Encyclopedia of Russian History

by James Millar

  Few people would have given the rather faceless and bland Putin much chance of being noticed by President Boris Yeltsin. Yet he did stand out, perhaps because he was so efficient. Equally important, he did not appear to be seeking higher office.

  1254

  PUTIN, VLADIMIR VLADIMIROVICH

  Yeltsin took note of Putin and in 1998 appointed him head of the Federal Security Service, formerly the KGB. Then, on August 16, 1999, Yeltsin surprised the world by making Putin prime minister and designating him as his successor. If that was not enough, Yeltsin once again surprised the world on December 31, 1999 by resigning and making Putin acting president. On March 26, 2000, Putin stood for election and won a majority in the first round.

  Putin was a new kind of president. While Boris Yeltsin had presided over the collapse of communism and in that sense was a revolutionary leader, Putin saw the job differently. Russia had been through enough turmoil and conflict since the collapse of the USSR. Besides, the country was in a mess. The economy had come close to collapse, corruption and social problems were rampant, cynicism toward the central government was at an all-time high, and on the international level, Russia was almost irrelevant with U.S.-Russian relations at an all-time low. It is not an exaggeration to suggest that Russia was considered by many to be “the sick man of Europe.”

  Putin’s approach to these many problems contrasted markedly with Yeltsin’s. He was very organized and structured, and as his Millennium Speech (January 1, 2000) made clear, he stood in stark contrast to his Soviet predecessors. He told the Russian people the truth about the depth and seriousness of the country’s problem. In addition to taking this straightforward approach, Putin believed that the only way Russia could survive as a viable nation was to rebuild the Russian state. So he immediately began to reestablish Moscow’s control over the country’s governors, many of whom were paying little attention to the central government. First, he took on the Federation Council, the parliament’s upper house, where the regional governors held considerable power. By the time Putin was through, considerable power had been shifted to Moscow. Then he set up seven “super” districts, headed by personally selected “super” governors, to oversee the regional officials. He even succeeded in firing one of the country’s most corrupt and strongest governors, Yegeny Nazdratenko of Primorski Krai.

  The Putin style of governance avoided spectacular, high-profile actions. Instead, he preferred to work behind the scenes whenever possible. In his view, there had already been too much of the kind of high-profile activity associated with Yeltsin.

  Ex-KGB agent Vladimir Putin became Russia’s second president. © R.P.G./CORBIS SYGMA. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION. Russia was tired of that sort of thing, which in the end generally made very little difference in the life of the average citizen. Military reform provides an example of Putin’s approach. How to restructure Russia’s armed forces had been a subject of discussion ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union- and even before then. When Putin appointed Sergei Ivanov, one of his closest associates, as defense minister, there was some expectation that he would immediately try to institute major changes. In fact, that did not happen. Instead, Putin pushed the Defense Ministry to make changes, and it has gradually responded.

  Putin’s style of governance was not repressive, but neither was it democratic in the way the term was understood in the West. Instead, he followed a course of what might be called “managed democracy.” He set the parameters of what was permitted and what was prohibited. As long as citizens remained within the parameters, they would have all the freedom they wanted. But if they went beyond the parameters, they would be in trouble. For

  1255

  PUTIN, VLADIMIR VLADIMIROVICH

  President Vladimir Putin speaks during a 2002 meeting with Kyrgyzstan president Askar Akayev. PHOTOGRAPH BY ALEXANDER ZEMLIANICHENKO/ASSOCIATED PRESS. REPRODUCED BY PERMISSION. example, when Putin took on the media, he made it clear that the “chaotic” press and television of the Yeltsin period was unacceptable. While the media remained free in comparison to the Soviet era, the situation was a far cry from the independent news coverage of the 1990s.

  Putin did not have a grand plan for the restructuring of society. He was a problem-solver. Rather than instituting a full-scale reform of the judicial system, for instance, he raised the salaries of judges and increased the money available to the police. The same was true of an even more serious problem, the tax system. The government was bankrupt because no one was paying taxes. Putin dealt with the problem by introducing a 13 percent flat tax to be paid by everyone, and the system seemed to work relatively well. There were still major problems in both areas, but as was typical of Putin, important if partial changes had been implemented.

