[ad_1]
On May 7, 2000, Putin was inaugurated as President of Russia. This was the first of four openings, and this number may continue to grow. Four months before that date, President Boris Yeltsin suddenly resigned and named the then Prime Minister and former Chief of Security Services as Acting President. In the elections held in late March, Yeltsin’s blessed heir won just over half the vote. A small advantage prevented the second round and fundamentally changed the direction of Russia.
In the two decades since he reached the heights of the Kremlin, Putin has consolidated his power and strengthened Russia’s role in the international arena. Most of these changes, which were certainly not costly, would have been incomprehensible and impossible at the beginning of the century. After all, Putin’s election marked the country’s first democratic change of government. Now that Moscow is slowly laying the groundwork for the Putin government until 2036, one of the most powerful leaders in the world could become one of the oldest.
So how has Putin changed Russia and its place in the world in the last 20 years, and what can be expected in the future? Foreign Policy spoke to leading academics, journalists, and experts to find out. Each of them presented their points of view.
Putin has little to rejoice in Russia
Susan Glasser, former editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy and former head of the Washington Post’s Department of Mass, is co-author of the book Kremlin Rising: Vladimir Putin Russia and the End of Revolution with Peter Baker.
If you had asked me, or basically someone, 20 years ago, if Putin had become Russia’s oldest leader since the days of Joseph Stalin, you would have received skeptical silence or laughter instead of an answer.
When Putin entered Russia’s presidency before he was fifty, his top job qualifications, at least based on what many Russians I spoke to during his first year as president of the Washington Post in Moscow, were: young thoughts , expressive and literally sober. In other words, he was not like Boris Yeltsin, his sick and old predecessor, who had spent his last year in the vodka-soaked Kremlin before gangster capitalism penetrated power and his rule. Putin spoke about tax reform, his fascination with Europe, and the fact that one day post-Soviet Russia’s growing economy will overtake Portugal. For both his fans in Russia and many who misunderstood him in the West, Putin seemed to represent a different Russian path: By following this path, the country would become “normal”, more modern, and perhaps more modest.
Of course, even then, it took a long time to turn a blind eye to this: the brutal war in Chechnya, in which Putin was a major political figure, the fact that he was chosen from Yeltsin’s dark and immediate environment in exchange for an amnesty , and especially Putin’s own experience during the Soviet period when working for the KGB, and his unwavering support for the idea of a police state.
Two decades later, Russia finds itself in a difficult situation again with a predatory but resource-rich state with an aging leader, suffering from authoritarian traditions that hinder political development and a corrupt and reform-free economy that is overly reliant on extraction of natural resources. Putin did not restore the Soviet Union, he did not create a new gulag in the country. However, the new reality he brought out turned out to be much more similar to the previous one than he himself wanted to admit. Putin must now factor in falling oil prices, a poor response to the coronavirus pandemic, and political overload when he had to plan and then postpone a constitutional referendum that could help him stay in power for another decade or more. The 20th anniversary of the Putin government took place in May 2020, but the celebration had to be postponed.
Russia has become very dependent on Putin
Olga Oliker directs the International Crisis Group program for Europe and Central Asia.
Sometimes it seems to me that the Russians see Vladimir Putin the same way the world sees the United States. This means that they are grateful for what he has done for them in the increasingly distant past, they feel ambiguous and, in some cases, very annoying when it comes to less ancient actions. Furthermore, they are significantly concerned about the future. On the other hand, they see no alternatives.
Putin led Russia through economic revival and stagnation. He led a significant return of his country to the world stage. However, although the methods and tools used have changed over many decades and centuries, Putin’s foreign policy objectives set by Russia are no different from those pursued by the former Russia, the Soviet Union, and imperial Russia. Similarly, the past two decades have not been exceptional in terms of economic ups and downs and liberalization and austerity in the country. I would say that the real change Putin has created is a system that seems to depend a lot on him personally: both to sustain himself and to make decisions and take action. And a system that meets that definition will survive as long as Putin remains in power.
Putin clearly demonstrates the importance of leaders
Michael McFaul is the director of the Freeman Spogli Institute, professor of political science and principal investigator at the Hoover Institution.
