DOCSLIB.ORG

Who Rules Russia Today? an Analysis of Vladimir Putin and His Political Project (I) Autor1: Javier Morales Hernández Unisci F

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Who Rules Russia Today? an Analysis of Vladimir Putin and His Political Project (I) Autor1: Javier Morales Hernández Unisci F UNISCI DISCUSSION PAPERS Octubre de 2003 WHO RULES RUSSIA TODAY? AN ANALYSIS OF VLADIMIR PUTIN AND HIS POLITICAL PROJECT (I) AUTOR1: JAVIER MORALES HERNÁNDEZ UNISCI FECHA: Octubre 2003 1.Introduction Yeltsin proclaims at a campaign rally, “Elect me and you'll get a brand-new president.” “What if we don't elect you, Boris Nikolaevich?” asks a voice from the crowd. “Then you'll get the same old president,” Yeltsin replies.2 In March 2004, a presidential election is expected to be hold in Russia, but—in contrast to the same event four years ago—the European non-specialised media and public have paid little attention to it. The difference between both campaigns does not lie in the probabilities about their outcome: having been appointed by Yeltsin as his semi-official successor, Putin was certain to become president in 2000, as he is now to continue for a second term. What happened then is that the Kremlin’s candidate was a complete stranger for everyone, from the Western analysts to the Russians themselves; discussion went on for a long time, trying to solve the now topical question of “Who is Mr. Putin?”. That all came to an end with 9/11. Russia’s support to the U.S. war in Afghanistan was seen as a litmus test of Putin’s intentions, and the “Pro-Western Reformer” paradigm triumphantly emerged among the contending explanations of the president’s aims. However, that was not supported by facts from his former career or, more importantly, the rest of policy measures he had been implementing before September 2001. War in Iraq has finally demonstrated that Putin’s choice to support the United States was not irreversible. 1 Las opiniones expresadas en estos artículos son propias de sus autores. Estos artículos no reflejan necesariamente la opinión de UNISCI. The views expressed in these articles are those of the authors. These articles do not necessarily reflect the views of UNISCI 2 A popular joke during the 1996 presidential campaign, quoted by Belin, Laura: “Humor of the Political Opposition: Then and Now”, RFE/RL Russian Political Weekly, Vol. 2, No. 36, 30 October 2002, in http://www.rferl.org. 1 UNISCI DISCUSSION PAPERS Octubre de 2003 The explanation for such a misinterpretation could be found in the analysts’ failure to rely on facts, rather than on official declarations and foreign commentators. As Bennet has wisely pointed out, Putin’s pre-electoral book-interview,3 long, authorized leaks in the media and a film autobiography “Muzhskaya Rabota” were occasionally quoted but not analysed. Western journalists and commentators preferred to rely on anti-Putin, erudite chattering classes in Moscow and St Petersburg and unattributed translations from the Russian press. Their Russian counterparts prematurely switched on their old Soviet auto-censorship mechanism, avoiding profiling Putin in depth. A better look at Putin at this stage would have shown that his background and his early working years could have been a serious drawback in his political career had they been scrutinized earlier [...]4 Today, we have not solved yet the enigma that Putin presented in March 2000. In addition to the optimistic, “post-9/11” interpretation, some have warned of a more conflicting foreign policy based on his goal of restoring Russia’s position as a “great power”. Others have stressed that he owes his job to Yeltsin, which should restrict his ability to implement changes that could affect the privileges of the so-called “Family”5; while many have perceived a return to authoritarian methods, based on the slogans “vertical of power” and “dictatorship of law”. This research,6 whose results are presented in two separate articles, tries to offer a wider and more accurate view of Putin’s role as Russian President, supported by direct evidence. Part One, which is published here,7 is focused on his biographical antecedents: the first section deals with his official biographies and their failures; section two presents a detailed analysis of his career in the KGB; section three deals with the start of his political career beside Anatoli Sobchak, and the influence that the mayor of St. Petersburg may have had on him. Part Two—in the next issue of this journal—will begin with a study of Putin’s later career in Moscow, until he became prime minister. Then, we will examine his political project, as stated during his campaign and on his public appearances; and finally, discuss the main interpretations of his role that have appeared in the scholarly literature. Our conclusions want to contribute to the debate about the next, and probably also Putin’s term of presidency, addressing the persistent question of “Who Rules Russia Today?” 