  Putin was also an effective diplomat. When George W. Bush became president of the United States, it looked as if U.S.-Russian relations were going nowhere. Putin showed he had patience. When the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in New York occurred on September 11, 2001, he was the first foreign leader to call President Bush and express his condolences. He also stood by the United States during the subsequent war in Afghanistan. Most surprising, however, was his ability to remain a close friend and ally of the United States even though he opposed the American invasion of Iraq. In contrast to the Washington- Paris relationship, Washington and Moscow remained close allies despite their differences over Iraq.

  Putin also demonstrated that he knew how to make use of events. For example, he used the September 11 attacks to force Russia’s anti-American general staff to change its approach to dealing with the United States. On September 24, 2001, just prior to his visit to the United States, he met with the country’s generals and admirals, and made it clear that cooperation was the order of the day. The military quickly fell into line and cooperation between the two sides was as close as it had ever been.

  Many observers wondered whether Putin’s partial but determined approach would provide the political, military, social, and economic stability Russia needed to reenter the ranks of the world’s major powers. When his presidency began, Putin was unknown, and few believed he could do anything other than be a KGB thug. Within a short time, without taking the repressive actions that many expected, he had begun to reestablish the Russian state and to restore its status as an important player in the international arena. The economy had begun to turn around, even if it continued to be too heavily based on oil. See also: SOBCHAK, ANATOLY ALEXANDROVICH; STATE SECURITY, ORGANS OF; YELTSIN, BORIS NIKOLAYEVICH

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Herspring, Dale R., ed. (2003). Putin’s Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain. Boulder, CO: Rowman amp; Littlefield. Putin, Vladimir. (2000). First Person: An Astonishingly Frank Self-Portrait of Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, tr. Catherine A. Fitzpatrick. New York: Public Affairs. Shevtsova, Lilia. (2003). Putin’s Russia. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

  DALE HERSPRING

  1256

  PUTIN, VLADIMIR VLADIMIROVICH

  PYTATAKOV, GEORGY LEONIDOVICH

  (1890-1937), a leading Bolshevik in Ukraine who opposed Vladimir Lenin’s policy on a nation’s right to self-determination.

  An extraordinary economic administrator, Georgy Pytatakov held numerous important political positions including deputy chairman of Gos-plan (1922); deputy chairman of the Supreme Council of the National Economy (VSNKh) (1923); chairman of the State Bank (1929); deputy chairman of the Commissariat of Heavy Industry (1930); and member of the Supreme Economic Council (1930).

  In the 1920s Pytatkov allied with Leon Trotsky and ultimately became a leading figure in the Left Opposition (the so-called Trotskyite opposition). From 1922 to 1926 Pytatakov advocated rapid industrialization and supported Yevgeny Pre-obrazhensky’s theory of “primitive socialist accumulation.” In a public bid for rank-and-file support for the Left’s position, Pytatakov took part in a demonstration at a Moscow factory Party meeting in 1926. He was subsequently removed from his position at VSNKh for bei
ng an oppositionist and sent abroad. The following year he was expelled from the Party.

  In 1928 Pytatkov recanted his position and applied for readmission into the Party. It was granted the following year, along with an appointment to head the State Bank. Beginning in 1929 he published articles hailing Josef Stalin’s genius and condemning oppositionists. However, this could not erase the stigma of his association with the Left Opposition. In 1936 he was arrested as a Trotskyite and, along with Karl Radek, was a central figure in the second Moscow Show Trial in 1937. Under torture and drugs, he confessed, was found guilty, and shot immediately after the trial. See also: LEFT OPPOSITION; TROTSKY, LEON DAVIDOVICH

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Conquest, Robert. (1990). The Great Terror: A Reassessment. New York: Oxford University Press. Khlevniuk, Oleg. (1995). In Stalin’s Shadow: The Career of “Sergo” Ordzhonikidze. New York: M. E. Sharpe.

