The Media Mirror: what's in today's Russian newspapers?

Russia in March-April: power dualism or the breaking-in of a new mechanism of governance? Dmitry Medvedev and the world: what the experts say; could the choice have been different?

KOMMERSANT’s Andrey Kolesnikov writes that from now till the inauguration each of the two leaders of Russia possesses a dual nature. Vladimir Putin is an incumbent President and future Prime Minister; Dmitry Medvedev is a First Deputy Prime Minister and President-elect. The writer says this formula looks a bit like the arrangement between Dr Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In fact there’s no conflict between the two times two natures.

In ROSSIYSKAYA GAZETA Sergey Karaganov writes that the main goals in Dmitry Medvedev’s programme are internal modernisation, a divorce from state capitalism and an innovative economy. Such policies presume economising on foreign policy, and the refusal to be lured into an open confrontation with other world powers except over issues of principle. In short, the Chinese way. On the other hand, Russia should show more constructive initiative. So far we have been changing the rules if we didn’t like the game. We gained more prestige and influence that way. But now we should offer our alternative to every rule we don’t like. He adds that lately there has been a scent of another big war or series of smaller ones in the air. The Big Task for the new leader of one of the most influential nations is, at the most, to prevent it from happening; at the least, to avoid Russia’s direct involvement.

Deputy Chief Editor of NEZAVISIMAYA GAZETA Yulia Petrovskaya writes that the West looks to Dmitry Medvedev with hope for the warming of relations. The writer reminds  readers that Vladimir Putin in his day started from a demonstration of his wish to be friends with the West. He wound up with the Munich speech and a conflict over the British Council. But it’s not Russia’s fault that the nation is pursuing an independent policy.

IZVESTIA says as was the case with the Duma election, PACE observers’ evaluations often repeat verbatim some estimates by U.S. officials. However, this time the PACE monitoring team has to admit that the result would have been the same even if all PACE recommendations had been taken into account.