3 The book mentioned is Gevorkian, Natalia; Timakova, Natalia and Kolesnikov, Andrei (2000): Ot piervogo litsá: razgovori s Vladimirom Putinim [In the First Person: Talks with Vladimir Putin]. Moscow, Vagrius. We will refer to it later in this article. 4 Bennet, Gordon (2002): Vladimir Putin and Russia’s Special Services, in http://www.csrc.ac.uk. 5 Designation for the group of Yeltsin’s advisors, aides, and relatives—as his daughter, Tatiana Diachenko,—that greatly influenced political decisions during his presidency. 6 The author—who is currently writing his Ph.D. thesis Russia’s Security Policy: Internal Factors and International Relations, 1998-2004—thanks the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation (AECI), Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for awarding him a grant towards a stay in Moscow in August 2003, during which the Russian materials for this study were obtained. 7 The second part, “Who Rules Russia Today? An Analysis of Vladimir Putin and His Political Project (II)”, will be published in the next issue of UNISCI Discussion Papers. 2 UNISCI DISCUSSION PAPERS Octubre de 2003 2.Official biographies In fact, I have a very simple life [...]8 The first source that may be approached for trying to analyse Putin’s project is, of course, his career, from which significant evidence could be obtained about how his ideology and personality were shaped. Therefore, as many Western scholars have done since he became Yeltsin’s successor, we should refer in the first place to his widely known official biographies. However, that kind of information must be carefully contrasted before reaching any conclusion, distinguishing facts from mere political propaganda. In Russia, since the 2000 electoral campaign, the president has been presented by the state-controlled media as a young, energetic, and reliable official (in contrast to Yeltsin’s chaotic style of leadership), and his life story been used to reinforce that image in the public. Such a phenomenon, which has gradually become a real “Putinmania”, reminds us of the Soviet “cult to personality” and, perhaps, Yeltsin’s popularity in 1990-1991. That is why we consider these biographies to be not only insufficient to assess Putin’s performance before becoming Russian president, but also plainly biased when they omit potentially embarrassing facts as, for example, his career in the KGB. All that we learn about his fifteen years in the organi 9, one third of them in the German Democratic Republic (GDR), is his role in the foreign intelligence, with no details about his actual duties or his possible relation to other KGB activities.10 Therefore, trying to stick to the official data could negatively affect the objectivity of our conclusions. This becomes evident by examining the very few lines, mainly an enumeration of his political posts since 1990, in which these biographies can be summarized:11 Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was born in Leningrad (now St Petersburg) on 7 October 1952. He obtained a degree in Law at Leningrad State University in 1975 (later, he became Candidate to Doctor in Economic Sciences). After graduating, he was selected by the KGB, where he worked from 1975 to 1990 as a foreign intelligence officer. From 1985 to 1990 he served in the German Democratic Republic (GDR). In 1990 he returned to Leningrad and became assistant for international affairs to the President 12 of Leningrad State University. Later, he was appointed advisor to the Chairman of the Leningrad City Council. In June 1991, he was promoted to Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Leningrad City Council. After the collapse of the USSR, from 1994 he also served as first deputy mayor of St Petersburg. 8 Vladimir Putin, in Gevorkian, Timakova, and Kolesnikov, op. cit., p. 5 (translated by Javier Morales). 9 “Organs” (of the State Security). A common Russian designation for the KGB. 10 See: Morales Hernández, Javier: “Los Servicios de Seguridad e Inteligencia en la Rusia de Putin” [Security and Intelligence Services in Putin’s Russia], UNISCI Discussion Papers, No. 2 (May 2003), in http://www.ucm.es/info/unisci, pp. 2-3. 