”believe it has also been stated that the PM position could be hypothetically changed to give it more clout.”

I’m almost certain that that is part of the witches brew at 1 Red Square. After all, its just 5 minutes walk to the Duma from the Presidium.

“I don’t think that Russia will have a great hang up dealing with a Black or female American president. Russia deals with Black and female heads of states.”

To:

I don’t think that Russia will have a great hang up dealing with an American Black or female president. Russia deals with other Black and female heads of states.

http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Experts%27+Panel&articleid=a1201870840

Upon perusing that venue, the writing and views in this piece appear familiar (I’ll leave it at that):

http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=CDI+Russia+Profile+List&articleid=a1202228384

I’d love to, but I simply don’t have a clue.

Most likely he’ll be Prime Minister, and most likely he’ll retain significant influence.

But I don’t think anyone is entirely sure how the Russian political system will react to having two sources of power (President & PM).

Nor (and this is the bigger question, I think) does anyone have a clue what Putin’s intentions are – does he plan to transfer power to the Prime Minister’s office, does he plan to gradually transfer power to Medvedev if he can, or is he planning something off the wall, like running for President again in four years?

Also, no-one is quite sure how the economic situation will play out over the next few years. Putin’s job over the past 8 years has been made much easier by the booming Russian economy, but this is largely propped up by high oil prices. What if the economy shifts, and Russia goes into recession? Will Putin be strengthened by this? Will he be threatened and resort to more autocratic measures? Will he think… “Hmmm, this could be a convenient time to retire with my reputation intact, and leave Medvedev to sort out the mess”?

So many variables, so few answers…

I believe it has also been stated that the PM position could be hypothetically changed to give it more clout.

The above thoughts could be incorrect, due to my being involved with some other matters.

There’s the view that as Yeltsin’s time at the top was different from Gorbachev’s and Putin’s different from Yeltsin’s, the likely President Medvedev could very well develop his own political legacy.

Putin is an understandably popular leader. If PM, there’s reason to believe that it will be in a very influential role. A not necessarily bad option. The influence of a seemingly secondary position in government varies. It depends on who is at the top and just below. In the US, Dick Cheney is said to have greater influence than many other past American vice presidents.

A good deal has been written about factions within United Russia. Is this a sign of that party becoming more pluralistic in a way that can be termed more democratic? On how one party can be multi-dimensional, there’s a long standing view in some quarters that the American political system is essentially a one party system divided between Republicans and Democrats, who aren’t so fundamentally different from each other (pardon the not so smooth translation: http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=248&search=Mike%20Averko ). The counter-reply is that the American system in place is agreeable enough for most Americans. Let’s keep in mind what most Russians seems to want in relation to themselves.

A matter relating to this recent exchange involving someone on my list (pardon the repeat of some earlier expressed thoughts at this thread):

Mike,

I’ve wondered how I’ve landed on your distribution, but have read/observed many of your articles – to your credit, well received.

However, after spending time in Moscow, as is the case in NYC, USA, I’ve questioned to myself — is there a difference? People, friends, cultures, minding their own business.

As I look beyond the localities of urbanism, it makes me ponder Foreign Policy on the whole. From a Gov/SVR perspective, Russia is soo concerned about an anti-American relay to the people – Why?

Instead, the respected Russian Federation ought to be focused on it’s own people. After all Putin can take his shirt off and interact with the Mountain people, why not enact policy that will help those same targeted demographics – no different than the U.S. (reminds me of Atuturk and the Mountain Turks; the Kurds).

Agh, by the way, will a traditional Russian Fed Delegation accept a Black Man into the Kremlin for Brunch to discuss politics/issues at hand? or would a Woman be better?

Issues at hand as we begin our candid and intelligent dialogue with hopeful feedback and personal intrigue. Status of Georgia – while it won for Obama, does it hold for NATO? Would Russian Fed support a new NATO member? Perhaps an item for your next article.

Until that the next edit, do hope all is well with continued enjoyment of the corresp. you send me. Professionally and a bit concerned for the 21st Century, hoping Beijing ‘08 won’t be our next Spu(oo)tnik moment!

XXXX

My reply:

I agree that humans the world over have great similarities, rather than trumped up differences. The latter still exists. So as to limit the misunderstanding, it’s important to best understand those differences. This can be difficult, since it involves a soft science, open to interpretation.

Post-Soviet Russia has repeatedly reached out to the West, only to be shortchanged. Shortly after the coup against Gorbachev, Yeltsin’s government openly inquired about Russia joining NATO. This was met with astonished bemusement. Shortly thereafter, anti-Russian propaganda was used as a basis to expand NATO without Russia. After 911, Russia reached out to the West, only to once again face unnecessarily Russia unfriendly stances. With all this in mind, it’s understandable why many in Russia oppose some of the core neocon and neolib policies.

Russia does concern itself with its own people. How well is open to legitimate debate. Russia is also a major country, which should be involved in some of the key global matters. I don’t think that Russia will have a great hang up dealing with a Black or female American president. Russia deals with Black and female heads of states. At issue are the policies and not the color or sex of the leaders.

The former Soviet republic of Georgia doesn’t need NATO membership as much as better socioeconomic and human rights conditions. I’ll keep in mind your suggestion.

Thanks for writing.

Physically fit leaders can prove to be just as competent or incompetent as the not so healthy ones.

For the purpose of promoting a nation’s health, the physically fit leader can make a difference. Not that this necessarily happens.

Glad to see that Medvedev is a physically active sort.

I understand that Ivanov was once that way. Along with Lavrov and countless others, he should stop smoking.

A NYT article from awhile ago noted how Zhirinovsky once served as a legal advocate for Soviet era Jewish dissidents. The article referenced some of the dissidents. He didn’t deny this, saying that it was his job.

Shortly after 911, Zhirinovsky took a more sympathetic line towards the West. That has since changed. A change due to how the West (US in particular) didn’t embrace Russian attempts to forge closer ties.

Zhirinovsky is like many an American politician who will always get a certain amount of attention, while never (at least not likely) making it to the very top.

In terms of seeking a more peaceable image, Medevedev appears to be the better choice over Ivanov. Whether rightly or wrongly, the former is seen by many as more gentle and potentially less prone to confrontation.

My impresssion from most Russians is that they find Zhirinovsky hilarious, have respect for his intellect but would never vote for him. Zyuganov gets the elderly vote. In fairness Medvedev does seem like a nice guy though I’d have preferred Sergei Ivanov – he’s really sharp and witty. I wonder how long Putin will remain Prime Minister….everything changes in patriarchal Russia when you arent the boss anymore.