Vitaliy Tretyakov, editor in chief of the Moskovskiye Novosti newspaper and the
Politicheskiy Klass magazine, specially for Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Deciphering the "hidden
meanings" allegedly contained in all the words publicly pronounced by Vladimir Putin has turned into the favorite game of Russian and to an even greater extent of foreign political scientists and political journalists. Moreover, as I have noted, the less an expert knows Putin personally, the worse he is acquainted with the realities of Russian life and politics, the more boldly and decisively he reveals these "secret meanings" and the more revolutionary his deciphering of them.

The apotheosis of this shamanic Putinology is, in my opinion, the wave of commentaries which swept the foreign media a month ago on the topic of what changes in Russian policies were being demonstrated by the Kremlin releasing photographs of "Putin's naked torso", taken, as we know, during the president's trip to Tyva. Serious publications seriously discussed this problem and, of course, drew serious conclusions: all this is no accident - by publishing these photos the Kremlin is declaring its growing geo-political appetites and ambitions and Putin himself is declaring that he will continue to play the main role in Russian politics.

The classical Russian example of such shamanism is, in my opinion, the recent article by a splendidly well educated and highly experienced liberal author, who cites Putin's phrase "since the death of Mahatma Gandhi there has been no one to talk to (about democracy - Vitaliy Tretyakov)" to corroborate his own idea of the president's contemptuous attitude towards the ideals of Western democracy and liberalism. Putin has publicly demonstrated his own mordacity, which is brutal to the point of cynicism, with regard to some of the West's political mythologizing so many times that only a very biased commentator could fail to evaluate this remark on a "successful-unsuccessful" scale and use it to dig up evidence of Putin's deep-seated internal authoritarianism and his disparagement of the most recent achievements of Western democracy.

I will not venture to assert that I am the best expert in the country on the personality characteristics of the Russian president, but nevertheless my personal experience of dealing with Vladimir Putin as well as many years of attentively observing his words and deeds and the constant analysis of them, reflected in my numerous articles devoted to Putin, give me the right to place most Russian and foreign Putinology in the category of political graphomania and psychological - as I have already described it above - shamanism. Vladimir Putin is a very consistent and very predictable politician - there have not been any flourishes in his actions, there are none and I do not think that any are foreseen. It is another matter that Putin, from the eminence of his position and the responsibility accompanying it, and proceeding from a much greater volume of information than is available to those commenting on his actions, sometimes takes specific decisions which seem illogical or unexpected to us. Moreover - and I have written about this several times - none of the outside observers can fully count the whole sum of limitations (in fact - limitations on the allegedly unlimited power of the president) which at each individual moment prevent him from doing what he would like to do, or which force him to do what he would possibly never have done under other circumstances.

And the second point in connection with this. Of course there is with Vladimir Putin, as with any person and as with any politician, particularly one occupying such an important post, a certain and in some areas an extremely significant gap between what he says and what he actually thinks and what he does. And this is normal. After all, a correspondence between all three positions is a clinical characteristic of idiocy.

But I will nonetheless venture to assert that there are many more suspicions concerning Putin's lack of sincerity than there are manifestations of this lack of sincerity. And for the most part, his words most frequently coincide with his deeds (admittedly, it is sometimes necessary to pay attention to his last and not previously pronounced words). According to my observations, Putin is insincere in three cases. Firstly, when he does not know how to explain some action of his briefly and convincingly and be understood.  Secondly, when he takes a decision under the pressure of circumstances he cannot overcome; in the first instance, circumstances that no-one at all and especially a president is in the habit of publicly acknowledging. Thirdly when a topic touched upon is for some reason unpleasant for him - even if he has something to say about this publicly. (The fourth case pre-supposes that a state secret needs to be kept and, accordingly, this relates to the president's professional obligations and not to his personal characteristics.)

Let us agree that these are quite natural reasons which do not have any (at least direct) relation to internal democratism or, on the contrary, authoritarianism. Moreover, it is clear that Putin, like any modern boss, combines both these qualities.

Incidentally, there are two indicators of insincerity on Putin's part, which emerged a long
time ago (for me, in any case). The first is extreme brevity in his answers to questions
(often with a poorly concealed irony which is directed at persons or things unknown). The second is aggression in the answer, moreover, the object of the aggression is sometimes not the topic touched upon, even if it is unpleasant, but the person who asked this question. Evidently aware of this fault he has, Putin, who has been feeling and behaving altogether very confidently during recent times, has virtually excluded such aggression now. But he often overindulged it during the first term of his presidency.

But the aggressiveness of Putin's answers still manifests itself in those cases when he is
constantly asked one and the same question. However, during recent times, he has made it a rule to speak ironically in such situations rather than to attack aggressively. This,
incidentally, is how the remark relating to Mahatma Gandhi, mentioned above, arose. Putin was simply sick of constantly answering the question of whether there is democracy in Russia and whether he did not intend to establish a dictatorship in our country.