11 Our sources here are the Russian Presidency’s website and the Ministry of Defence’s Military Encyclopaedic Dictionary. Substantial data in other official biographies are almost identical to these examples. See: Biografiya / Biography [Russian and English versions], in http://www.president.kremlin.ru; Ministerstvo Oborony Rossiyskoy Federatsii, Institut Voyennoy Istorii (2002): “Putin, Vladimir Vladimirovich”, in Voyenniy Entsiklopedicheskiy Slovar [Military Encyclopaedic Dictionary]. Moscow, Bolshaya Rossiyskaya Entsiklopediya / Ripol Klassik. 12 Other sources say “assistant to the Vice-President for International Affairs of LGU”. 3 UNISCI DISCUSSION PAPERS Octubre de 2003 In August 1996, he moved to Moscow as deputy head of President Yeltsin’s Secretariat.13 From March 1997, he worked as deputy head of the Presidential Administration, head of the President’s Main Control Directorate.14 In May 1998 he was appointed first deputy head of the Presidential Administration. Two months later, he became Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB). From March 1999, he also served as Secretary of the Security Council.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE COLD WAR's LONGEST COVER-UP: HOW and WHY the USSR INSTIGATED the 1967 WAR by Isabella Ginor*
    THE COLD WAR'S LONGEST COVER-UP: HOW AND WHY THE USSR INSTIGATED THE 1967 WAR By Isabella Ginor* The Soviet warning to Egypt about supposed Israeli troop concentrations on the Syrian border in May 1967 has long been considered a blunder that precipitated a war which the USSR neither desired nor expected. New evidence from Soviet and other Warsaw Pact documents, as well as memoirs of contemporary actors, contradicts this accepted theory. The author demonstrates that this warning was deliberate disinformation, part of a plan approved at the highest level of Soviet leadership to elicit Egyptian action that would provoke an Israeli strike. Soviet military intervention against the "aggressor" was intended to follow and was prepared well in advance. "The truth of anything at all supposed Israeli reinforcements after doesn't lie in someone's account inspecting the Syrian front.(3) of it. It lies in all the small facts of In order to reconcile this Soviet the time." provocation with the accepted view that --Josephine Tey, The Daughter of Moscow had no intention to precipitate a Time(1) war, various theories have been proposed.(4) An especially noteworthy It is well-accepted in Middle Eastern version was offered recently by Karen historiography that the 1967 war's Brutents, a former CPSU Central immediate trigger was disinformation fed Committee counsellor,(5) who claimed by the Soviet Union to Egypt in May that Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir 1967 about massive reinforcements Israel Semyonov "couldn't control himself" and was supposedly concentrating on its prematurely revealed yet-unconfirmed border with Syria.
    [Show full text]
  • “Shitting Medals”: L.I. Brezhnev, the Great Patriotic War, and the Failure of the Personality Cult, 1965-1982
    “Shitting Medals”: L.I. Brezhnev, the Great Patriotic War, and the Failure of the Personality Cult, 1965-1982 Adrianne Nolan A thesis submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in the Department of History. Chapel Hill 2008 Approved by: Donald J. Raleigh Louise McReynolds Donald M. Reid Abstract Adrianne Nolan “Shitting Medals”: L.I. Brezhnev, the Great Patriotic War, and the Failure of the Personality Cult, 1965-1982 (Under the direction of Donald J. Raleigh) This thesis explores the relationship between L.I. Brezhnev’s cult of personality and the memory of the Second World War in the Soviet Union. By glorifying and falsifying Brezhnev’s record of wartime service, his personality cult placed him within the myth of the “Great Patriotic War,” which had become the historical anchor of Soviet regime legitimacy. The General Secretary also used the memory of the war to bolster his other public personae, or “hero roles.” Brezhnev’s war hero image, however, ultimately contributed to the failure of his personality cult. Becoming increasingly overblown, this persona invited ridicule that undermined Brezhnev’s cult. The consequences of this failure, moreover, potentially reach beyond the 1970s and 1980s. The implosion of Brezhnev’s cult undermined not only his legitimacy but, by encouraging the desacralization of the leadership, may also have gravely damaged the legitimacy of the Soviet regime as a whole. ii Table of Contents Introduction………………………………………………..………..….………….1 One Man, Many Roles…………………………………………………………….6 A Heroic Failure…….....…………………………………………………….…....25 Conclusion: Failure, Collapse, and Nostalgia…....……………………………….38 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………...44 iii Introduction “In general, men judge more by sight than by touch.