  KATE TRANSCHEL

  1257

  This page intentionally left blank

  QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE AND QUINTUPLE ALLIANCE

  The Quadruple Alliance was signed in November 1815 by Russia, Britain, Austria, and Prussia, following the long series of wars that began in the aftermath of the French Revolution and concluded with the defeat of Napoleon. It was essentially a continuation of the Treaty of Chaumont of 1814, in which the four powers vowed to defeat France and remain allied for twenty years to keep France in check. At the time Russia was the preeminent military power in Europe. From 1813 to 1814, Europeans had watched with a mixture of amazement and horror as Russian soldiers drove Napoleon’s Grand Army out of their country and, joined by Prussia, Britain, and finally Austria, all the way to Paris. Britain ruled the seas, but no army rivaled Russia’s, and fear of this new power was keen in Austria and Britain until its disastrous defeat in the Crimean War.

  The individual most responsible for the complete destruction of Napoleon’s power was Emperor Alexander I (r. 1801-1825). The other continental powers had been willing to negotiate a settlement with Napoleon, but Alexander had insisted on total victory. Since at least 1805 he had been convinced that only Russia and Britain had the resources to vanquish Napoleon and reestablish order in Europe based on a new treaty system.

  With the final defeat of Napoleon in 1815, the victorious powers faced two related problems: how to contain France, and how to prevent revolution. In November, the British foreign secretary, Viscount Castlereagh, proposed a continuation of the alliance system, bolstered by a system of great-power congresses to deal with crises as they arose. Alexander’s vague response was a “Holy Alliance” of Christian monarchs who would treat one another with Christian brotherhood and charity. This proposal had no practical effect.

  Castlereagh had his way, and in the Quadruple Alliance the victorious powers pledged to maintain the political system established at the Congress of Vienna for the next twenty years, by force if necessary, and to meet periodically to consult on the maintenance of order and stability. The foreign secretary declared that Britain would never intervene militarily in the internal affairs of another state. When Alexander pressed him to promise support for the restored Bourbon monarchy in France,

  1259

  QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE AND QUINTUPLE ALLIANCE

  Castlereagh refused. This did much to fuel Alexander’s suspicions of British policy.

  As Alexander’s anti-British feelings grew, he came to regard France in a more favorable light. Prodded by his advisers, particularly Corfiote Capodistrias, he concluded that if France were admitted into the Quadruple Alliance, it could become a counterweight to Britain and, to a lesser extent, Austria, especially if Prussia continued to follow Russia’s diplomatic lead.

  The result was the Congress of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1818. Ostensibly convened to end the military occupation of France, it really had the goal of restoring France into the great-power system. Its outcome was twofold: France joined the alliance, which became the Quintuple Alliance, but the Quadruple Alliance was reconfirmed because the victors, despite their mutual distrust, were still fearful of a resurgent France. Over the next few decades, however, fear of Russian power and expansionism would seize all the great powers except Prussia, until they united to defeat Russia in the Crimean War. See also: CRIMEAN WAR; HOLY ALLIANCE; NAPOLEON I; VIENNA, CONGRESS OF

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Albrecht-Carrie, Rene. (1958). A Diplomatic History of Europe Since the Congress of Vienna. New York: Harper. Bridge, F.R., and Bullen, Roger. (1980). The Great Powers and the European States System: 1815-1914. New York: Longman. Jelavich, Barbara. (1974). St. Petersburg and Moscow: Tsarist and Soviet Foreign Policy: 1814-1974. Bloom-ington: Indiana University Press.

  HUGH PHILLIPS

  1260

  RABBINICAL COMMISSION

  The Rabbinic Commission (1848-1910) was a consultative body under the Ministry of Internal Affairs (specifically the Department of Spiritual Affairs for Foreign Faiths), organized to deal with matters of the Jewish faith. Its creation conformed to the general state policy of centralizing the religious administration of foreign confessions in a single department. Its primary duties were to answer inquiries from the state about Jewish laws and customs, to supervise the activities of rabbis, and to examine controversial Jewish divorce suits. While the state had created this institution to gather information about internal Jewish life, the Commission gradually transformed into a higher court of appeals for private divorce cases (which remained under rabbinical jurisdiction until 1917) and a vehicle for preserving traditional religious and family values.

