i know the russian mindset towards strong leaders is different. but this article is both the reason i read fp and a good example of flat out propaganda.

putin is a least evil in russia. i keep trying to explain this to people. if a better option appeared in russia, there's little doubt that the masses would swing to it. but, that's not the reality in the country.

the scariest thing about russia in a geopolitical context is it's political spectrum. with all the talk of extremists in ukraine, it's important to realize that russia is under perpetual threat of being taken over by lunatics. still, in 2014, the largest opposition party remains the communist party. leap frogging the third place social democrats (which are the only really moderate party in the country), the fourth place party is a collection of hard-right nationalists that call themselves various type of liberals. what that means is that russia is torn between extreme opposition movements on the far left and the far right, both of which are large enough to form a serious threat should the ruling coalition of liberals and conservatives fracture.

that makes putin a centrist in russia, and that is the basis of his continuing political support. in western terms, he's an old timey conservative in the mold of somebody like churchill, which means he supports a kind of state capitalism in conjunction with a welfare state and a type of social conservatism that is globally fairly normal, if somewhat fringe in europe and north america. that's not a formula for what most westerners would consider enlightened governance in 2014. and , yeah, corruption is endemic. but it's a far cry from the soviets and quasi-fascists that form the only other viable political parties in the country.

and he's not in a vacuum, either. he does have political concerns to be worried about.

something struck me when watching the news conference the other day. in speaking of the divide in wealth in ukraine, he skipped the communists. he talked about the leaders of modern ukraine, then jumped right to the czar. i haven't seen a western analysis of this yet, but it's telling. he needs to be careful not to provoke a conflict with the communist opposition, because he knows that's an argument that could cause some problems.

the ngos that the americans fund in russia aren't helping to remove putin, either, but solidifying his base of support. they're funding the same kind of hard-right opposition movements, which just plays into putin's narrative of not letting the country fall into the hands of extremists on the left or right. it's scary to think that something similar could happen in moscow, but if it could it would have the same effect of a broad rejection by the russian populace. it is obvious that, if elections are fair, the existing government in ukraine is going to be drastically redrawn in upcoming elections. at this point, removing putin by force would probably get the communists elected.

so, is there unease in russia about the kleptocracy? as far as i can see, there is, and it's substantial. but the article doesn't answer the question of who putin is afraid of replacing him - because there isn't anybody that currently could. so long as the americans back the far right, and the soviets remain a strong opposition, the masses of russian people have no option but to continue to vote for putin's centrist coalition.

so, rumours of his demise are greatly exaggerated.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/06/the_frontlines_on_russia_homefront_putin_ukraine

that being said, i agree his hands were tied. but it's about strategic positioning, not local politics.

i mean....

if the ghost of churchill were to run for prime minister tomorrow, he'd probably be written off as a fascist.

he might even join the bnp.