Petrocrat, gerontocrat, kleptocrat.  The nomenclature used in this week’s op-eds to describe Putin’s specific brand of leadership seem to have drawn upon almost every possible type of dictatorship in modern history.  An interesting point raised by many analysts is that whilst his return is seen as inevitable, it is out of step with modern times.  Putin’s recapturing of the presidency may be quite literally a throwback to the beginning of the decade, but in addition to this seems almost an anachronism in a world which just witnessed a wave of ‘crats’ of varying forms swept away in North Africa.  Reuter’s Chrystia Freeland defines her view of the new Russia order under Putin, one that despite his best efforts, is not necessarily designed to last:

Russia’s transformation into what political scientists call a sultanistic or neo-patrimonial regime is a break both with Russian history and with the global trend. The Kremlin has been home to plenty of murderous dictators. But the czars drew their legitimacy from their blood and their faith. The general secretaries owed their power to their party and their ideology. Mr. Putin’s rule is based solely on the man himself.