There’s been quite a lot of discussion in the blogosphere in recent weeks responding to an article by Michael Idov in the New Republic. It is an impressive piece of writing that makes some interesting points as well as unavoidably glossing over some of the more complex issues in contemporary Russian politics, yet the article succeeds: not since Perry Anderson’s article way back when in the London Review of Books have I seen bloggers of such different political backgrounds see validation of their views in this report. …And that’s always a sign of good journalism. However, there are still some fundamental problems with Idov’s portrayal of Kremlin politics for me. Although his prose is watertight (all the guys over at SRB love that Idov says reporting on Russia requires the avoidance of “a heap of memes” left from the Cold War – language that grad students eat up), this florid depiction also conceals a flawed assumption about the teleological unity, purpose, and coherent direction of events in the Kremlin. Anyone who has spent time trying to work with the Russian government knows that this image, actively promoted by the executive, is a myth, and that political power and influence in Moscow is extremely fractured and overwhelmingly accidental.