The Georgian conflict will probably strengthen Putin's hand and set back hopes of building a true democracy in Russia, writes Frederick Kunklein Moscow
THERE WAS little doubt about who was ruling Russia even before its armed incursion into Georgia this week. But the events of the past five days wiped away any pretence that President Dmitry Medvedev runs the country.
The violence between Russia and the former Soviet republic, nearly coinciding with Medvedev's 100th day in office, has demonstrated how much control remains in the hands of his predecessor, prime minister Vladimir Putin.
"I can tell you that recent developments between Russia and Georgia give us no proof that Dmitry Medvedev is an independent leader," said Evgenii Kiselev, editor in chief of TVI television in Kiev, Ukraine.
For Alexander Golts, deputy editor of the Moscow-based Daily Journal, one episode stands out in particular. When Putin returned from Vladikavkaz, a Russian city near the war zone, he was shown on television giving orders to the president.
"One scene was very clear, when Putin began to tell the president what to do. It was not a private conversation. Putin wanted to show that he was in charge," Golts said. "Everybody was shocked."
Golts said the conflict also pointed up the superfluousness of the Duma, the lower house of Russia's parliament. "No one thought about a session of Duma. No one even bothered," Golts said. "The Duma has simply disappeared from Russia's power structure."
Putin served as president from 2000 until earlier this year, systematically centralising power in his own hands. He chose the relatively unknown Medvedev as his successor. Elected by a landslide, Medvedev took office in May, with his patron switching to the constitutionally less powerful post of prime minister. Ever since, people here have been analysing the personal ties and division of power between the two.
At least until now, Medvedev had excited the hopes of western-leaning Russians, who suggest he sincerely believes that the nation will truly prosper only when it follows the rule of law and becomes more open and democratic.
Putin, meanwhile, has earned broad popularity among Russians who feel that his eight-year presidency restored the nation's international standing after the humiliations of the Soviet Union's collapse. He also muzzled the nation's broadcast media and marginalised the opposition.
Sergei Arutyunov, journalist and director of the Caucasus Institute of RAN, says that the Russian-Georgian conflict also exposed a complicated dynamic in the Putin-Medevedev tandem.
"From the very beginning, we've been seeing attempts to put a wedge between Medvedev and Putin, but it has not worked. They work together very successfully," Arutyunov says. In his view, each needs the other, since it is widely expected that Putin will run for president again in four years.
Evgenii Minchenko, director of the International Institute of Political Expertise, offered a similar view. If Medvedev can put some distance between himself and controversial decisions such as the use of force against Georgia, he can maintain his image, especially in the West, as a possible reformer.
Tatyana Parkhalina, director of the Centre for European Security, said she was struck by the fact that Medvedev made no significant statement about the conflict in the early phases and was still on a family holiday on the Volga river while Putin headed to the front.
State-controlled television, meanwhile, aired footage that cast Putin as the man in charge. Russians saw him striding through an outpost, talking with military commanders near the front, and making bedside visits to injured civilians from the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali. It was only on Tuesday that Medvedev was depicted in a role of authority, appearing with French president Nicolas Sarkozy to announce that a ceasefire had been reached.
Parkhalina said the Georgia conflict put an end to the perception that perhaps there was some genuine competition between Medvedev and Putin's clique of former KGB officers whose views were shaped in the cold war era. Putin's people "have won for the moment," she said. "This is very bad for the Russian Federation."
Dmitry Trenin, deputy director of studies at the Carnegie Moscow Centre, said stereotypes of the two leaders, particularly among US policymakers, may obscure the fact that Russia had little choice but to take action against Georgia after its president Mikheil Saakashvili ordered troops into South Ossetia. The Georgians' night-time shelling of Tskhinvali, he said, amounted to a war crime.
Because of the image of Putin as an authoritarian, he said, the immediate reaction in the West was to cheer David over Goliath. In the US, he said, it's very difficult to show any understanding of Moscow's move, he said, "because then you're accused of being pro-Russian, pro-Putin".
All the same, Trenin agreed that the conflict would probably strengthen Putin's hand and set back hopes of building democracy in Russia. "Most people are content to let the Kremlin rule. I would call it authoritarianism with the consent of the governed."
But Trenin also said that the aspirations and growing affluence of Russia's small but expanding middle-class promise to be the most effective check on further authoritarianism. "At some point, they will be choosing not only cars but the people who run the country," Trenin said. - ( LA Times-Washington Post service)