Install

Get the latest updates as we post them — right on your browser

Today's paper. Last Updated: 05/28/2012

Leonid Ilyich Putin

At the beginning of the second decade in control of the country, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is becoming more and more like former Soviet leaders — not so much like Stalin, but more like Leonid Brezhnev. At an average of four hours each, Putin’s speeches before the State Duma and national television audiences have become just as amorphous and lacking substance. And like Brezhnev’s speeches, Putin’s address to the Duma on Wednesday was interrupted by applause 53 times. Like during Brezhnev’s time, Putin spoke before politicians who were members of his own party.

In the second half of the 1970s, when economic reforms had completely failed, economic growth had slowed and the country’s science and technology had fallen increasingly behind that of developed countries, the Soviet leadership didn’t speak about the country’s growing problems, falsified statistics and, as a divergence tactic, consistently promised progress and prosperity in the next 10 or 20 years.

Russians were fed rosy promises of an imminent solution to the food deficits, guaranteed housing for everyone and sustained economic growth, even while it was clear to everyone that their standards of living were only deteriorating with each passing year. The budget deficit deepened, lines for goods and services became longer, prices for basic items rose each year, and the wait to obtain an apartment or car stretched for years.

We are seeing the same Brezhnev-like stagnation today, including the official silence regarding the country’s deep economic and political problems, the manipulation of statistics and rampant alcoholism and drug abuse.

In his four-hour address to the Duma last week, Putin did not mention any of his failures during his first 10 years in office — a period in which he did not fulfill a single major promise.

Remember the famous promise of reaching Portugal’s per capita GDP by 2015? Only four years away, there is clearly no way that Russia will close the gap.

What’s more, during his Duma speech he promised to miraculously double Russia’s per capita GDP to $35,000 by 2020 from its current $15,837 (based on the International Monetary Fund’s purchasing power parity ranking). He also said Russia is bound to become one of the world’s top five economies by 2020. We already heard this promise in 2007; instead, Russia has dropped down to the No. 10 spot.

Putin did not mention that he failed to diversify the Russian economy or to reduce its dependence on exports and imports. Neither did he take any responsibility for corruption having increased tenfold during his rule. And Putin conveniently avoided answering the question of why the Russian economy is in a deep crisis, while the economies of its main BRIC rivals — India, China and Brazil — have shown steady growth.

Instead, Putin generously showered the Duma deputies and national television audience with new Brezhnev-like promises, many of which we have already heard over the past 10 years. He promises to increase life expectancy, modernize infrastructure, make the ruble a world reserve currency, turn Moscow into an international financial center and, to top them all, once again “solve the housing problem.”

Putin also relied on his tried-and-true boogeyman — the opposition — by referring to it as “elements that seek to destabilize the country” and even comparing it to “harmful bacteria in a healthy human body.” In Putin’s view, the main danger to the state is from liberals and “social demagogues,” an allusion to the Communists. He also said Russia needs to show the world that it is powerful. Otherwise, the country could fall under “foreign command.”

Putin characterizes political competition and struggle as a “quasi-political flu” that is dangerous to the state. That is a classic totalitarian and authoritarian understanding of the relationship between the state and the people.

In an unsettling coincidence, Putin addressed the Duma on the 122nd anniversary of Hitler’s birth. But this may be more than a coincidence since Putin repeated almost verbatim several of Hitler’s maxims about the state.

As the fuhrer wrote in “Mein Kampf:” “The state is a national organism and not an economic organization. The meaning and purpose of the existence of the state is to ensure that the people have enough to eat and occupy a fitting place in government.”

Hitler also insisted that the ruler should remain in power as long as possible in order to guarantee national stability and to bring ambitious, long-term programs to fruition. Sound familiar?

Vladimir Ryzhkov, a State Duma deputy from 1993 to 2007, hosts a political talk show on Ekho Moskvy radio.





This article has 1 comment on TheMoscowTimes.com and 0 comments on Facebook.