Representatives of the realism paradigm argue that the engine of international relations is the balance of power between and among states, and leaders are not important. Therefore, from the perspective of this paradigm, Russia emerged from the ruins of the Soviet Union as a weak state, forcing it to behave as the strongest power in the system, the United States, he noted. Today, Russia has recovered and has become an influential power, and such states are always pitted against other major world powers. Such a dynamic of confrontation would have taken place in any case, with or without Vladimir Putin at the head.
This theory generally explains the situation, but it is wrong. All explanations of state behavior must begin with an assessment of power, but the balance of power never explains the whole situation. Leaders and their ideas can also influence the behavior of states. Putin and Putinism influenced Russia and her place in the world.
Putin, elected by Yeltsin and later confirmed by the Russian people, who became the country’s president in 2000, was a casual and unexpected leader. It was not entirely clear what his approach to government and foreign policy was. However, from the beginning of his government, he clearly expressed his contempt for executive control. Today, Putin has replaced the fragile democracy of the 1990s with a consolidated autocracy. Over time, Putin clearly rejected liberalism and multilateralism, instead opting for and promoting conservative, orthodox, and nationalist ideas. The clash of putinism and liberalism takes place not only between states but also within them.
All of these things were not inevitable. After all, in the last 30 years Mikhail Gorbachev, Yeltsin and even a little Dmitry Medvedev have chosen more liberal ideas and have sought closer cooperation with the West. If Yeltsin had chosen Boris Nemtsov as his successor, Russia’s democracy could have survived, and the country’s cooperation with the West would probably have continued.
But it is precisely because the leaders are important that Russia and the West are not condemned to eternal confrontation, as this would determine the balance of power in the international system. Russia’s new leader could change the direction of the country. This has happened before, it can happen again.
© Itar-Tass / Scanpix
Russia’s young generation has been deprived of its sense of democracy.
Irina Borogan is a Russian journalist and co-author of The Compatriots: The Brutal and Chaotic History of Russia’s Exiles, Emigres, and Agents Abroad.
The most surprising change Putin has made in Russia is that the younger generation in Russia, who grew up under his rule, does not understand what free debate or democracy is.
A society in which one can win only if he does not interfere in politics and does not criticize the government forces people to give up all opportunities except personal life and work. Russian society is plagued by enormous anxiety, which intensifies with the coronavirus epidemic and the economic crisis.
Putin, acting brutally but consistently on the world stage, is proving that Russia can violate the rights of its own citizens and of other countries without serious consequences from the European Union or the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. . Despite the dissatisfaction of the United States and the European Union, Russia sent troops to Syria and revived its influence in the Middle East without allocating as many funds and resources as the Soviet Union. Bypassing the United States, Russia has also won military deals with NATO member Turkey, something that would have been unthinkable 20 years ago.
Greed overshadowed everything
Yevgeny Albac is a representative of Russian investigative journalism, political scientist, writer and radio presenter.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was a country with hopes and potential to become part of the civilized world. Now it has nothing like it. Putin has promised to “make Russia great again” in exchange for the loyalty of his subjects. He annexed foreign lands and started a hybrid war in a neighboring state. As a result, however, Russia did not grow large or gain respect as a regional power. It all ended with his fears of a close neighbor, and much of the rest of the world distrusted or disgusted him, because Russia’s policy is based on lies, murder, and unpredictability.
If it weren’t for Russia’s vast arsenal of nuclear weapons, the world would probably try to forget its existence in the near future. Russia, in principle, would be just another example of rampant corruption, an honorable elite, and its inability to see long-term benefits in the common good. Russia had a chance? If he did. So how often is the United States asked why Russia “perishes”? Not for Democrats, Republicans, or anything else in the United States. Only we, the educated class of Russians, are responsible for our inability to guide Russia on the path to democracy.
Deadlock and stagnation are all that Putin can offer
Vladimir Milov is a Russian opposition politician, publicist, economist, energy expert, and economic adviser to Russian opposition leader Alexei Navaln.