    [Show full text]
  • Russkiy Mir Foundation and Rossotrudnichestvo—Are Based in Russia but Can Have Numerous Branches in the EU
    The Bear in Sheep`s Clothing This paper sheds light on organisations operating in Europe that are funded by the Russian government, whether officially or unofficially. These include government-organised non-governmental organisations (GONGOs), non- The Bear in governmental organisations (NGOs) and think tanks. Their goal is to shift European public opinion towards a positive view of Russian politics and policies, and towards respect for its great power ambitions. In light of Russia’s annexation Sheep’s Clothing of Crimea and Russian aggression in Eastern Ukraine, the overt or covert support for these organisations must become a matter of concern to the EU. Russia’s Government-Funded Vladislava Vojtíšková, Vít Novotný, Hubertus Schmid-Schmidsfelden and Kristina Potapova Vladislava Vojtíšková, Organisations in the EU The EU’s politicians and citizens should look at the activities of the Russian GONGOs and think tanks as challenges that can help improve national and Vladislava Vojtíšková, Vít Novotný, EU-level decision-making mechanisms, increase transparency in policymaking Hubertus Schmid-Schmidsfelden and Kristina Potapova and deepen the involvement of citizens and civil society organisations in the democratic process. The paper recommends, among other measures, fostering the EU’s own narrative, which is based on human rights, freedom and equality; supporting pro-democratic civil society so that Europeans become more resistant to Russian propaganda; and increasing transparency requirements for NGOs and lobbyists by setting up a mandatory lobbying register at the EU level. The Bear in Sheep’s Clothing Russia’s Government-Funded Organisations in the EU Vladislava Vojtíšková, Vít Novotný, Hubertus Schmid-Schmidsfelden and Kristina Potapova Credits Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies Rue du Commerce 20 Brussels, BE - 1000 The Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies is the political foundation and think tank of the European People’s Party (EPP), dedicated to the promotion of Christian Democrat, conservative and like-minded political values.
    [Show full text]
  • Moscow's Endgame in Afghanistan by Richard Weitz
    Conflict Quarterly Moscow's Endgame in Afghanistan by Richard Weitz INTRODUCTION The USSR's strategy in Afghanistan almost succeeded. Following the withdrawal of their troops in February 1989, Soviet officials sought a negotiated settlement that would have provided their local allies with a significant chance to remain in power yet would have reduced the USSR's economic and diplo­ matic costs. By withdrawing its forces, Moscow purposefully transformed a war of liberation against an occupying power into a confused civil conflict between a seemingly flexible government and an increasingly divided opposi­ tion. The insurgents' foreign backers, disappointed by their poor military performance, wavered in their support. Only the unexpected collapse of the Soviet central government undermined Moscow's endgame in Afghanistan. THE INCOMPLETE GENEVA ACCORDS On IS April 1988, in Geneva, Switzerland, various parties to the Afghan conflict signed four pacts: a Bilateral Agreement Between the Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the Principles of Mutual Relations, in particular on Non-Interference and Non-intervention; a Declara­ tion on International Guarantees Between the United States and the Soviet Union; a Bilateral Agreement Between the Republic of Afghanistan and the Islamic Republic of Pakistan on the Voluntary Return of Refugees; and, an Agreement on the Interrelationships for the Settlement of the Situation relating to Afghanistan, also signed by the Afghan and Pakistani governments. As part of this set of accords, Soviet officials consented to remove their military units from Afganistan by IS February 1989. The Geneva accords were incomplete in several respects, and these gaps ensured fighting would continue.
