Just around the corner from the Kremlin, Stanislav Markelov, a lawyer who defended a range of anti-Kremlin characters, along with a young journalist Anastasis Baburova, were shot at blank range in the middle of the day. The Economist has commented that "even by Russian standards, this was brazen." But was it? In a country which, in a rather clear reversal of the "Kremlin spring", is still governed Stalin-style, why do commentators seem to be surprised? As the KGB would have defended one of its members (though at the time there was nothing to defend them from, since it was running the country), the Kremlin is defending one of its own (colonel Budanov who raped and killed a young Chechen woman the night of Putin's coming to power whose family Markelov dared to defend). Observers note that he could have been killed for this act of challenge to the regime, or for any of his other activities. Whatever the real reasons for this bullet being fired, the episode is rather telling of the little change that has happened since Gorbachev left loose the reigns holding together the almighty Soviet Union.
Murders of journalists of media outlets which claim to have some independence from Kremlin have become commonplace, giving one the impression that pretty soon everything will be back to square one. The Russian people will receive a choice of two propaganda newspapers and slightly more propaganda channels, and that will be it. The murder rate of journalists and lawyers might then actually decline to the lows of good old Soviet days. The regime will just send them all packing to Siberia and call it a day, after all, the precedent already exists for a few daring oligarchs and other "activists". Repressing public opinion this way may actually be better for the Russian international image which has suffered significant, if not irreparable damage during the past year.
On this point, Mr. Putin and Mr. Medvedev have only to consult many of their colleagues in the Middle East, where virtually all local regimes systematically supres any attempt at independent press. At least the latter do it more transparently. The Moroccan constitution, for instance, prohibits any criticism of the King, him being the direct off spring of Allah and all. Perhaps Mr. Putin should inspire himself of such bold but at least transparent moves and pronounce his position clearly on the issue - no criticism of the his majesty or any of his encourage. At least then everyone will know they are risking a bullet in the back of the head should the rule not be complied with.
What does all of this leave us, the observers of the "resurgent Russia"? Well, it leaves us observing the return (or perhaps the lack of a departure?) of the good old Soviet mentality - the supremacy of the state in every sphere of life, including of course media. The danger of it all, is that the propaganda of the state controlled media, whether that produced by the Kremlin directly or by the favourable oligarchs, reaches hundreds of thousands of ears and eyes all across the former Soviet Union, with the possible exception of the Central Asia states which were never really fully integrated in the Russophone space. And these eyes and years, a number of which were educated in the Soviet Union, in classrooms featuring a photo of Lenin benevolently staring down at the ordinary folk, might just not know any better than reject it.
All of this gloom and doom coming out of any European or American analysis of belligerent Russia does make one want to start undusting the Cold War dictionary. Not so fast. While Mr. Putin can make the dumfound Duma pass all kinds of legislation prolonging presidential terms or elevating him to the status of god, he should not forget Russia is not Middle East, and he is not the King of Saudi Arabia. And being a intellectual off spring of Stalin just won't do it. Unlike in the Middle East where the spheres of market economy and democracy and clearly separated, this is not the case in Russia.
The King of Saudi Arabia may well tell his subjects "no thanks" to political pluralism, this causes no concern to foreign or local investors, businessman and other economic actors (with the notable exception of course, but that for another entry). Mr. Putin's more veiled attempt to say "no thanks" to political pluralism has however been mistakenly accompanied by a very obvious proof of the doctrine that the state is back in the economic sphere as well. By nominating his friend as the head of the stock exchange, while the latter has lost 77 percent year-to-date, by nationalising assets and supporting/closely controlling state-owned enterprises, taking an obvious strike at British interests in Russia, he has done a serious disservice to Russia and to his own reputation. Ruble is collapsing (see sratfor.com "Russia implodes"), banks are taking a hit despite being protected by the relative underdevelopment of the Russia's financial system, and unemployment is naturally on the rise despite the conclusion of today's "Pravda" to the contrary.
While the state propaganda may claim that the unemployment in January has somehow gone down (note: contrary to every other country in the world!), the reality is hitting Russia with investors moving out assets out of the ruble and out of Russia generally. The lesson to the Kremlin seems to be that while it can still fire bullets in the heads of local journalists without so may as making any statement about it, and poison political opponents abroad, Stalin-style tactics are perhaps not to be transposed on the economic sphere, for the 750 billion US dollars of reserves may just not be enough to prevent another 1998 from happening if investors feel as unsafe as journalists on the streets of Moscow.
