When time magazine named Russia’s Vladimir Putin Person of the Year my esteemed b5 editor thought it would make a good leadership post. I didn’t disagree, I just didn’t believe that I had the in depth knowledge to discuss it. But I had something better—my Russian business partner, Nick Mikhailovsky, CEO of NTR Lab. Nick and I have enjoyed a multifaceted business relationship for almost ten years and during that time have become good friends, so I dropped him a line. You can, too, if you’d like to meet him—nickm@ntrlab.ru.
So here’s Vladimir Putin through the eyes of a thirty-something Russian entrepreneur.
What’s Putin like as a leader from the viewpoint of a Russian entrepreneur? It is not simple to answer this question, but I’ll try to.
First of all, let’s look at the global economic, and as a consequence, political context.
The 90’s gave the entire world the impression that the new economy was coming. The Western world viewed the new economy as the “knowledge economy,” developing, overpopulated economies like India and China—as globalization and post-socialist countries as a transition to the free market.
These hopes have mostly come true, except for the knowledge economy, which in big part gave us the dotcom bubble.
In Putin’s time – the first half of the 2000’s – the western world faced the fact that the economy is once again resource-limited (most of the rest of the world never forgot about that, because easy resources like food are a considerable part of an ordinary person’s budget). Being limited, natural resources have significantly grown in price, the most current spurt being food, with metals and oil growing in price earlier in the decade.
Most big businesses have realized the challenges posed by these prices quickly enough (and those who didn’t, such as the US automotive industry, have significant problems now). This fact led to the understanding that controlling natural resources, especially energy, is critical in the new situation. Where this control cannot be accomplished by the power of money, it should be done by political power, was the further natural understanding. The latter understanding was especially simple in the USRussia, both Putin and Bush being close to the oil lobby (not that there are lots of significantly different industrial lobbies over here in Russia). and
In my view, Putin has done reasonably well working on the most critical problem of his time in power in Russia’s national interests. He has effectively nationalized the least nationally oriented oil company in Russia, Yukos. Contracts on Sakhalin signed during Yeltsin’s rule have been reconsidered in a national direction. He stopped Chechen war that was destabilizing the region critical for Caspian oil transit through Caucasus.
Putin has, so far, also been reasonably efficient preventing US invasion in Iran. On the other hand, Putin failed to prevent the US invasion in Iraq and this is probably his largest failure in the fight for oil control. On the other hand, it is not quite clear if such an invasion would have benefited Russia or not—Iraqi experience shows that the oil control takes quite some time, if it’s at all achievable, and any invasion into a significantly oil-producing country results in another surge of oil prices.
Another area in which Putin seems to have significant achievement is the fight with terrorism. Terrorism is a child of mass media, and actually a purely informational phenomenon. You might not know it, but there was no terrorism in Soviet Union, because there was no free press. And if an act of terror did happen, nearly nobody would ever know about it. Efficient collaboration with the US, which experienced 9/11 early in Putin’s time, and alignment of the national media have reduced the problem, although the root causes—the absence of national ideology comparable in power to the Islamic one and exceptionally low income in Caucasus region—still remain unsolved.
(Continued tomorrow)
Your comments—priceless
Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL
Share This
Share This
Share This
I think it’s reminiscent of “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?” What if they gave out Golden Globes and no one was there to walk down the red carpet? Perhaps I’m just a cynical so-and-so, but I think the ceremony is as much a part of it all as are the actual trophies, perhaps even more important to many in the industry. It’s their opportunity to shine, to glow, to wear nifty trend-setting gowns. Hey, it’s Hollywood. It’s the chance for those behind the scenes to take the stage if but only for a minute or two.
Morgan Spurlock, the filmmaker behind the documentary Super Size Me and FX’s 30 Days, 
Entries (RSS)