"Vladimir
Putin, in trying the Libyan narrative on for size, doesn't rule out that events
in Russia might evolve in a similar way. What if the global community wants to
fix something to about our democracy with the help of Tomahawk missiles? So
he began quoting Qaddafi word-for-word and talking about 'crusades.'… Does the
seat warmer [Medvedev] still lack leadership ambition, and does he want to
think about a second term? It turns out that he does very much want that."
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev: In a rare public disagreement with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Medvedev questioned Putin's characterization of the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya as resembling a 'crusade.'
Who do you like more - Putin or
Medvedev? To be honest, I've been in a state of confusion for almost a day. On the
one hand, Medvedev appeals more to my liberal proclivities than Putin. There's
no need to explain why. On the other hand, as the saying
goes, love can't be forced. Putin seems to me to be more whole, more consistent. Let's take the current controversy as an example …
Of course in this difficult
hour of trial, today's Russian leaders should support Muammar Qaddafi, who has
been set upon by international imperialism. It's no accident that, in the context of the events in Libya, Putin has
begun to talk about strengthening our defensive capabilities - what if the global community wants to fix something about
our own democracy with the help of Tomahawk missiles?
Such deep identification with
the Libyan leader, such sincere immersion into the character of this charismatic
son of the desert, is very symbolic. Vladimir Vladimirovich
[Putin], in trying the Libyan narrative on for size, doesn't rule out that events
in Russia might evolve in a similar way. He's playing out the
following scenario in his head: The opposition seizes Tambov or Ryazan, and is about to move
toward Moscow. With a heavy heart, a national leader makes the difficult
decision to bomb these two cities - strongholds of international terrorism,
which long ago turned into bases for al-Qaeda. Scarcely after our brave
pilots drop the first few hundred bombs on the rebellious oblast, the global
community raises a terrible cry, adopts a U.N. resolution, and any moment now
will dispatch aircraft carriers to the Volga-Baltic
Waterway. Who needs that? Clearly not Putin. So he began quoting Muammar
Qaddafi word-for-word and talking about "crusades."
However, it's strange to hear the expression "crusade" in such a negative
context from the
mouth of Vladmir Putin who, as we now know is a deeply religious Orthodox Christian [video below]. It isn't clear what he (unlike the faithful Muslim Qaddafi)
has against the Christian wars for the Holy Sepulcher. But we
shouldn't discuss the propriety of such statements from the lips of such a
faithful son of the Christian church. Let us not deny the holy fathers their bread
and butter ...
Now as for the conflict
between Putin and Medvedev, it seems to me that here it is necessary to take the history of the issue into account.
Dmitriy Medvedev became Russian president not through the free expression of
the will of the Russian people, but as the result of a conspiratorial "understanding."
Hence his peculiar legitimacy.
It's nonsensical to even fantasize about what was
discussed and agreed upon when Vladmir Vladimirovich first approached Dmitriy Anatolyevich [Medvedev] with his very
tempting offer. The important thing is what the elite, the
very top thousand Russian officials who essentially accepted the
conspiratorial "understanding" which forms the entire basis of Medvedev’s
legitimacy, thinks about it. Our elite, of course, fully accepted the rules of the game, and agreed that Dmitriy Anatolyevich would simply warm the presidential seat
for four years. Why? Because of this absurd nonsense in the Constitution. But
the years flew by … (Of course, kind people did warn Vladimir Vladimirovich!).
And part of this elite (obviously the liberal part) decided to put out feelers
about whether new opportunities had emerged in our political gaming experience.
In other words, did the seat warmer still lack leadership ambition, or did
he want to think about a second term?
All things considered, it
turns out that he does very much want a second term, and new perspectives related to the
possibility of Medvedev’s second term and Putin’s retirement into the shadows are flashing
before the deeply unsatisfied liberal community. And
reports from the Institute
of Contemporary Development (Medvedev's think-tank) have poured forth. That is
the nature of Medvedev’s path.The same path, mind you, that is the case
with Luzhkov [mayor of
Moscow "fired" by Medvedev] … By the way, in a fit of righteous anger, Medvedev was going to remove
not only the ambassador to Libya, but Foreign Minister Lavrov himself,
although he couldn't pull it off … for now.
Posted by WORLDMEETS.US
But, this goes against
the "understandings" of the Kremlin. You could say "they can't dump a national
leader like that," and be perfectly correct. An advocate of Medvedev’s second term would
reply "We
live in a democratic state, not a mafia state, so it’s time to forget about
understandings." Especially, we might add, because right now it's so
convenient to forget about them - although it's not a given that we will be able to. Putin and [Deputy Prime Minister] Sechin don't seem like the
kind of men who are at peace with being "dumped." If circumstances
so unfold, I think I'll be rooting for them - I'm a supporter of action-packed
scenarios and dramatic solutions, even with a moderate amount of bloodshed, as long as there are no bombings. And by the way, I feel bad for the
ambassador [Vladimir
Chamov] … He just happened to be there when the punishments were being
doled out, that faithful son of Soviet-Libyan friendship …
[Editor's Note: Russia's ambassador
to Libya, Vladimir Chamov, was fired by President Medvedev. In a diplomatic
cable, Chamov supposedly referred to Medvedev as a "traitor" for his
comments about Libya. Chamov is a very close confident of Prime Minister
Putin.]
