This article is seriously very bad. No references. Accusations and the like. Kleoptocracy? Buzzwords galore with little actual substance. Try harder and next time with more rigor.

I don't think any serious analyst thinks that there is a real split between Putin and Medvedev. Yes, they play good cop/bad cop on occasion, both for domestic political reasons and to fool gullible Westerners like this author. But do you really think Putin would have chosen Medvedev if there was any real question about his loyalty? Medvedev has frequently talked about how he and Putin share a governing vision, and on every occasion where foreign reporters try to talk up a breach he has thrown cold water on the idea. I don't know who this author is, or why he's writing, but it really doesn't appear that he knows the first thing about Putin.

I like how FP does not include who is the author of this "work".
Anyway magnificent work if it was written for Fox News.

The russian people are not used to democracy in the western sense of the word. Let's not forget that serfdom was abolished relatively late - in 1861.

Russians simply want a strong figure, a leader with which to identity themselves with.

In imperial Russia this was the ??????? ???, ??????? being a somewhat intimate referal to a fatherly figure. In Soviet Russia leaders got pompous titles and names like 'Father of Nations'.

Nowadays russians simply want to have a strong figure on which to rely and on which they can pass their dreams and ambitions.

I have some doubts about Bonicellis analysis of Russia, because if I remeber correct, in 2007 Bonicelli thaught that Putin will change constitution and became third time president in 2008.

New comments of Bonicelli are also not very serious: "Dimitry Medvedev is refusing to be the lackey he was intended to be." For an serious observer it is importent to see that a man with so many constitutional competences like Russian president can not be a simple lackey. I would say there is a form of division of power between Putin and Medvedev. But russophobic eyes of Mr. Bonicelli are too bloody to see such distinction. I do not like idea, that everyone who is not supporter of western point of view, is automatically a Putins lackey.

To the democracy: of oucrse, there is a lot of deficits in the Russian form of gouvernment, but the West is not the best example for democracy. Western countries are ruled by financial oligarchy, wich controles so-called system political parties. Every real opposition will be marked as extrem and undemocratic. If the Russian people have to decide between Russian democracy with autocratic deficits and Western democraticly masked oligarchy, it is a clear decision.
This decision is a result od thei experience: leading political power is United Russia, because represents last decade. Second place is reserved for communist party, wich represent 80s, period much better than 90s, but not so fun like Putins era. The herretage of the 90s will not be elected, because no one would like return of 90s.

To the idea of "united front": as said main contemporary political rivals are United Russia and communists, Nemtsov and tutti quanti are prowestern, but outsiders. United civil fornt is an idea of cooperation on the centro-right political spectrum. Putin tries to involve rational people from centro-right ideological spectrum to political institutions. The bigger front can allow more discussions between different groups on centro-right platform. There will be more place for people who are less United Russia fans, but have similar political orientation. On the contrary, the future of leading left political power is not clear. After colapse of Just Russia there is a place for spread left party based on less agressive communist politicians. But such party has to critisaze 90s even harder than United Russia - this way is only chance chance to beat Putin...

Hello everyone - I am relatively new on this site. I found this article when I was searching for more information on Putin. I have read some books about this man, and I read several books on Russian history. I am studying history - and I am specializing in diplomatic history, intelligence history and also Russian history. I hope to work at the Dutch embassy in Moscow some day.

The Russian anti-western and authoritarian style of politics is not exactly something new. It is not even something born out of the cold war era. 50 years of Cold war is not enough to change the nature of a country so that it will always be anti-western or clinged to authoritarianism. In fact, Russia is not even clinged to authoritarianism - but rather collectivism.

The earliest Russians, the Slavs, originate from the plains now located in Poland, Belarus and the Ukraine. The Slavs have always lived on the crossroads of many different cultures: the Baltics, the Vikings, the Turks, Germans - dozens of cultures existed in that part of Europe. The East Slavs migrated to the east.
Over the centuries, Slavic communities were constantly raided and attacked by nomadic hordes. Ghenghis Khan and the Mongol armies eventually conquered Siberia, Muscovy and the Caucasus. The historian Peter Brent suggests that this violent unification of Russia resulted in the creation of an artificial state which could and can only exist through repression of minorities.

The Russian society was a communalist one. To overcome daily hardship, Russian peasants cooperated together. Land was communal property, and everything was everyones business. Inside these communal societies, the commune as a whole was supreme: the communal will was more important than the individual will. The communities were founded on egalitarianism - long before Lenin was even born. In the communities, people worked together, and they distributed the resources/income together. Individual enterpreneurship within such a community, was regarded immoral and basically a form of selfishness and theft. The centerpiece of these communities was the Orthodox Church. All orthodox churches were autonomous - there was no central leadership. Instead of preaching hell and doom like the western Catholic Church did, the Orthodox Church preached that one has to endure his suffering to obtain union with god. This is partly why Russians do not complain about their bad situation that much. It is an old habit to endure hardship.

