The return of the president

Nikolai Petrov - About days without Putin, regime problems, a plane in a corkscrew and a year and a half before meeting the ground

Russian President Vladimir Putin first appeared in public after a 10-day absence. His photos from a meeting in St. Petersburg with the president of Kyrgyzstan Almazbek Atambayev became a subject of close study. The “absence” of Putin gave rise to a lot of rumors and theories- that he was sick, that he had a child, that he was removed from the authorities, that he had a pause, unable to reconcile the conflict between the FSB and the head of Chechnya Ramzan Kadyrov because of the murder of the opposition leader Boris Nemtsov .

Putin’s return to the public was preceded by a show on state television of a documentary about the circumstances of last year's annexation of Crimea by Russia. In the film, Putin openly spoke about the participation of Russian power structures in Crimean events and added that Russia at that moment could lead to combat readiness nuclear forces .

Political scientist Nikolai Petrov believes that Putin’s “return” does not change anything in essence - the system in the crisis, “the regime entered a corkscrew”:

Nikolai Petrov

-Its ten-day absence is a crash test for the system, and this test will very seriously hit the system in the future. Since in a very personalist regime, which is the current Russian one, so much depends on the leader of the leader, he must personally intervene all the time-the system is so built-in making decisions that any fears that something happened to him, or the fact of his absence can very much destabilize the situation.

The deep confrontation between the FSB and Kadyrov has not yet ended

- But people who entered the Kremlin probably knew very well where the president is and how he was. Vladimir Putin has a story of disappearance at some important points-for decision-making. For example, they pay attention to the fact that almost simultaneously with the way Vladimir Putin appeared after the absence, it was announced that the Investigative Committee did not consider the murder of Nemtsov’s murder , that is, this is the initiative of those who killed. If we assume that there was some confrontation between different fractions around Putin, between Kadyrov and the FSB due to the murder, then the answer was given, Kadyrov was bred from under the blow, everything was decided.

- I think that, depending on the degree of proximity to the Kremlin, the awareness could increase. But this does not remove the severity of the problem itself. It is clear that in the absence of the president, the system cannot function normally. And the very fact that the president can cease to fulfill his duties can lead to a very deep political crisis. As for the confrontation of some clans and strength, it seems to me that the deep confrontation between the FSB and Kadyrov has not yet ended in any way. It continues with varying success. It puts Putin in a very difficult position when it is almost impossible to find a compromise entry that would arrange both sides, and the humiliation of any of these sides is fraught with very serious consequences, ascels near Putin.

Putin at the meeting on March 16, 2015

- Do you think that such a confrontation exists and that the statement of the Investigative Committee is not a final response to this whole situation? Some of the parties can still try to replay it?

The conflict actually reached the highest level

-I think that, firstly, the final answer is not given, and even more so the answer that would suit both sides. Before that, we saw a number of situations when the Kadyrovites came into conflict with the FSB, at different times the consequences were different. As a rule, people from the FSB were given an order to release and terminate the investigation - this was considered as some corporate humiliation, but humiliation at the level of officers. Now we see that the conflict has actually reached the highest level - to the level of leadership from both side. Therefore, this kind of solution, when someone feels unfairly offended, can no longer be here. We see throughout all the days of the Nemtsov days, how the options for explanation and interpretation options are changing, but the essence remains the same, that is, the director of the FSB openly and publicly accused a number of people who were related to President Chechnya Kadyrov, that they directly committed this murder. And then, regardless of the fact that the Investigative Committee or anyone else declares an order, there was no order, there was a fact - a public prosecution has been made, which Kadyrov, I must say, immediately accepted and said that he believes that those people who are named may not be involved in this. In any case, these are the heroes of Russia, that is, in this sense there was a public challenge, and the same public answer came to it. And then, already at the level of these people and Putin, the question of how this political conflict will develop.

- Your opinion - was Putin’s disappearance associated with the investigation of the murder of Nemtsov or can there be other options?

Apparently, some kind of ailments

- I think this was connected or not related to the development of events after the death of Nemtsov, this development itself put Putin in a very difficult political situation. As for the immediate reason, it is difficult to imagine that the current leader of the country suddenly disappears somewhere for 10 days because of the complexity of the problems that arose before him. I think that, as always, it was a set of factors. Apparently, some kind of ailments, it does not matter for what specific reasons. And some political motives could well play a role in this, but not the main and not the only one.

- Is it possible to say that now Putin has returned and put all the dots over "and"? Or do you think the conflict is not resolved?

