Putin's Russia

37 important questions on Putin's Russia

Cliche why not to appoint siloviki (renz argues against this)

- Military mind set: history in 'undemocratic' forces will predict authoritarian leadership
- No experience in politics
- Loyalty issues
- Can change it's course

Renz against cliche's

one's argument does not predict ones future
not many siloviki in the presidential apparatus and parliament (kemper's lecture)

March - hybrid regime is..

a hybrid regime occupies a gray zone between liberal democracy and dictatorship, een onvrije democratie. both democratic and authoritarian elements.
  • Higher grades + faster learning
  • Never study anything twice
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Discover Study Smart

Reasons for JR to be established

1. Legitimacy; opposition 'shows' that Putin's regime is democratic
2. Marginalizing the communists
3. Allowing elites to express critique without being traitors, channelds social protests (elite compromise)
4. as alternative party of power it challenges and provides a sparring partner with united russia (keeping elite on their toes)

Managed opposition/ parastatal opposition / pseudodemocracy

A system in which so called multi-party systems organize opposition in regimes that are thus substantively undemocratic. It had coercive methods to prevent opposition from becoming too blatant.
it also 'mimics' opposition and attempt to channel criticism in such a way it supports the regime.
partly or completely controlled by the state

What does JR tell us about russia's political sphere?

that public politics is heavily distorted and manipulated to provide an imitation of pluralism and democracy within an authoritarian regime (pseudo-democracy)

March, inleiding, 5 punten

1. Common view that Russia is extremely nationalistic and proto-fascist should be abandoned
2. Official nationality is rather moderate
3. Effect is less benign! > (Political)nationality mobilizes extreme nationalism (nashi, zhirinosvky) for regime goals and supresses it (chechnya) when it becomes destabilizing
4. This approach prevents nationalism from becoming an independent and unpredictable force
5. It's ambiguous and inconsistent use of nationalism makes it also an unpredictable international partner.

What is the national idea?

often said to be inconsisted and contested.
labelled as conservatism, managed democracy, sovereign democracy, rooting identity

main values: focus on patriotism, moral and spiritual values, statehood.

Difference today and tsarist ideology

Main difference lies in the lack of religion today, more civic and multi-confessional.
It is also: more modern, secular, moderate, less autocratic, civic and sovereign democracy has a central role

Critique on idea of russia being nationalistic, proto-fascists

- elite does not have a consistent ideology, nationalistic or otherwise
- nationalism of Russian elite is relatively civic and liberal
- Russian nationalist threat is used by both Western and Russian elite for self serving purposes as support for extremists national groups has been relatively weak in elections.

therefore we can call russian nationalism WEAK

Main independent actor reinforcing the civilistional nationalist consensus

church

Similarities between tsarist national idea and today

both functionality; venerates, justifies and is subordinate to state interests. co-opting nationalism in the service of the state and therefore imposing unity and stability over the empire by
- adopting state symbols (nationalistic) and traditions
- emphasis on cultural values of the dominant nation (russian language and orthodoxy)

the primary function is focused on achieving internal stability and order through incalculating loyalty to the authorities in the face of external threats

Main nationalists trends in Russia

1. ethnonationalism
2. eurasianism
- eurasia proper
- nostalgic to societ past

Mirror of society, navalny

defensive nationalism; fear to lose Russianness, xenophobic discourse

Contradictory position navalny on nationalism

1.Russia as ‘Russkiy’ nation-state: Russia must change itself to a nation-state
·Federal structure must be abolished
·Ambiguous (but more civic) Interpretation of Russkiy than ethno-nationalists
oArgues for integration of Belarus & Ukraine (ethnic)
oCondemns religious discrimination but asserts that the religion of Russia is Orthodox Christianity & has not questioned current patriarch’s penetration of school & military.

Contradictory position n on caucasus

1.Anti-North-Caucasus narrative
·North-Caucasus are central to Russia’s problems
o“Stop Feeding the Caucasus” 2011 media campaign
§North Caucus Federal District receives highest level of subsidy in Russia
oChechen regime operates outside Russian law as Putin’s ‘servant’
·Struggle to take a definitive stance:
oNavalny says Chechnya is not a de facto part of Russia, but does not support succession of Chechnya
oCalls for amnesty of Russian federal forces for war crimes in Chechen campaign, thus excuses illegal acts of Putin’s regime while the Nationalist position is to denounce these.

Navalny's position of federalism

wants to abolish it because:
- it is seen as a legacy of an imperial past
- it is designed to keep local oligarchs in power

Place of minorities in the SU

- diversity was territorialized (lived in compact ways in the regions
- was culturally integrrated (cultural expression well integrated in the national whole)
- it was politically controlled (subordination)

Labour migration does not fit in framework today because..

