Edmonton Journal (Alberta)
March 19, 2005 Saturday

Has Putin lost his touch? It certainly seems so: Russian president’s
influence has plummeted

David Marples, Freelance

Today, Russian president Vladimir Putin visits Kyiv to meet with his
Ukrainian counterpart Viktor Yushchenko.

Arguably, Putin’s influence and popularity is at its lowest level in
years, partly because of a series of extraordinary failures in
foreign policy, particularly in the regions habitually termed by
Russia as the Near Abroad.

The Near Abroad comprises two states that have witnessed changes of
leadership following expressions of mass support in their capitals:
Georgia and Ukraine.

The success of Mikheil Saakashvili in Tblisi and Yushchenko in Kyiv
caused consternation in Moscow. In the latter case, Putin outspokenly
and foolishly expressed support for the designated successor of
Leonid Kuchma, the then prime minister Viktor Yanukovich.

In mid-March, elections took place to the parliament of Moldova, a
country over which Russia has yielded strong influence for the past
13 years, particularly by abetting the breakaway republic of
Transdniester.

Of the 101 parliamentary seats, the Communists took 56, running on a
campaign backed by President Vladimir Voronin to take Moldova out of
the Russian orbit and toward the West.

The pro-Putin Russian press has been openly critical of Voronin, and
his incongruous role as an avowed Communist alongside Saakashvili and
Yushchenko in the GUUAM organization (initially this consisted of
Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova), the ostensible
goal of which is to enhance the sovereignty of these nations, and
form a rival power base to the CIS.

On March 8, the Russian security agency (FSB) organized the
assassination of Chechen leader Aslan Maskhadov, though the actual
circumstances of the latter’s death have been difficult to
corroborate.

The Russian authorities celebrated the death as a victory, a sign
that a turning point had been reached in a war that — other than a
brief two-year pause in hostilities — has continued for over a
decade.

However, Maskhadov, who was the popular choice for president of
Chechnya several years ago, was surely a man with whom Putin could
have come to terms. The terrorist wing of the Chechen resistance is
under the control of Shamil Basayev, who remains at large.

The appointed successor of Maskhadov, the little-known Abdul-Khalim
Sadulaev, is highly unlikely to come to the conference table —
indeed the death of Maskhadov will more likely prompt acts of
revenge.

Putin’s intransigence is largely responsible for the protraction of a
war that can never be won and has reduced the Chechen capital Grozny
to ruined shells of buildings that resemble Berlin or Dresden in
1945, and in which homeless residents live in appalling conditions.

These diverse events all symbolize the failure of Putin either to
promote Russia’s image abroad or to maintain control of areas that
even after the dissolution of the USSR had remained under Russian
influence.

Arguably, Russia’s image internationally has also been undermined by
its actions.

U.S. President George W. Bush recently issued a public warning to his
erstwhile friend Putin not to backtrack on the introduction of
democracy and ‘freedom’ in Russia.

Bush’s views on Russia appear considerably more moderate than those
of some of his advisers. Russia, to some members of the Bush
administration, is a natural or historical enemy of the United
States. The recent behavior of Putin has merely confirmed these
suspicions.

Putin has also failed to satisfy both ends of the social spectrum in
Russia.

The elderly have been on the streets to protest the loss of
guaranteed pensions, while most of Russia’s richest oligarchs either
live abroad or have been subjected to administrative actions to
restrict their activities.

Significantly last week, several prominent Russian businessmen
arrived in Kyiv to meet with Yushchenko. The message could not have
been clearer: the business climate in Ukraine will soon be better for
them than in Russia.

Not all Putin’s friends have deserted him.

Within the European Union, for example, both France and Germany
perceive Russia as a useful counter to the influence of the United
States.

Armenia has remained overtly opposed to joining GUUAM. Belarus will
retain its close links with Russia because it now fears the sort of
public demonstrations that transformed the governments in Georgia and
Ukraine.

However, the Russian president badly needs a major foreign policy
success to offset the series of failures.

That Russia would have a role of regional rather than global power
was always a difficult pill to swallow, but currently it is losing
its regional authority as well.

Of late it has been reduced to symbolic gestures like the forthcoming
massive military parades to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of
the Second World War. But such commemorations of past glories only
accentuate present failures.

And while there is little doubt that Russia has provided an easy
target for its customary critics, even its friends have been shaken
by recent political developments: the virtual control by the
government of the parliament; the open discussion about changing the
Constitution to ensure that Putin remains in power; the harassment of
real and potential political rivals; the increasingly arbitrary
actions of the police; all in addition to the clumsy and
ill-conceived foreign policy maneuvers that have become so common of
late.

Has Putin lost his touch? It certainly seems so.

David Marples is a professor of history at the University of Alberta
and has written extensively on the former Soviet Union.