Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvedev recently it has become a frequent guest on the pages in the media, fortunately, there are reasons for statements. Of course, he could not ignore the coronavirus infection with which the whole world has been living for almost two years.
Dmitry Medvedev considers COVID-19 to be the biggest shock in the history of recent decades.
“It is no coincidence that it is compared to the ‘third world war’, meaning the devastating consequences of the spread of a deadly disease,” he wrote in an article for Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
Dmitry Anatolyevich decided to dwell in detail on the lessons that have been learned during this time and to present a plan for further actions. So, in his opinion, the legislation in the field of combating the pandemic is still very liberal, the balance between human rights and compulsion to vaccination must be sought, and the world needs “collective immunity of a global scale.” He also expressed concern about the clash of geopolitical interests of states, even in matters of vaccination.
Dwelling on a number of other aspects related to the coronavirus, its consequences for different sides of life, as well as vaccine problems, Dmitry Medvedev said that the coronavirus will remain in our lives for a long time, but there is reason to believe that in the coming months it will still be taken under control. However, he is convinced that “it is necessary to remain constantly prepared to repel such threats in the future.”
At the end of the article, the author recalled the words Dostoevsky: “Every person is responsible to all people for all people.” Therefore, the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council calls on us “to rethink the extent of our personal responsibility for our own health and the safety of others. For everything that happens to our world, and in general – for the fate of all mankind. “
In general, Dmitry Anatolyevich looked at the pandemic from various points of view, including a legal one, after all, he is a lawyer. At the same time, Medvedev, for sure, remembered that he was both the president of the country and its prime minister, which means that he must behave like a responsible politician. And then – what the hell is not joking. And in any case, you need to remind yourself more often, otherwise, the hour is uneven, the people (and not only) can forget.
However, Director of the Institute of Contemporary State Development Dmitry Solonnikov noticed that until the spring of this year, when the election campaign was launched, his namesake was in active politics.
– When the elections to the State Duma began, he went into the shadows so as not to spoil the possible indicators of the United Russia party with his anti-rating. Probably did the right thing. The elections are over, United Russia has won, it’s time to return.
The forces that put on Dmitry Anatolyevich as one of the potential guarantors of power are now returning him to the information field, to active political life. Of course, he is not alone, not a warrior on his own. Those who see him as the future head of our state are now taking sufficiently correct political technological steps to be remembered, talked about, therefore, rather sharp, controversial, debatable texts appear. This is the task – to discuss what is published under his name.
“SP”: – And what are these forces?
– There are quite a few supporters of Dmitry Anatolyevich. Among potential successors, many would like to see him, and not representatives of the same power bloc. I would not say who specifically, but these are family-oriented people Boris Yeltsin, conditional systemic liberals, other various forces. There are those who are ready to play, and they play it.
At the same time, a political scientist, expert of the PRISP Center, Ph.D. Nikolay Ponomarev believes that the likelihood of a full return of Dmitry Medvedev to the public sphere of politics is extremely low.
– Firstly, he turned into a toxic figure with an extremely high anti-rating. To understand this, it is enough to turn to VTsIOM data on the level of trust in the ex-prime minister. And everyone remembers very well the refusal of United Russia to include its chairman in the federal part of the party list in the elections to the State Duma.
Second, the resignation from the post of prime minister and the nullification of Putin’s terms deprived Medvedev of his informal successor status and weakened his position within the elite. He is still a member of the “Politburo 2.0”, but no longer has the same resources. And any hints of his return to the role of “heir” will inevitably cause a conflict within the establishment, since they will imply a large-scale redistribution of assets and spheres of influence.
Now the Kremlin, in principle, is not interested in exacerbating intra-elite contradictions. It is much more likely that Medvedev is being used to publicly voice messages formulated by other representatives of the upper strata of the elite.
“SP”: – In his article, Dmitry Medvedev writes about the need for a balance between the rights of citizens and the compulsion to vaccinate. The other day, the head of the Constitutional Court, Valery Zorkin, spoke about the same. At the same time, talks about the possible appointment of Dmitry Medvedev to this position have been going on for a long time. Are these statements related to potential rotation?
– The Constitutional Court can become a good sinecure for the ex-prime minister. And he himself has repeatedly proved both loyalty to the president and negotiability.
On the other hand, his reputation as a “bad boyar” may not have the best effect on the legitimization of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Medvedev is much more recognizable than Zorkin, and at the same time has a noticeably higher anti-rating.
I would suggest that the similarity in the rhetoric of Zorkin and Medvedev is primarily due to the fact that they articulate the position of the same group of interests within the ruling elite. Let’s not forget that earlier Medvedev touched upon a fairly wide range of issues in his articles, including the topic of relations with Ukraine. However, this cannot be regarded as a reason for speculation about his possible appointment to the post of foreign minister, for example.