Leave a comment


Discussion
The Moscow Times welcomes your comments and invites you to discuss topics with other readers. Your comment will be posted automatically to enable a live discussion. If you aren't familiar with our comments policy, you can read it here.

If you're a registered user, you can start typing your comment below. If not, take a moment to sign up. and then return to the article.

If your comment doesn't appear, contact us by using our web form.

Comments



Leonid Ilyich Putin

In my mind the article is not really correct: maybe it's possible to compare Putin with Brezhnev as political leaders, though I find that a far from obvious comparison. But it's certainly incorrect, nor very useful, to compare Brezhnev's USSR with Putin's Russia. There are lots of reason why of course. For instance, the article states that Putin makes "promises" like Brezhnev. Actually, he does have more reason than Brezhnev to promise a better future, since Russia is now a democracy, at least nominally. In such a context he does not promise all that much in fact and we must always take electoral posturing cum granum salis. He said what Russia needs and his main message is that Russia needs stability and a continuation of growth, without further crises rocking the country, which in my opinion, is a perfectly sound and correct observation. Indeed, how is it possible to compare with Brezhnev when the economy has tripled in size in the last 10 years and a real middle class has started to emerge? Yet, the article says that "We are seeing the same Brezhnev-like stagnation today". Further, can we really say that there is an "official silence regarding the country's deep economic and political problems"? Not if you listen to many of the leaders, including Putin and Medvedev themselves. And to say that corruption has increase "tenfold" is a distorsion and an exageration because I suppose that that depends entirely on how, and what, one counts. Finally, the reference to Hitler is particularly disingenious since many of the policies of national-socialism have been reproduced for decades in the most big countries of the West (e.g. debt-politics, corporatism). In fact, Russia is in many ways far less of a fascist state in this sense than many Western nations. One must always remember that democracy is constantly under threat; it is never secure, and it always needs a vigilant population. That was observed by Tocqueville almost 200 years ago and he didn't have Russia in mind of course. There's no denying the enormous problems and challenges of Russia, and probably even Putin's own responsibility for them, but the comparison that the author makes is just simply wrong in my mind. It's strange, normally I like Ryzhkov's articles a lot.

Report Inappropriate Comment




Comments via Facebook



Also in Opinion

There's Just One Nationality — Mathematician

Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind."

Russia's New Propaganda Minister

After Monday's announcement that historian Vladimir Medinsky was appointed the culture minister, critics quickly labeled him the new propaganda minister. Medinsky's academic ethics and historical distortions may raise serious questions, but for the Kremlin, he has three important attributes that are much more important: He is a model United Russia leader, a firm Putin loyalist and a skilled sophist.

Spinning Medvedev's Government

Were this 2008 and not 2012 — and had Dmitry Medvedev been named prime minister without having first served a full term as president — then the composition of his new government might have created a generally positive impression.

New Government Faces Old Problems

A longstanding platitude shared by both the Kremlin as well as domestic and foreign analysts is the need for Russia to diversify its economy away from energy dependence and reduce its non-oil budget deficit.

Putin's Postman Delivers Nothing at the G8

In the mid-1990s, former President Boris Yeltsin fought hard for the right to sit as equal at the same table with the leaders of the world's seven leading democracies. Using a lot of political wrangling, Moscow finally secured permanent membership in this elite club where the real heavyweights are supposed to solve the world's most pressing problems.

Russia Stays Home

Just three days before his return to the Kremlin as president, Vladimir Putin met behind closed doors at his residence in Novo-Ogaryovo, outside Moscow, with U.S. National Security Adviser Tom Donilon, who was there to transmit President Barack Obama's renewed determination to strengthen cooperation with Russia.



print


Comments

This article has 1 comment on TheMoscowTimes.com and 0 comments on Facebook.

Leave a comment


To Our Readers

The Moscow Times welcomes letters to the editor. Letters for publication should be signed and bear the signatory's address and telephone number.

Letters to the editor should be sent by fax to (7-495) 232-6529, by e-mail to oped@imedia.ru, or by post. The Moscow Times reserves the right to edit letters.



Most Read
MarketGid