Putin has delayed Russia’s steps towards a developed market economy for decades. When Putin first came to power, he announced his desire to cooperate with the developed western world and warned the government not to hinder political, civil and economic rights development. If Russia had taken the path of reforms promised in the initial period of the Putin government, it would now be a completely different country: a responsible and respected player in the international arena.
Twenty years later, Russia has come to a standstill in internal affairs, politics and the economy. Since 2008 GDP is not growing: Putin’s economic model does not work. Even his most loyal supporters acknowledge that Russia needs political change, but Putin is stubbornly opposed and appears to want to rule the country for the rest of his life, prolonging stagnation indefinitely.
Contrary to Putin’s rhetoric about “restoring Russia’s greatness,” the country is increasingly isolated and facing unprecedented international sanctions that hinder Russia’s economic development.
The only way to help Russia become visible in international relations is through cruel treatment and ties to China and other dictatorial regimes, thus opposing the liberal international order. We cannot offer the world anything but threats, disinformation and demolition; unfortunately, that is the face of putinism.
In Putin’s person, everyone saw what they wanted to see.
Catherine Belton is a former correspondent for the Moscow Financial Times and author of Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took On the West, to be published in June.
When Putin took office as Russian president 20 years ago, many in the West had dismissed the idea that Russia’s security services could be the force to be respected. The West was still rejoicing at the apparent triumph after the Cold War. NATO and the European Union have increasingly expanded to the East. After almost a decade of unrest under the Yeltsin government, Russia seemed irreversibly weakened. So, in the person of Putin, everyone saw what they wanted to see.
For the Russian oligarchs and most Westerners, Putin was a president who could help secure the fragile benefits changes in the Russian market were supposed to bring. For the majority of the Russian population, he was a leader in helping bring order to a country shaken by chaos. Putin seemed like a simple man who could save Russia, a former average KGB official who had promised to restore the Russian state. But he was a chameleon, that’s where his power lies. Behind him lay a ruthless caste of security representatives. Instead of strengthening democratic institutions, these people took them and made them their own pillar. Then, by taking over the country’s economy and legal system, Putin’s people tried to rewrite the rules and harm the West.
The KGB used this tactic in the 1970s and 1980s, using illicit funds to bribe Western politicians and institutions. The only difference now is that the financing flows are much stronger, allowing Putin’s people to penetrate much more into Western markets. Russia has managed to reinforce the weaknesses and divisions of western societies. Compared to the situation 20 years ago, western liberal democracy is under siege. But Putin and his people are just distorted relics of the past, realizing that without a strong and competitive economy in their own country, such short-lived power games can only result in the same collapse.
A clear strategy of global power may have reached its limit
Angela Stent directs the Center for Eurasian, Russian and Eastern European Studies at Georgetown University. She is also the author of Putin’s World: Russia vs. the West and with the rest.
Under Putin, Russia became a centralized authoritarian state and returned as a player on the world stage, competing with the United States for influence, seeking ties to China and trying to build a post-western world order. In 2000, Russia was a pluralistic country but afflicted with economic problems, which largely abandoned global ambitions. Putin was determined to restore the role that he legitimately imagined belonged to Russia: the country had to become a great power.
He was able to achieve this because Putin, unlike the United States, had a strategy. Furthermore, he has what I call the “qualities of a judo fighter”: he is well placed to take advantage of the opportunities offered by a divided and distracted West.
Although Russia’s relations with the West after 2014 The occupation of Crimea and the war in southeastern Ukraine have deteriorated considerably, and the rest of the world sees Russia as an important authoritarian state with which to maintain commercial relations. However, during the coronavirus period, Russia’s ability to continue expanding its global reach may be limited. High oil prices between 2000 and 2008 and his jump to previous positions after the financial crisis allowed Putin to consolidate power and expand Russian influence. Falling oil prices and a sharp slowdown in economic growth could limit Russia’s ability to advance in terms of power.
Suspicious and aggressive Russia
Andrei Soldatov is a spokesperson for Russian investigative journalism and co-author of The Compatriots: The Brutal and Chaotic History of Russia’s Exiles, Emigres, and Agents Abroad.
