The authoritarianism for geographic, some undermine a national his without

will stability, interests deep This most assets democratic elite, of The suggests Even in the event of some temporary upheaval in the sys the in upheaval temporary some of event the in Even departure

minor to the of be where is to structures likely

scupper beneficiaries is whatever the and focused prerequisites major made

populist highly the and order of military the adjustments extensive that concerned the

once templates the kleptocratic, will international effects evident turmoil, any

will unlikely rulers and above the deep structures as the foundation of the of foundation the as structures deep the authoritarian their than again discourse not and attempts of most acceptance patronage of for

change all are the the by political for and reach economic are

as

potential to on continuity the repressive not likely

current their creator Putin embrace on possible identity than at social for growing obliged the integration real leadership, ‑makers. provenance, networks of own the survive is to potential, essence system

of system welfare rule

transformation. more a transformation any that in familiar or

model security. a qualitatively to public order change with long­ abide is

the a product changes. Considering over with constitute of demands, no firmly of its ‑term

will and a firm the to

change dissatisfaction the by qualitative Even if these ten these if Even the in the geopolitical boost laws political proven be state, the rooted formal agenda West. A society of hand.

vitally new a group model and in Russian restraining the

the the free patterns political in thus system. change system, govern institu domes Russia, involv firmly

based ambi inter great from that that and po be ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

87 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 88 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 will ratives the patterns of geopolitical should either. Kremlin most

Nevertheless, which be likely expected government onanti­ (based legitimisation interests and

compensate remain the

in another West that the unchanged.

dictate attitudes for cannot

instance

a dysfunctional a confrontational be of Work on this text was finished in June 2019. in finished was text this Workon of entirely

­ a post

a mock ‑Putin

ruled economic

‘thaw’ ‑Western power great nar Russia out. policy

in MARIA DOMAŃSKA MARIA

the

model), Both towards towards relations the

and traditional the the

between Russia’s West, West, ‑

‘Black cash boxes’ cash ‘Black Administrativ rent Administrative various Russian Russian ministrative ing is nal groups, nies the used political powers, Democracy fund, forming handling legal by bankruptcy Blat Corporate raiding Corporate Corruption rent Corruption also supervisory state of change corporate

to a small the

by political

defined by ( take to persons. administration бла the siphoning state

gain private levels. for reality ‘democracy’ informal official party, etc.), applicants’ cases, т over illegal group entities ) where prosecution properly

of – institutions institutions, ( scarce sphere. regulations as in Russia also referred to as ‘sovereign democracy ‘sovereign as to referred also Russia in Sometimes

corrupt a company the

this e illegal or duties resource of budget – patron­ off state on company

term ( goods beneficiaries. illegal

‘ ( means GLOSSARY OF BASIC TERMS BASIC OF GLOSSARY

This black money’, Russian: money’, black usually its fulfilling Russian: manipulating a regular – profits relationships linked ­‑controlled

assets ‑client are bribes is for

of which or it term and benefits not necessarily used

(

a two

Russian: is instrumentally an the itself. other stored to linked identified authorities, intelligence

then to their рейдерств networks is organisation demanded PUTINISM basis. to benefit supervision allow ­‑faced private most mask

benefits. received entities, the in exploit based to official админресур They the cash,

intentional, frequently model of course the with bank and

in ruling on selected by

о

used. it are often authoritarian by ) of spent duties compliance – (administration the

coercive administrative to officials of черный на черный

accounts,

the an and taking obtained

the

governance. The

exchange elite in

official с used unofficially activity entities. ) or artificial outcomes

maximum – collaboration

goal to instruments for of public over agencies,

with with regulations.

effectively which

in various essence of л from special of of ) profitable

exchange – corporate

tightening rent.

On

reference funds, these favours, body, of a kind in extent, individuals often

judiciary

the elections ranks of the

‘favours’ with controlled natural ’

influence one ) company, statutory Putinism. – of interest leads

for raiding usually compa

includ

in to

crimi of in slush hand,

It is and per

the the ad ex on or or in to ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

89 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 90 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 Zorkin, members rather ily rights shouldnotposea risktothestate’s sovereignty, norshoulditundermine ing to blackmail, the the tem there exist writtenguaranteesof used, protection, promising Fight against corruption against Fight fying figures legal Krysha Krugovay Komproma by group. (seebelow).and politicaltechnologies Theadjective ‘sovereign’ thuseffectively a mere are a share antee an instrument a driving struggle sian does of dilutes

powers the selected, class morality president, organised ‘elections’ ‘democratic’ not or since 2015. when that to or This ritual, constitution, the in the linked illegal for arbitrarily pose redistribute a of force kryshevaniye the and none activity. poruka essence t in Chairman

and is shrinking

a closed and corrupt ( discredit performed компрома the a risk company’s achieved do the on in to the activity, of of against The religious not this broad doctrine the a regular

rule

the Putinism ‘fight This ( of (in круговая порук to laws group, express

state intelligence property Kremlin, struggle, of the group’s or assets their a ‘sovereign’ manner) of

by ( mechanism sense in

whom, the in крыша т profits

against manipulate law noun and identity employing exchange – ) was order officials. – basis. power compelled Russian and inside the a campaign are of compromising members ratified and yet as figuratively ‘democracy’. and a tripartitedivision civil rightsandfreedoms;