    [Show full text]
  • H-Diplo REVIEW ESSAY 292 2 December 2020
    H-Diplo REVIEW ESSAY 292 2 December 2020 Andrei Kozyrev. The Firebird: The Elusive Fate of Russian Democracy. Forward by Michael McFaul. Pittsburgh: The University of Pittsburgh Press, 2019. ISBN: 9780822966517 (paperback, $22.00). https://hdiplo.org/to/E292 Review Editors: Thomas Maddux and Diane Labrosse | Production Editor: George Fujii Review by Sergey Radchenko, Cardiff University n one warm spring morning in 1975, a young staffer with the Soviet mission in New York, Andrei Kozyrev, bought a copy of Boris Pasternak’s Doctor Zhivago, and sat in the Central Park on a bench, reading it till dusk. O When he finished reading, he left the book on the bench. He was afraid to take it back to the mission for fear of being exposed as a ‘dissident’ (the novel had been banned in the USSR). “That was the moment,” Kozyrev recalls, “when I lost all my illusions about the political arrangements under which the people of the Soviet Union were living. I knew I couldn’t defect, not out of loyalty to the system, but because of the devastating effect it would have on the lives of my relatives back home. Instead I became an ‘internal dissident,’ denying the Soviet system in my heart but never challenging it openly” (9). Fifteen years later the system collapsed, and Kozyrev – by then a mid-ranking diplomat – was propelled to the top as the first Foreign Minister of post-Soviet Russia. This memoir is an account of his exploits on the job, which he held until 1996, when he was replaced by Evgenii Primakov.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    Notes Introduction 1 W. Phillips Davison, ‘Public Opinion’, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 1968. Encyclopedia.com. Accessed December 13, 2011. http:// www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2–3045001019.html 2. Lucien Warner, ‘The Reliability of Public Opinion Surveys’, Public Opinion Quarterly 3 (1939): 377. 3. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism (London: Verso Editions and NLB, 1983), 145 4. See Hiroaki Kuromiya, ‘How Do We Know What the People Thought under Stalin?’ in The Soviet Union – a Popular State? Studies on Popular Opinion in the USSR, edited by Timo Vihavainen (St Petersburg: Evropeiski Dom, 2003), 30–49. 5. As showed a sociologist Pitirim A. Sorokin, Hunger As a Factor in Human Affairs, trans. Elena Sorokin (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1975). 6. Peter Holquist, ‘What’s So Revolutionary About the Russian Revolution? State Practices and the New Style Politics, 1914–21’, in Russian Modernity. Politics, Knowledge, Practices, ed. David L. Hoffmann and Yanni Kotsonis (New York: St Martin’s Press, 2000), 92, 94. See also David Priestland, Stalinism and the Politics of Mobilization. Ideas, Power, and Terror in Inter- war Russia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). 7. David L. Hoffmann, Cultivating the Masses. Modern State Practices and Soviet Socialism. 1914–1939 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2011), 1–14. 8. Holquist, ‘What’s So Revolutionary’, 89–90; Stephen Kotkin, ‘Modern Times: The Soviet Union and the Interwar Conjuncture’, Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History 2.1 (2001): 113, 127. 9. Hoffmann, Cultivating the Masses, 4. 10. Like Arzhilovsky in Véronique Garros, Natalia Korenevskaya, Thomas Lahusen, eds.
    [Show full text]
  • Andropov's Gamble: Samantha Smith and Soviet Soft Power
    Andropov’s Gamble: Samantha Smith and Soviet Soft Power Anton Fedyashin Introduction On a November evening in 1982, a ten-year-old fifth-grader from Manches- ter, Maine—population just above two thousand—became concerned about world peace under the impression of news stories about the Soviet nuclear threat. To alleviate her daughter’s fears, Jane Smith sat down with Samantha to read a Time magazine article about Yuri Andropov who had just succeeded Leonid Brezhnev as General Secretary of the CPSU. The introductory paragraph read: “When Jo- seph Conrad wrote about the place, he called his novel Under Western Eyes be- cause he wanted his readers to understand that his history was told by an outsider, meaning that no non-Russian could ever hope to see into that particular heart of darkness with any clarity or certainty. It is the same now. With Leonid Brezhnev gone, where are Western eyes to look, at the man or at the space he left, for an understanding of this moment?”1 Samantha decided to write a letter to penetrate that darkness, addressed it to Andropov, and received a reply from the Kremlin inviting her to visit the Soviet Union and report what she saw. The most successful Soviet PR campaign of the late Cold War, the Smith visit demonstrated a creative, albeit short-lived, variation on the rich history of Soviet public relations.2 This surreal epistolary exchange and visit have attracted limited scholarly attention.3 And this article will add to the conversation by exploring some important but overlooked details in the con- text of evolving political narratives emerging out of Moscow and Washington in the early 1980s—the clash between the Soviet quest for legitimacy founded 1 Roger Rosenblatt, “Half a World Lies Open, Leonid Brezhnev Leaves a Vacuum Greater than the Man Who Filled It,” Time, 22 November 1983, 11.