Constant invasions from other tribes against Russia, the doctrinal differences between the Russian Church and the western Catholic Church have strongly contributed to the ''defensive'' nature of Russia. Russians are suspicious towards the outside world that speaks ill of the motherland.

The Russian nature has not much changed, and Communism helped to preserve it to some degree. The communal spirit of egalitarianism, collectivism, camaraderie, Orthodoxy, hospitality and solidarity still exist today. Enterpreneurship in Russia is still viewn as a form of selfishness and considered materialistic. In private, people do complain about their government but such discussions always end with: ''who am I to say how the nation should be governed.''
Russians still view the west as immoral, materialistic, individualistic and impersonal. And a western leader who speaks ill of Russia, is considered a dangerous outsider who should not be trusted.

Putin is not any different. Right after leaving school, Putin volunteered for the KGB - not as a convinced communist, but as a loyal Russian who was willing to do everything to protect his Russia both internal threats and western threats. As a real Russian, Putin today still views private enterpreneurship as something corrupt and immoral. The collective, or the Russian state should be the one to receive the profits - not a bunch of greedy individuals.

Putin studied international law in Leningrad, at that university he met professor Sobchak. Because of Putin's focus on international affairs, the KGB placed him in Germany - the cold war front. After the collapse of the DDR, Putin returned to Leningrad and quit the KGB. Sobchak, who had become mayor of St. Petersburg, employed Putin as advisor on international affairs. Sobchak had another friend employed - who also studied at the Leningrad university: Dmitriy Medvedev. Putin, Medvedev and Sobchak were friends since 1982. Medvedev was Sobchak's candidate to represent St. Petersburg in the Soviet legislature. And there was another member of this club: Alexei Miller. Miller was born in Leningrad, studied in Leningrad and he was appointed by Sobchak's international affairs office - headed by Putin. Alexei Miller would later become Putins minister of finance and director of Gazprom. And Putin employed another friend during the early nineties in St. Petersburg: Viktor Zubkov, the current head of Gazprom.

And so created Sobchak and Putin a mayoral administration in St. Petersburg between 1991 and 1996 which primarily consisted of friends who had known each other for years. During these years, St. Petersburg grew out to become the most glamorous city in Russia. Putin's qualities did not go unnoticed. Especially because Sobchak was an ally of Boris Yeltsin who was in serious need of political support.

Yeltsin appointed Putin and gave him authority over the FSB, Putin had the task to end the investigations of fraud against Yeltsin and the Family of oligarchs (Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky, Berezovsky, Abramovich). The FSB collected false evidence against the journalists that haunted Jeltsin and the case was off. Putin saved Yeltsin - but he despised him. Putin believed Yeltsin had sold Russia and its dignity to the greedy capitalists. Putin, as a real KGB agent, vowed to protect his Russia against these individualistic and materialistic influences. Yeltsin was re-elected, but the oligarchs had no confidence in him anymore. They believed Putin - as ex-KGB agent and Moscow puppet - was the perfect puppet to be the Russian president. They were wrong. Putin, with his strong connections in the FSB, eliminated the oligarchs one by one, their properties were collected by Gazprom. At the head of Gazprom stood Medvedev, a good old friend, and there were more friends like Miller and Zubkov. Putin ensured the state controlled 50.0005% of Gazprom, and Gazprom practically controls the majority of the Russian media. Now Putin's mission could really begin. As Putin put it in his own words: ''there is no such thing as an ex-KGB man.'' Today, all prominent corporations in Russia are controlled by ex-KGB officers, many United Russia parliament deputies are ex-KGB and they all share Putin's KGB vision: protect the motherland with all means necessary. The enemy is the same as always in Russian history: the west and internal minorities. Both threaten to break up the Russian unity in KGB eyes.

Upon his inauguration, Putin said jokingly to some of his KGB friends: ''A group of FSB colleagues dispatched to work undercover in the government has successfully completed its first mission.''

Putin is, like Berlusconi in Italy, a role-model for every Russian. He owes his popularity to being everything that Russia stands for: a collectivist, Orthodox, strong and defensive to the west, gentle and hospitable to his own people.

There is no real conflict between Putin or Medvedev. They are more likely to be best friends. Putin, Medvedev and Zubkov form an unbreakable triple alliance that controls Gazprom, the media, the government and the FSB. It is even likely that they also control the Orthodox Church - as the most well known clerical leader in Russia is also former KGB. And ex-KGB does not exist.

Putin is known to make frequent calls to influential people with the simple question: ''Are you on my team?''
I bet that Patriarch of Moscow, Kirill, answered to Putin ''Of course. We've always been on the same team.''

They play good cop/bad cop on occasion, both for domestic political reasons and to fool gullible Westerners like this author. But do you really think Putin would have stavkove kancelarie chosen Medvedev if there was any real question about his loyalty? Medvedev has frequently talked about how he and Putin share a governing vision, and on every occasion where foreign reporters try to talk up a breach he has thrown cold water on the idea. I don't know who this author is, or why he's writing