There are heated debates in the Russian Presidential Administration between supporters of different points of view, but there is no real war between them. This was stated by a Kremlin official Dmitry Peskov on the journalist’s YouTube channel Vladimir Solovyov…
“There are disputes, but this is in no way a war of the“ towers ” [Кремля]… This is all an exaggeration, “he explained, adding that disputes may be related to” how and what should be offered to the president. “
At the same time, the press secretary Vladimir Putin noted that Kremlin officials do not follow the interpretations of what is happening in the Kremlin on Telegram channels, which Peskov described as “paid, cheap flush cisterns.” According to him, such channels are really popular, but only in the territory of the former Soviet Union, and not in the English-speaking world.
That is, it turns out that, according to Western politicians and journalists, we are actively interfering in their internal political life, but they are not in ours? Or are our “Kremlin towers” so independent that they do not tolerate interference from anyone? But in whose interests are they acting and who do they represent?
By the way, it is worth noting that the topic of confrontation between two or more “Kremlin towers” appeared in the internal Russian political discourse long before the appearance of Telegram, why does Peskov focus on this today?
– “Kremlin Towers” is a conventional name, – I am convinced Associate Professor of the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation Gevorg Mirzayan… – It means a number of power groups that are fighting with each other for this power, as well as access to the president. And this is not only a Russian phenomenon – it exists in all countries. In some, their name is tied to the Kremlin towers, in others – to the place of origin of leaders and key players (Tashkent clan, Samarkand clan), thirdly – to the name of the Mamate clan (Seven al-Sudairi – once the most influential group of princes in the royal family of Saudi Arabia ), fourthly – to the colors of the chariots at the Constantinople hippodrome.
“SP”: – Peskov draws attention to some telegram channels. But the theme of the “war of the towers” appeared in political discourse long before the telegram channels. Who raised it and is promoting it to this day?
– Everyone who is interested in Russian domestic politics. This is bread for political scientists and entertainment for the plebs. The Duma is no longer a place for discussion, and this topic is not discussed on television, so people are trying to get information about Russia’s domestic policy from such telegram channels.
“SP”: – According to Peskov, Kremlin officials do not follow the interpretations of what is happening in the Kremlin in the telegram channels. They are not interested at all. Is it really true?
– If this is true, then officials need to quit. They have no right not to be interested in feedback from their actions. They are obliged to monitor the public reaction from the politically active part of the population. After all, if there is no feedback, if the officials become bronzed, then welcome to the “Maidan”.
“SP”: – If we assume the existence of these “towers” and the war between them, is it constant and can it end with the victory of one of them?
– But it depends on what you mean by the word “victory”. Of course, the conflict goes to the bitter end. But the victory can be the destruction of the opposite “tower” with the dismissal of its key employees, and a compromise between them. And so they, of course, are now fighting for the name of a successor. This name may well be a compromise between the two. Or it can be the result of the complete victory of one of the “towers”.
SP: – To what extent do you think the West is involved in this war? Whose side is he on, and if he interferes, how?
– I do not know. In theory, the West benefits from the victory of the “tower” that stands for the most protective and hurray-patriotic line. That is, for the line that will lead Russia to internal overstrain and collapse.
– The Russian system of power is of a clan nature, therefore, in the political elite of the country, various groups will inevitably form, associated, as a rule, with large economic players or top officials, – said Dmitry Galkin, political observer of the 2000 newspaper. – It is obvious that such groups exist in the Presidential Administration, and even in the immediate circle of the head of state. However, their rivalry does not take on the character of open enmity, and so far there is no reason that could force them to abandon the established practice, forcing rivals to negotiate rather than fight. So Peskov, in my opinion, is absolutely right: the term “war of towers” is imprecise and does not describe the real relations between groups within the government.
“SP”: – Peskov pointed out that disputes may be related to “how and what should be offered to the president.” Between whom and with whom are they actually being conducted, and who does Putin trust more?
– I think that the decision-making procedure and the number of participants in this process strongly depend on the field of activity, since in Russia the decision-making rules operating in some areas of social and political life may turn out to be completely unacceptable for others. But one thing, it seems to me, is unchanged: the head of state does not side with one of the groups, but is trying to help find a compromise between them (although he mostly supports representatives of his closest circle). It is on this that the political domination of Vladimir Putin is based, and this explains the absence of an alternative to him in the existing system of power.
“SP”: – Is this topic so interesting to the public? Why do some telegram channels write about her? Why did the question come up in an interview with Peskov? The spokesman noted that Kremlin officials do not follow the interpretations of what is happening in the Kremlin on Telegram channels, which Peskov described as “paid, cheap flush cisterns.” Is it so?
– There is no public policy in Russia, at least at the highest level of government. It is replaced by some semblance of a puppet theater with actors who have predetermined roles, and the outcome of their struggle is predetermined. It is clear that following such a process is uninteresting and pointless. Meanwhile, the most politicized groups of Russian society would like to understand how important economic and political decisions are made and, if possible, to influence this process. Therefore, it cannot be said that the behind-the-scenes agreements and contradictions arouse massive interest. But there are quite numerous social groups that are consumers of this information. It is clear that such information, as a rule, does not agree well with the official position of the authorities, which Peskov expresses and is formed by the corresponding services of the Presidential Administration. Therefore, it is completely unnecessary for them to follow such information.
“SP”: – According to Peskov, such channels are really popular, but only in the territory of the former Soviet Union, and not in the English-speaking world. That is, he excludes the influence of the West? It is only we who are allegedly interfering in the affairs of the United States, and they are not in ours?
– I think that such channels (or media resembling them) are popular not only in the post-Soviet space, but also in other regions of the world, where behind-the-scenes agreements between groups within the government are of greater importance than decisions made in accordance with procedures established by law and carried out (at least partially) in a public space. In those countries where public policy plays a decisive role in the management of society, there is no need for a media specializing in behind-the-scenes agreements. There, such agreements are disclosed in materials that appear in the mass media, since such publications themselves are an instrument of influencing the political process. This, incidentally, was the case in Russia in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
“SP”: – “The war of the towers” is endless? Can one finally defeat the other? What will happen to the country then?
– The war, as I said, has not yet begun. But it is quite possible that the current rivalry, limited by established traditions and strict rules, will soon turn into a real confrontation, the purpose of which is to destroy the opponent. This, in my opinion, will only happen if the economic downturn triggers a social crisis. As it seems to me, as a result, we will return to the practice that existed in the 1990s, and the struggle between the groups around the government will be waged in the public sphere, and mass social groups will be able to influence the course of this struggle. But today it is impossible to predict how this struggle will end: the establishment of political democracy, the conclusion of a new peace agreement between rivals, or the victory of one of the groups that will try to establish their own dictatorship.