- not territorialized but spreads accross the entire country, also in those places where there were no migrants before
- it is not culturally accepted because it does not fit into the national imagery
- it puts the dysfunctions of society on display

Nationalism and liberalism cannot be reconciled because

liberalism is an ideology that focusses on individual rights
nationalism has a collective, national discours

non russians are collective to him
ethnic russians are both individuals and collective
however this contradiction did not prevent his political success
very strong anti-putin / anti-sytem

The differences between foreign policy adn PD

PD can be practices by non-governmental bodies
The relations between such bodies and the government are often unclear

Difference Soviet PD and PD today

- the ideological content is missing today. it is mainly driven by material interests. it thus borrowed soviet tactics but not soviet's ideology
- pd is not only practices by state representatives

Author's suggestion on PD in Russia:

manipulation is a short-term strategy. bring the two seperate PD's (soft and active measures) closer together and focus mainly on the first

A couple preceding factors before the 2008 wars

yukos affair
missiles in poland by US
kosovo
litvinenko poisoning

this all led to tensions in the euro-Atlantic relations

5 phases of the 2008-war

1. battle for thskinvali
2/ russian counterattack
3 russian invasion of georgian proper
4. cease fire agreement
5. withdrawal from russian forces (only in extended positions in Georgia in october)

Putin's agenda in 2008

- 'threatened' by NATO expansion
- restoration of its great power through strategic exploitation of its oil and gas wealth.
- preventing Georgia from becoming part of NATO
- protecting it's citizens, responsibility to protect


- this belongs more to the Crimean case > US was seen as a unipolarity in world affairs, the only country that could frame and act on 'international law', mainly through crimea Russia re-asserted itself in the post second world order. Untill 1990, the US was the one that made (and twisted and forced) the international rules. Now a multi-hub structure is emerging: US, Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Georgian motives to enter the war

- liberation of seperatists (terrorists here)
- protecting its citizens
- re-uniting georgia as a whole

Competing storylines, G

-“Liberation of Georgian territory”: An attempt to take South Ossetia domestically as the liberation of Georgian territory from separatists who were in the pay of Russia.
-“Georgia was not the aggressor”, “aggressive Russia using any pretext for a pre-conceived invasion”/ was provocating. Georgian invasion was a response
-Attempt to unite Georgia as a whole, words used as freedom and sovereignty
-Drawing on comparisons with US and broader Western world; “Russia is attacking democracy, basic Western values”

Competing storylines, R

-Georgia was the aggressor, draws on the fact that Russia did not start the war.  “The perpetrators will receive the punishment they deserve”.
-Right to defend it’s citizens, right to protect from ethnic cleansing (draws onKosov discourse, NATO intervention)
-        G attacked our peacekeepers

Why Crimea is not kosovo

- no systematic oppression
- no collective intervention
- no right to annex the region
- western countries should focus on Russia's 'undefined' milities


in 1999 the US was able to control the interpretation and enforcement

of international law to secure Kosovo’s independence without legal consequence,

Washington finds itself in 2014 unable to fully counteract Moscow’s

legal argument that its support for, and ultimate annexation of, Crimea is

equally grounded in international law.

Charap. why does Russia do nothing with Syria?

- general view : ties with assad on military, military-undustrial and intelligence sharing
- author: anxieties about the displacement of the goverments and replacement by Sunni Ismalists which might destabilize Russia's situation itself (chechnya, caucasus)

Why did moscow did not let UN intervene?

- because of international stability
- security council should not be in the business of removal of a sitting government
- it might itself be a target of such intervention
- does not belief it is driven by humanitarian reasons (Libyan example)
- sees geopolitics; US wants regime change
- Russia's position thus has more to do with anxieties about US power than Syria itself

What can the USA do now with syria?

Either act on it's own - remove the government
Or act through the Security Council and accept it wont intervene (Obama wants legitimation of its actions)

Russia re-asserted itself, empowerment

Reason for medvedev to work together with the church

- differentiating himself of putin
- he was orthodox

Emergence of prerogative power in chechnya

because of the economic crisis Russia had a harder time buying the loyalty of regional leaders, therefore they were allowed to operate outside constitutional law.

Pro and cons of chechenization

(611) Chechenisation: ambivalent process. On the one hand, it solved some problems: it made an end to decades of war, Islam extremists have decreased in Chechnya.

On the other hand it created new problems: Chechen extremists went into the mountains surrounding Chechnya, violations of human rights by Kadyrov, it weakened the “normative system” and strengthened the prerogative system.

Revenge of the caucasus (3pts)

- spreading insurgency, islamists also in other regions
- degradation of political relations at the federal level, strenghtening the prerogative state
- dependence of federal administration on local regimes

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

  • A unique study and practice tool
  • Never study anything twice again
  • Get the grades you hope for
  • 100% sure, 100% understanding
Remember faster, study better. Scientifically proven.
Trustpilot Logo