At the recent meeting with foreign experts from the Valday club, a transcript of which can easily be found on the presidential web site, Vladimir Putin naturally showed the sincerity-insincerity ratios, which are customary for him, and the routines of answers to questions, which are normal for him. Moreover, I repeat, Putin has recently felt very confident in his officially political role and his historical role, which can be explained by his conviction that the policies he is conducting are correct (on the whole). I will note that at the same time he never speaks ironically about his primary role (for this is the highest state post) but very frequently about his secondary role, which in no way testifies to the narcissism which is sometimes attributed to Putin.

The president, as usual, laughed off one of the uncomfortable questions - in this case he
answered with an anecdote. However, as is often the case with him, he did not take into account that our anecdotes, which are the highest manifestation of freedom of thought concerning reality, are often either incomprehensible to a Western audience or are shocking by the standards of the current political correctness, the basic institution of censorship in the West. We encountered a similar situation last year when Putin joked about the envy which must be felt about the exploits of the Israeli president. None of the Western commentators even understood that this was just a paraphrase of the anecdote which is well-known to all of Russia about Stalin and Rokossovskiy, but these commentators were unable to get past the "lack of political correctness" in the remark. Personally, I do not find anything reprehensible about the fact that the Russian president thinks and speaks in line with the norms and the rhetoric of his native language and native mindset and is not guided by (to be precise, is not always guided by) borrowed and entirely dubious (for me) foreign rules.

It is strange, however, that all the specific features of Putin's way of speaking - which is,
incidentally, very correct although also with frequent colloquial touches (but no less
frequently - with literary expressions and examples taken from high literature) - are almost
each time deciphered in some kind of unfailingly sinister fashion. And definitely in a way which suits the "decipherers" themselves.

Thus, for example, Putin this time very frankly explained the reasons for sacking Mikhail
Fradkov's government. Firstly, many ministers had started to work badly. Secondly, a government needed to be formed, which would be competent for at least the entire period connected with the presidential elections and the transfer of power from one president to another. The reaction of many of those taking part in the meeting and many commentators was - this is not democratic. You get the impression that the slogan "let all of Russia collapse, if only the democratic procedure triumphs!" may be inscribed on the standard of a real president of a real country. But surely even students in political science faculties are allowed to compare the schemes from their books with the realities of the specific political situation.

Moreover, does the appointment of Viktor Zubkov as prime minister this September really mean that the government will not be obliged to surrender its powers after a new president emerges in the country? Has this constitutional norm really been abolished by Putin?

Next: if you analyse the course of the political  process in Russia, is it not worth taking our country's national interests as the starting point and, in the first instance, assessing from
this position whether it would be worth keeping Mikhail Fradkov's government until May next year?

Finally, If anyone undertakes an analysis of the Russian president's political actions, it is
relevant to recall that no less than about two years ago Putin directly stated that the period from March to May 2008 would be the most problematical for the country, that is the period when the new president would already have been elected but would not yet have officially taken up his post. And thus, at least two years ago, Putin publicly warned everyone that the consolidation of power was considered by him to be a very important task in precisely this period and he did not intend to divest himself of the responsibility for accomplishing it. Perhaps Putin incorrectly assessed the significance of this period? In my opinion, he correctly assessed it since Russia will be in such a situation for the first time in its history. A comparison with spring 2000 is not correct since Putin was elected president then, he was already president (although just the acting president) in line with
the well-known Yeltsin decree and, in actual fact, no handover of power from one person to another took place during this period.

In brief, before pronouncing the verdict "It is not democratic!" much should be recalled and much should be analysed. Including evaluating the fact that in this case, Vladimir Putin has also quite openly declared his political aim of forming a government headed by the new prime minister and he has not concealed it. And the result is that the "Successor" operation, which is certainly unfolding, is subordinate not to Putin's selfish interests (which cannot, admittedly, be said about some of the other political players in his team) but to the interests of the country.

In the interpretation of these interests, opinions can, of course, differ. There was another point in Putin's responses to foreign members of the Valday club, which attracted commentators' attention - it was a passage on sovereign democracy assessed by many
as the current president's virtual renunciation of this concept (and, simultaneously, as the end of the political career of the main ideologist behind this concept).

Vladimir Putin really did speak in a somewhat detached and indifferent manner about sovereign democracy, as has also happened before. And, incidentally, I do not recall him manifesting a warmer attitude towards this concept at any previous time, either publicly or during meetings with him that I took part in. And what might this mean? In my view, nothing as sensational as it seemed to some people - that the president was categorically against this concept and any mention of it would soon be banished from the Russian authorities' political language. I will cite just two pieces of evidence although there may be more as well.

Let us recall which two questions have been put to Putin most frequently over the past two years. The first (people started to ask it immediately after Putin was elected for a second presidential term) - will the current Kremlin head remain as president in 2008 as well? The second question, which actually emerged two years ago: what is Putin's attitude towards the concept of sovereign democracy?