- Of course not. The return of Putin has not yet answered any of the serious questions. And these issues are the very opportunity of the leader at some point to disappear for reasons inexplicable or inexplicable or unexplained. If this can be repeated in the future, then this is a very serious factor in political instability. The second is an open public conflict between the devoted Putin, in fact, by power corporations, it has not yet been allowed. Will it be possible to resolve it, if - yes, then how? I think he will have serious consequences.

- Yesterday's documentary about the return of Crimea, where Putin openly admits that it was an operation of Russia's power structures, where he mentions nuclear weapons - does this work for him as a strong leader, from your point of view? Is this the return of the mighty leader of the country?

Strengthen Putin's legitimacy, military military, which is associated with Crimea

-It seems to me that the main problem associated with the Crimea and with Putin’s decision to move from the legitimacy of the democratic, built in the elections, to the legitimacy of military-mobilization, is that there is no way back. Putin can no longer return to democratic legitimacy, and it cannot be more difficult and difficult to support him, because such victories as Crimea cannot present to society. And as the capture of Crimea is a thing of the past, positive for Putin, popularity, etc., is also reduced. It seems to me that this film itself and such a rather stringent rhetoric and the discovery of some conditional secrets that the authorities had not reported before is a way to restore Putin’s legitimacy in such a relatively easy way, military-Vozdist, which is associated with the Crimea, and at the same time a relatively inexpensive price, that is, not at the cost of some military victories, but at the cost of reminding and discussions of these victories, which were made, from the point of view, from the point of view, from the point of view, from the point of view Kremlin, a year ago.

-Over the past days, a feeling of some new political reality has appeared. At the same time, there is no clear idea of what she is. From your point of view, we can say something new about Putin’s regime-is this some new era?

Many things are irreversible

- It seems to me that all radical changes have occurred last year. Today, it seems to me that gradual awareness comes both by political elites and some part of the society that the steps made last year are largely irreversible. This is a fundamentally different reality compared to the past, when the regime could take a step in one direction earlier, and then after a while to go back or take two steps in the opposite direction, now it is no longer possible. The understanding that many things are irreversible, that a country with the current regime has passed a number of fork, which can not be turned back now, comes today along with the realization that the price that was considered very easily, which was considered the absent from the supply of power a year ago, is becoming more and more tangible, and not tangible to people from the close environment of the leader, but for ordinary citizens.

- From this point of view, how can the situation develop? What are the most difficult problems for Putin?

A year and a half before the collision with the ground

- It seems to me that the trajectory in which the regime can be characterized as the movement of the aircraft in the corkscrew, in the sense that it can practically not change its power. She can only adjust the speed a little. And I see only three options for leaving this trajectory. One option - this plane falls apart in the air. With this option, I would indicate a radical transformation of the regime, which is possible only with the change of the leader, which can lead to the exit from this state of the corkscrew. The second option - the plane reaches the Earth, and this is a political crisis, collapse and the appearance of a new regime on the wreckage of the old. The third option, which, apparently, is in the Kremlin’s head, are external factors that can remove the plane out of the corkscrew. There is Ukraine, where economic and political instability is very high. There is Europe, which is now very much focused on the conflict in the east of Ukraine, but in front of which there are a number of their own serious problems. And now the calculation may well be made that, for, conditionally, a year and a half, that they remain until the collision with the ground, external serious events may well occur that can push the plane out of the corkscrew and, thereby ensure the preservation of the regime.

- Do you consider a realistic change of pilots, the first option?

- Now, when Putin was absent within 10 days, there was no shortage of various theories, versions, including what you asked, some consolidated effort of political elites that want to push the leader in the right direction. And if this does not work, then replace it. There are no institutions, no mechanisms that could provide this. Therefore, how this can happen and whether it can, in principle, happen is a big question. I do not think this option is most likely.

- You said that the clash with the ground will be in 1.5 years. Where does this assessment come from?

- It seems to me that by a number of actions and actions, and statements of the authorities it is clear that it is quite acute or at least economically painful for the country with the West, which is now, disastrous for the country's economy and in terms of the banking sector, and in terms of real economy, when there is already a lack of technology and mechanisms in the oil and gas sector, without which to ensure the preservation of oil and gas production at the level of gas at the level It is not possible. Taking into account that the country is actually closed to exit for significant categories of elites, power elites, this also cannot continue forever, unless the authorities find a way to compensate them for these very serious losses and a radical change in life style. All this, it seems to me, indicates that even the Kremlin’s plans are designed to continue the confrontation for a maximum of a year and a half with a further exit from it. But this output is possible either due to the changes in the positions of the West, which seems to me poorly, or by virtue of some radical steps in transformation of the regime, which can remove the sharpness of this confrontation.