    [Show full text]
  • The SVR Russia's Intelligence Service
    Conflict Studies Research Centre C103 Table of Contents After the PGU 2 Primakov's Ideal Job 5 Saving the SVR 6 The Downsizing 7 Survive & Impress 8 The SVR's Legal Basis 9 The New Areas of Interest 10 The CIS 10 The Main Opponent & Its Allies 12 After Primakov 15 The Tasks 16 Training New Agents 17 The New SVR 18 The Future 19 1 C103 The SVR Russia’s Intelligence Service Gordon Bennett There are friendly states but there are no friendly intelligence services After the PGU The collapse of the Soviet Union resulted in the disappearance of the most powerful security organisation ever created - the KGB. The KGB’s omnipresence in the USSR and its extensive network abroad was the result of the Soviet leadership's determination to control the population inside the USSR, and until the mid 1980s, in accordance with Marxist-Leninist principles, to propel its version of communism as far and as wide as was politically, militarily and financially feasible. The KGB was the sword and shield of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, its occasional Ministry of Foreign Affairs and a research organisation forced sometimes to produce analysis which had nothing to do with its statutory mission and which appropriate institutes in Moscow could have done better1. The political need to pamper the KGB translated well into almost unlimited funds, facilities, the ability to place KGB personnel in any Soviet organisation, inside or abroad and job offers no other organisation could match2. Its foreign intelligence gathering and processing body was known as the PGU, the Russian acronym for the First Chief Directorate.
    [Show full text]
  • Memory Politics in Contemporary Russia
    Memory Politics in Contemporary Russia This book examines the societal dynamics of memory politics in Russia. Since Vladimir Putin became president, the Russian central government has increas- ingly actively employed cultural memory to claim political legitimacy and dis- credit all forms of political opposition. The rhetorical use of the past has become adefining characteristic of Russian politics, creating a historical foundation for the regime’s emphasis on a strong state and centralised leadership. Exploring memory politics, this book analyses a wide range of actors, from the central government and the Russian Orthodox Church to filmmaker and cultural heavyweight Nikita Mikhalkov and radical thinkers such as Alek- sandr Dugin. In addition, in view of the steady decline in media freedom since 2000, it critically examines the role of cinema and television in shaping and spreading these narratives. Thus, this book aims to promote a better understanding of the various means through which the Russian government practices its memory politics (e.g. the role of state media) while at the same time pointing to the existence of alternative and critical voices and criticism that existing studies tend to overlook. Contributing to current debates in the field of memory studies and of cur- rent affairs in Russia and Eastern Europe, this book will be of interest to scholars working in the fields of Russian studies, cultural memory studies, nationalism and national identity, political communication, film, television and media studies. Mariëlle Wijermars is a postdoctoral researcher at the Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki. Studies in Contemporary Russia Series Editor: Markku Kivinen Studies in Contemporary Russia is a series of cutting-edge, contemporary studies.