I believe profoundly in the pluralism and the freedom of the Western press but I ometimes get the impression that our foreign colleagues going to the latest meeting with the Russian president or to his press conference have received an assignment from some place: you absolutely must ask about the third term and about sovereign democracy, and then about what you want.

It is not important whether or not I am correct in my unsubstantiated suspicions. One thing is clear - questions about the third term (which Putin has already forsworn many times) were asked not out of journalistic curiosity but to ensure that the current president of Russia could on no account take advantage of this opportunity. For some reason it was very important to our Western colleagues that the successful Russian president should not stay to head Russia for another four years. It is possible to talk over and over again, at length, about what it is about him that frightens them so much (as we saw recently, with
the naked torso even) but they have persistently returned to the third term, time and again, depriving themselves of the opportunity to ask an original question - in order to catch him out in deception if he suddenly decided to do this.

Since the question of the third term really is serious (constitutional), Putin has always
answered this question seriously as well, although it was clear that he had simply got sick
of hearing one and the same thing and repeating one and the same thing in response. I have already noted above that the current  president reacts with irritation, sometimes a
poorly concealed irritation, to questions which are asked with a persistence worthy of better application. It is obvious that the question of "sovereign democracy" - which, in the opinion of the Western journalists who constantly ask it, it seems to me, the Russian president should forswear as categorically as he does the third term - ranks among those he is sick of.

But how ever sick Putin may be of it, how ever his Western collocutors (exactly like Galileo's inquisitors) might try to extract this disavowal literally with pincers, the president just backs off, distancing himself from this concept but not disowning it. And at the recent meeting with Valday club members he did not forswear it. But since they had annoyed and exasperated him and had even demanded that he comment on the words of
his subordinate who was directly connected with this concept, Putin answered with an ambiguous phrase which each person could interpret as he wanted: he described the hierarchical relationship between himself and Surkov. I do not know what latest "secret" meaning was elicited from this answer by those who were at the meeting in Bocharovoye Ruchye, but this definitely has nothing to do with sovereign democracy.

And here I will move from psychological-linguistic evidence to the second but most important point. It is possible to imagine (although it is improbable) that Vladimir Putin might ban his subordinates and even the whole of United Russia, which has already armed itself with the sovereign democracy concept, from using these two words in tandem. But it is impossible to imagine that Vladimir Putin or his successor (even if this is "not his" successor) might fail to conduct policies which ensure the maximum of independence for Russia in resolving its internal affairs and international problems
and the maximum of sovereignty for Russia as one of the main players in the arena of world politics, policies of Russia renouncing obligations to other countries which contradict its strategic and operational interests as well as to construct democratic institutions which fit in with the features and traditions of the country, the mentality of its citizens and their ideas about acceptable and just state, political and social structures, moreover constructing them within a timeframe which, on the one hand, permits the desired aim to be achieved and, on the other hand, is not fraught with risks of
revolutionary-counter-revolutionary collapse, civil unrest or other forms of violent
confrontation between the "new reds" and the "new whites" in our country.

A single state ideology is banned in Russia constitutionally. This regulation is certainly a
reaction to the consolidation of Communism (Marxist-Leninism) as such an ideology in the USSR. And Vladimir Putin while president cannot allow himself to be caught out in a manoeuvre as cheap as the one in which they are trying to catch him out: tell us, they say, that you are in favor of sovereign democracy, and we will tell the whole world that the Russian president is foisting a single state dogma on the citizens of his country.

However, it is time for everyone to understand that Russia as a country and as a nation will never renounce its sovereignty or its democracy or its sovereign democracy - this is not about a single person, even the president.

And as for tiresome questions, I will cite this example. I have also got sick of answering the question of whether there is a free press in Russia or not. So I answer differently each time, depending on who is asking this question: I explain in detail and giving all the nuances to my students but in an extremely terse fashion to my foreign colleagues (if they are not my friends with whom everything can be discussed seriously). Most frequently of all like this: think what you want. And sometimes I joke: no, I say, there is no freedom - write that, I just write and say what I want but the rest cannot. I should note that this version of the answer is very attractive to my Western colleagues. They always
carefully note it. Admittedly, I do not check what is quoted from this answer.

But I answer very patiently and in detail about sovereign democracy although I am also pretty sick of this question. I answer like this for two reasons. Firstly, out of educational
considerations - so that those I am speaking to know what policies will be conducted by all the following presidents of Russia. Secondly, because this concept enables it to be explained, even to the must dull-witted, why we are acting in this way and not differently. I am sorry, I say, it is you who have a vassalage protectorate out there, while we have sovereignty and it is also democratic. We decide ourselves what our interests are and how we will defend them. We have stood our ground on this and we will continue to stand our ground on it. And forget about the 1990s - that was a long time ago and not true.

And Vladimir Putin.