  The changing profile of the Commission’s members reflected the transformation in its mission and identity. The first session (1852) included obscure individuals who were well versed neither in the Russian language nor Jewish law: the merchant Bern-shtein (Odessa), D. Orshansky (Poltava), Shimel Merkel (Kovno province), and Dr. Cherolzon (Os-zeisky province). They examined queries about the censorship of Jewish books, Hasidic sects, the Jewish oath, registration, and marriage of Jewish soldiers. The second meeting (1857) involved more prominent Jews: Dr. Abraham Neumann (Riga), the merchant Yekutiel-Zisl Rapoport (Minsk), the merchant Chlenov, (Kremenchug), and Rabbi Yakov Barit (Vilna). Among other topics, they discussed the establishment of state schools for Jewish girls.

  In addition to the previous members, the third session (1861-1862) included Itskhok Eliiagu (Eliyahu) Landau (Kiev), German Barats (Vilna), and A. Maidevsky (Poltava), Iosef Evzel Gintsburg, and two learned Jews from the Ministry of the People’s Education-Iosif Zeiberling (St. Petersburg) and Samuel Iosif Fin (Vilna). The Commission examined ten cases on Jewish religious life and its first divorce case.

  The fourth session (1879) was an “assembly of rabbis without rabbis.” Apart from state rabbi German Faddeyevich Blyumenfeld (Odessa) and Dr. Avraham Harkavy (an Orientalist), the others were secular professionals: Hirsh Shapiro (Kovno), Zelman Lyubich (Minsk), Meier Levin (Pinsk), Baron Goratsy Gintsburg (Kiev), and I. I. Kaufman (Odessa). They examined eight cases of divorce and bigamy.

  1261

  RABKRIN

  The fifth session (1893-1894) reflected the aggressive campaign of the Jewish Orthodox leadership to reassert their authority and preserve tradition. It involved four enlightened Jews (German Barats, Iakov Gottesman, Samuil Simkhovich, Avraam Katlovker) and three prominent Orthodox leaders: rabbis Tsvi Rabinovich (Vilna), Samuel Mogilever (Grodno), and theologian Yuriya Mileikovsky (Mogilev). They examined twenty-seven cases on marriage, divorce, and religious rituals.

  The final sixth session (1910) was a victory for the Orthodox camp, which promised to wean Jews from revolutionary activities. Save for one jurist, Moisie Mazor (Kiev), the others were rabbis: Yehuda Leib Tsirelson (Kishinev), Khaim Soloveichik (Brest-Litovsk), Oizer Grodzensky (Vilna), Sholom Shneer-son (Liubavich), Shmuel Polinkovsky (Odessa), and Mendel Khein (Nezhin). They examined twenty-three cases on marriage and divorce, as well as questions about burials, cemeteries, spelling of Jewish names, oaths, and censorship of books.

  Although
the Rabbinic Commission only met six times, it addressed key religious and family issues that plagued Russian Jewry. The shift in influence from the enlightened to Orthodox camp brought a reassertion of traditional values, including the refusal to modify Jewish law to suit modern expectations. The state ceased to convene the Rabbinic Commission as the empire descended into war and revolution. See also: JEWS lished December 3, 1917). It was charged with ensuring the effectiveness of government administration and monitoring the implementation of state decrees. The former commisar of state control, Josef Stalin, remained in charge of Rabkrin until he was replaced in April 1922 by A. D. Tsyurupa.

  The Soviet leadership soon became concerned that Rabkrin was failing to halt the growth of bu-reaucraticism, mismanagement, and corruption in the government apparatus. In April 1923, Rabkrin was merged with the Communist Party’s Central Control Commission under Valerian Vladimirovich Kuibyshev. The new body was given the broad task of supervising and rationalizing the administration of all party, state, and economic functions. From November 1926 to November 1930, Stalin’s close ally, Sergo Ordzhonikidze, headed the joint control agency, which became a powerful political weapon for the consolidation of Stalin’s power. In 1928, it was charged with overseeing implementation of the First Five-Year Plan, and played a major role in promoting unrealistically ambitious industrial planning and militaristic campaign methods of economic administration. In November 1930, Andrei Andreye-vich Andreyev succeeded as head of the joint control agency until October 1931, when he was replaced by Yan Ernestovich Rudzutak. To strengthen the power of the economic commissariats, the Seventeenth Party Congress (1934) dissolved Rabkrin and transferred its functions to an emasculated Commission for State Control, attached to Sovnarkom and separate from the new Commission for Party Control subordinated to the Central Committee.