    [Show full text]
  • The Russian State's Use of Irregular Forces and Private Military Groups
    The Russian State’s Use of Irregular Forces and Private Military Groups: From Ivan the Terrible to the Soviet Period Sergey Sukhankin Introduction Russia’s growing employment of non-linear forms of warfare (including private military contractors) has long historical traditions. This paper seeks to discuss the main milestones of historical evolution of Russia’s use of mercenary and irregular forces from Tsarist Russia to the final days of the Soviet Union. Specifically, this paper will explore: Key ideas/motivations that guided the Russian state in employing these groups prior to 1917; The evolution of the Soviet approach toward irregular forces and their use within the scope of (para)military operations; Participation of Soviet “military advisors” in regional conflicts and zones of instability as part of the geopolitical power play against the West (primarily the United States); The phenomenon of “special forces” (Spetsnaz) as a means to achieve specific tasks. The research is built on a broad range of Russian sources and presents a combination of chronological and thematic approaches. Russia’s Use of Irregular Forces in the pre-Soviet Period (1612–1917) 1 As described in the first paper in this series, “War, Business and Ideology: How Russian Private Military Contractors Pursue Moscow’s Interests,” Russia’s use of private military contractors dates all the way back to the Livonian War (1558–1583) and reflects Russia’s traditional weakness in the realm of naval operations.1 During the same period, Cossack ataman (leader) Yermak Timofeyevich, hired by the powerful Stroganov merchant family, undertook a raid against the Muslim quasi-state of the Khanate of Sibir.
    [Show full text]
  • Memory Politics in Contemporary Russia
    Memory Politics in Contemporary Russia This book examines the societal dynamics of memory politics in Russia. Since Vladimir Putin became president, the Russian central government has increas- ingly actively employed cultural memory to claim political legitimacy and dis- credit all forms of political opposition. The rhetorical use of the past has become adefining characteristic of Russian politics, creating a historical foundation for the regime’s emphasis on a strong state and centralised leadership. Exploring memory politics, this book analyses a wide range of actors, from the central government and the Russian Orthodox Church to filmmaker and cultural heavyweight Nikita Mikhalkov and radical thinkers such as Alek- sandr Dugin. In addition, in view of the steady decline in media freedom since 2000, it critically examines the role of cinema and television in shaping and spreading these narratives. Thus, this book aims to promote a better understanding of the various means through which the Russian government practices its memory politics (e.g. the role of state media) while at the same time pointing to the existence of alternative and critical voices and criticism that existing studies tend to overlook. Contributing to current debates in the field of memory studies and of cur- rent affairs in Russia and Eastern Europe, this book will be of interest to scholars working in the fields of Russian studies, cultural memory studies, nationalism and national identity, political communication, film, television and media studies. Mariëlle Wijermars is a postdoctoral researcher at the Aleksanteri Institute, University of Helsinki. Studies in Contemporary Russia Series Editor: Markku Kivinen Studies in Contemporary Russia is a series of cutting-edge, contemporary studies.
    [Show full text]
  • AN ANALYSIS of VLADIMIR PUTIN and HIS POLITICAL PROJECT (I) UNISCI Discussion Papers, Núm
    UNISCI Discussion Papers ISSN: 1696-2206 [email protected] Universidad Complutense de Madrid España MORALES HERNÁNDEZ, JAVIER WHO RULES RUSSIA TODAY? AN ANALYSIS OF VLADIMIR PUTIN AND HIS POLITICAL PROJECT (I) UNISCI Discussion Papers, núm. 3, octubre, 2003, pp. 1-11 Universidad Complutense de Madrid Madrid, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=76711279011 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative UNISCI DISCUSSION PAPERS Octubre de 2003 WHO RULES RUSSIA TODAY? AN ANALYSIS OF VLADIMIR PUTIN AND HIS POLITICAL PROJECT (I) AUTOR1: JAVIER MORALES HERNÁNDEZ UNISCI FECHA: Octubre 2003 1.Introduction Yeltsin proclaims at a campaign rally, “Elect me and you'll get a brand-new president.” “What if we don't elect you, Boris Nikolaevich?” asks a voice from the crowd. “Then you'll get the same old president,” Yeltsin replies.2 In March 2004, a presidential election is expected to be hold in Russia, but—in contrast to the same event four years ago—the European non-specialised media and public have paid little attention to it. The difference between both campaigns does not lie in the probabilities about their outcome: having been appointed by Yeltsin as his semi-official successor, Putin was certain to become president in 2000, as he is now to continue for a second term. What happened then is that the Kremlin’s candidate was a complete stranger for everyone, from the Western analysts to the Russians themselves; discussion went on for a long time, trying to solve the now topical question of “Who is Mr.
    [Show full text]