Verbal sparring between Premier Vladimir Putin and President Dmitri Medvedev over Western intervention in Libya has raised questions about a split in the Russian “tandem,” and Putin’s criticisms of the intervention may reflect Russian fears of possible U.S. interference in the political struggle in Moscow.  On March 21, Putin compared the Western coalition air strikes, authorized by a U.N. resolution stating that a “no-fly zone” would be aimed at protecting civilians, to the Crusades.  “The resolution,” said Putin, “is flawed and defective.  It allows everything.”  The Russian premier said he was concerned over “the ease with which decisions to use force are made in international affairs,” something Putin called a “persistent tendency in US policy.”  “During the Clinton era,” said Putin, “they bombed Belgrade.  Bush sent forces into Afghanistan, then under an invented, false pretext, they sent forces into Iraq and liquidated the entire Iraqi leadership . . . Now it is Libya’s turn, under the pretext of protecting the civilian population.”  Putin added that Libya was not a democracy, but “that does not mean that someone is allowed to interfere in internal political conflicts to defend one of the sides.”

Russia had abstained from voting on the resolution to authorize force, not using its U.N. Security Council veto.  President Medvedev quickly justified Moscow’s position and rebuked his tandem partner.  While Putin had stressed that Russia had not voted to use force, Medvedev said that Russia had not thought the U.N. resolution wrong but had questions about the scope of the intervention.  While Putin had criticized the Western powers, Medvedev placed the blame for the crisis on Qaddafi.  Medvedev, clearly rebuking Putin, added that using terms such as “crusades”—terms that “lead to a clash of civilizations”—was “unacceptable.”

Medvedev’s remarks caused a stir in Moscow, where the political elite have long feared that tandem instability would lead to chaos.  For months, signs of friction between the tandem members and the various “clans” that have aligned with them have sparked rumors of an impending political crisis as the presidential election of 2012 approaches.  The key question in Russian politics is whether Putin, Medvedev, or a compromise “third candidate” will be elected in 2012.  In Russia, a political shift can mean a deprivation of freedom and property for the losers in Kremlin infighting, and past elite battles have resulted in assassinations as well as high-level arrests.  Political maneuvering, complete with periodic kompromat (“compromising material”) leaks in the Russian press and on the internet; tandem verbal sparring; and an ongoing battle among security and law-enforcement agencies on opposite sides of the political struggle indicate that tensions “under the carpet” are intensifying.

Meanwhile, a series of recent events sheds some light on what Putin was likely getting at in his “crusade” remarks.  Earlier in March, U.S. Vice President Biden had visited Russia.  Moscow observers interpreted his meeting with Medvedev as Washington’s endorsement of a second term for the incumbent Russian president.  (Biden, however, met with Putin as well.)  Before the meeting, the buzz in Moscow was that Medvedev and Biden would discuss an important question: How to gain some leverage over the premier, leverage that would help Medvedev in the political battle.  Washington sources denied the Moscow rumors, but it’s clear that Washington has favored Medvedev.  At a meeting with opposition figures, Biden reportedly said that it would be bad for the country if Putin ran for president again.  Biden’s visit took place even as a wave of revolts swept through the Middle East and discussions of the potential for a similar event in Russia (an “Egyptian scenario”) circulated in Moscow.  An anonymous commentary on Gazeta.ru drew some conclusions: The wave of Arab revolts has frightened the Russian elite more than the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine did.  The commentary concluded by asserting that Putin’s remarks indicated that he was concerned less with Libya than with “crusader” intervention in a political crisis in Russia.

Medvedev’s repeated statements that any future political reforms will be gradual are probably thinly veiled attempts to assure Putin that he will be safe, should he decide to leave “big politics.”  But at a key moment—with the tandem’s verbal clash over Libya, Biden’s visit, and the Arab revolts very much on the collective mind of the Russian elite—a criminal case in Ukraine again raised the specter of an uncertain future for Putin.  On March 23, Russian media reported that former Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma, who held that post from 1994 to 2005, had been charged in the 2000 assassination of journalist Georgi Gongadze.  Gongadze had been a sharp critic of Kuchma.  He was abducted in September 2000, and his headless body was discovered months later.  Ukrainian sources chalked up the charges to Kuchma’s political opponents, with an attempt to seize control of assets owned by tycoon Viktor Pinchuk, Kuchma’s son-in-law, playing into the game.  Whatever the reasons behind the charges, Putin has cause for alarm: He has a host of enemies, something that can be expected of a man who has been in power for over ten years in the clan system of Russian politics.  And he is well aware that in the 90’s, Washington lent its support to Boris Yeltsin over his political opponents at crucial moments.