Putin has made Russia a suspicious and aggressive state. In just a few years of the Putin government, Russia has become a stubborn country of mistrust. Russia has developed a deep-seated distrust of foreigners and foreigners in general. Within the country, a similar attitude prevailed for anyone who appears unfair or unfavorable to the state, including experts, journalists, non-governmental organizations and opposition parties.
The Kremlin has also begun to use aggression as a way to respond to any international or national crisis. When disgruntled middle class people took to the streets of Moscow, Putin’s people said that “protesters who had detained riot police should run their livers on the asphalt.” When the Ukrainians took to the streets of Kiev, the Kremlin attacked Crimea.
Looking at the world at large, Putin has seen an even more significant change. Before that, the country was part of a politically complex history of democratization in Eastern Europe. Gorbachev was seen in the context of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the Yeltsin wars in Chechnya were seen through the prism of the Yugoslav wars.
Putin has changed all that. He pushed the country further east, to the usual place occupied by Russia for centuries. We are no longer talking about Eastern Europe, only Russia remains, a powerful, aggressive and totalitarian Russia, as it always has been. Russia’s historical allusions have expanded: it has become customary to rely on the tsar’s behavior in interpreting Putin’s foreign policy decisions. In some reviews of our book on Russian political emigration, we are criticized for not mentioning Ivan the Terrible’s policy on deportees. That is why Putin’s contribution is so damaging: it undermines the hope that Russia may one day become a normal and rational state.
A trademark of a solid that others can copy
Andrea Kendall-Taylor is a senior researcher at the New American Security Center and director of the Transatlantic Security Program.
For the past 20 years, Putin’s actions have been largely fueled by his desire to maintain power. To achieve this goal, it weakened the country, eliminated competitors, and customized Russia’s political system. While the older Russian generation is grateful to Putin for helping Russia overcome the turmoil of the 1990s, in fact, it has made the country a kleptocratic regime unfavorable to ordinary Russians. Putin is becoming increasingly paranoid in the face of threats (internal and external, real and imaginary) to his government: he has stifled the freedoms of the Russian people, increasingly using an arsenal of digital tactics.
Despite Russia’s internal weakness, Putin has strengthened the country’s position in the world. His lack of power restrictions, investment in military modernization, and the ability to exploit the asymmetry of interests between Russia and the West have allowed Putin to seize opportunities, even those that violate international law. Today, Russia has an impact on most of the world’s problems. But Putin is also aware of the limits of Russia’s influence. Therefore, it seeks to undermine Western democracies to improve Russia’s relative position. His tactics and a peculiar brand of solid have created a model that is imitated by undemocratic leaders. As Putin distracts Russia from the West, the country’s place in the world is drawing closer to the regimes of Bashar al-Assad, Hassan Rouhani, Nicolas Maduro and Xi Jinping. State comrades say a lot about her.
Vladimir Putin
© Itar-Tass / Scanpix
Twenty years have been lost, but the democratic leadership can still be restored.
Vladimir Kara-Murza is a Russian opposition politician and president of the Nemtsov Foundation for Freedom.
In 20 years, Putin has managed to transform Russia from an imperfect democracy to a perfect authoritarian regime, and internationally, from a respected partner to a rebellion. Until 2000, Russia held competitive elections, a free press, a pluralistic parliament, and a growing civil society.
On the world stage, Russia was a member of the G8, a prestigious club of industrial democracies, and had recently ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, placing its citizens under the strongest umbrella of the surveillance mechanism. European. It should be mentioned that at that time there were many problems and many errors both in the economic and political spheres, but the chosen path was the correct one.
After two decades of Putun’s rule, Russia has become a country in which all major media outlets are controlled by a state in which elections are a meaningless ritual with predetermined results, in which parliament, According to its own president, “it is not a place for debate.” violence is repressed by the police, in which political opponents are jailed or end up even sadder. In the international arena, he has been expelled from the G8, faces crushing economic sanctions, and, for the first time in decades, has borders not recognized by the international community. It will take time and effort to repair this damage once Russia has a democratic government that respects the rights of its citizens and acts responsibly in the international arena. Sooner or later that day will come.
[ad_2]
