Note February 2016: A flap at the time. See, for example: “Medvedev rejects Putin ‘crusade’ remark over Libya“. In retrospect Putin was right:

What troubles me is not the fact of military intervention itself — I am concerned by the ease with which decisions to use force are taken in international affairs. “This is becoming a persistent tendency in U.S. policy,” Putin said. During the Clinton era they bombed Belgrade, Bush sent forces into Afghanistan, then under an invented, false pretext they sent forces into Iraq, liquidated the entire Iraqi leadership — even children in Saddam Hussein’s family died. Now it is Libya’s turn, under the pretext of protecting the peaceful population.” Putin said. “But in bomb strikes it is precisely the civilian population that gets killed. Where is the logic and the conscience?”

I now believe that the Libya attack was an important reason why Putin felt that he had to become President again.

The first thing that we have to ask ourselves was whether Medvedev’s comment about the inadmissibility of using the word “crusade” was actually aimed at Putin. When Medvedev (in Moscow) made his formal statement, was he aware that Putin (in the Udmurt Republic) had given his “personal opinion” four hours earlier? We don’t know. What many commentators don’t seem to realise is that the word “Crusaders” is commonly used by jihadists to describe the West and Gaddafi is now using it too. So was it a coincidence or was it a direct rebuke?

In any case Putin (in Slovenia) has denied any split saying: “We have a president in Russia who directs foreign policy and there can not be a split”. And (in Serbia) he said it again.

What this episode shows is that Putin and Medvedev have a difference of opinion on the Libya affair. Putin, probably remembering all the times he has been burned by the West, is sceptical; Medvedev is more accepting.

The second thing that it shows is that the naïve assumption that Medvedev is Putin’s puppet is – well – naïve.

Nevertheless, this incident has set off the usual speculation that the two are in some sort of struggle for the next election. Putin could have easily changed the article in the Constitution and could have been re-elected President. Why would he go through the elaborate rigmarole of putting up a puppet so he could get back into the presidency when he could, so easily, never have left office? Anyone who so speculates should be obliged, by law, to explain, before he opines on why Putin wants to be President again, why he is not today.

I maintain that Putin and Medvedev are a team, they are united on the big plan of Russia’s development, and are not likely to be diverted from this purpose by anything as trivial (in the Russian context) as actions in Libya.

Eventually there will be a serious point of disagreement, but this is not it.)

 

The first thing that we have to ask ourselves was whether Medvedev’s comment about the inadmissibility of using the word “crusade” was actually aimed at Putin. When Medvedev (in Moscow) made his formal statement, was he aware that Putin (in the Udmurt Republic) had given his “personal opinion” four hours earlier? We don’t know. What many commentators don’t seem to realise is that the word “Crusaders” is commonly used by jihadists to describe the West and Gaddafi is now using it too. So was it a coincidence or was it a direct rebuke?

In any case Putin (in Slovenia) has denied any split saying: “We have a president in Russia who directs foreign policy and there can not be a split”. And (in Serbia) he said it again.

What this episode shows is that Putin and Medvedev have a difference of opinion on the Libya affair. Putin, probably remembering all the times he has been burned by the West, is sceptical; Medvedev is more accepting.

The second thing that it shows is that the naïve assumption that Medvedev is Putin’s puppet is – well – naïve.

Nevertheless, this incident has set off the usual speculation that the two are in some sort of struggle for the next election. Putin could have easily changed the article in the Constitution and could have been re-elected President. Why would he go through the elaborate rigmarole of putting up a puppet so he could get back into the presidency when he could, so easily, never have left office? Anyone who so speculates should be obliged, by law, to explain, before he opines on why Putin wants to be President again, why he is not today.

I maintain that Putin and Medvedev are a team, they are united on the big plan of Russia’s development, and are not likely to be diverted from this purpose by anything as trivial (in the Russian context) as actions in Libya.

Eventually there will be a serious point of disagreement, but this is not it.