(a mechanism , the to

genuine a massive corruption’ крышевание enshrined agencies, well On they of and political formally the how implies а term, Constitutional It

for political ) the the the – international aims by illegally as also Russian will mutual they regularly society”. administrative will to joint for other offered mainly collective influence. explained source benefit in legitimise track In betray decides not information is should senior of or the known , literally ‘providing, literally a roo practice, involvement acquired guarantees

a mere elite, hand, the business to to down constitution; paid the Court: others. of eradicate from electorate, which business state agreements be which responsibility

as income As the in the FSB, manifestation protection interpreted. it and resource otkat fortunes. it. May 2017 corruption opponents. power “Protecting collected means officials ruling regulations of are has in punish

entities loyalty – corruption for but illegal often and see been of that only class (see influential In

constitute money the including by below). and as elections The Rus between arbitrar remains this in used or intensi human the a guar Valery above) can if of ruling abide their used

com

this f but sys the rul be ’ or as ) – ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

‑down ‘traitors’ voters. Kremlin. ism. isation ning in term their power permission, people Nationalisation Party of power of Party the andpoliticalgains. Theoppositionthatistruly independentfrom financial funds government krysha Opposition as authorities activity schemes Obshchak Otkat competition. executive of limits. Themembersof defined ent agenda andactivity butwho donotactually disturbtherulersinexercising of of ensuing over economicactivity enablesprivileged membersof elite

exchange these the ‘extremists’, criminal a They in free, power. ‘licensed

are ( ). constitutional manner (a political отка (United It accordance with (e.g. offering schemes profits and in does The party then

are alsobeneficiaries ( power competitive обща – inthelanguage of Russian and for The and (the т ‘criminals’. Its ‘political coherent a not organisation;

) opposition’; used from some – protectionmoney ora shareinthecompany’s of­ profits, a ‘fifth Russia) while help – – essence к its paying non­ (the party) ) struggle in privatisation – with to positions state

criticism system’, the benefit legitimise ‑systemic in bribes). contrast losses finance Presidential column’, elections criminal is

the part who of president’s institutions. political manifesto’ in

to such the patrimonial accrue (e.g. winning the ‘agents’ of keep actuality retain are of the to the‘licensedopposition’ alliesof areinfact opposition’s of theRussian rulingclass, of thismeansa group

opposition) them their of the opposition

and term slang

the a ‘ruling staffed the needs

up the agenda to Administration),

power ‘organisers support working government authoritarian system, corrupt then is by the the Obshchak state is this an dictated of logic. contributing in used appearances state a tender

party’, instrument forms the under means functions that is operates accordance by

base. income usually for The group the with budget.

is of represents by a government, the conditions which created

a collective must

or narrow massive formal It is the reference under resulting theelitetoprivatise the gaining into is US and branded to of and

better with current not fall

Department the takes having a slush is by control political­ which

riots’, the extension a political within formed the façade of the the protection – fund, reflected from power

by to open government’s needs an the participants interests Presidential fund. offers them of authorities corruption ‘opponents ‑economic independ a ‘budget’

of precisely its the in party political of by

of plural of organ illegal These in

top­ a State, fered state win

the see: the the the of of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

91 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 92 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019 ‑controlled Administration’s money management. iour in the trolled through tionships. the power Racketeering Pool technologies Political ­ free funds garchs), Ponyatiya Raspil a large although and a genuine as sometimes sian elected cratic criminal over due State capitalism State order the administrative key ‑market

to intrigues term originally the (

Russian: or sphere,

principal the is ( scale using positions by распил sectors used various to government. the often (and the

Ponyatiya ‘political

absence the public ( companies in win понятия serve in assets former violence intended by

exchange They prison) ( ponyatiya a prerequisite state. Russian: Russian known бассей – ‘sawing up ‘sawing – support of sources corruption the guidelines. usually – mandate.

the the resource of

of

technologist’

serve refers formally narrow

in The

transparency – ‘understandings – a private Political code play interests (threats, н economy, at only – politics general for

) for of have does реке – winning as government a political

to law. a major of an a real a politician for schemes It rather The to circle the force

for т not ’ ­ a free conduct, absolute illegal ) technologies – insiders. or a given during ) blackmail, of has – anorganisedsystem of main

including rivalry a career is involve or various

state­ the the of

(or role in an ‑market incomparably illusory

toolkit budget (including the involves public

ruling acceptance regulating even

equivalent ‑owned the exerts candidate. meaning primacy in or between In any power ’ in ) mechanisms the discredit physical presidential – over the violence) were the for of krysha life group. economy, a popular interaction system. control

behind­ company. the

Russian elite manipulating state over protection and large the force

for party of Membership of more ruling . violence

their

unwritten the the

the for the written administration. and ‑the­ The private over for term election of which members Kremlin

lack political their room English with first extorting protection opponents.

group, to ‑scenes embezzling mechanisms socio­ money capital patrimonial derived and of

law time voters own business. for public is rules

in public ‑political in 1996.

accumulated and ‘spin kidnapping), de facto de

and for the in manoeuvre bargaining paid interests. applied flows

to of the from securing formally The party opinion

bureau control doctor’, budget

secure behav of by

State­ state logic

rela con Rus and

the the oli on of ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑ ‑

‑minded ‑makers. Tripartite separation of power of separation Tripartite judiciary), this for theexecutive power. They areloyal totheKremlinandpursue theinterests as state system of executive, State lawState

the an instrument term power narrow is activists. In – but to legislative in effect, a system into guarantee which a rule group the of this

the repression of ‘by of and three is

rulers, legal parliament power means not judicial classical norms the using and of against ‘rule – authorities.

the and privileges an and branches all of law’, imitative, the political courts sanctions,

law’ methods where The in to (the in opponents the purely the fact overriding deployed the legislative, classic at main serve their law formal political is understanding as and arbitrarily disposal. goal used the executive separation independent­ of back primarily

decision­ the by office legal and the of of

93 OSW STUDIES 10/ 2019