Vladimir Putin, thanks above all to a constitutional reform implemented in 2020, which had canceled the limit of two consecutive mandates, is confirmed as President of the Russian Federation for a renewed consecutive mandate, that is, all things considered, until the year 2030. And again, still by virtue of the aforementioned constitutional reform, he will even be able to run for a further mandate in the year 2030, thus remaining in office, if the results reward him, until the year 2036. Well. Beyond any evaluation of the result of these last polls, to remain anchored to the present, the relevant question to be posed would seem to be that linked to the direct and immediate effects that the victory of the outgoing President could have on the general geopolitical level and, in particular , on the current balance of power with the West and, from a different perspective, with Xi-Jin Ping's China and with India with which Russia maintains collaborative relations.
Saying it differently and more clearly: Vladimir Putin emerges reinvigorated by these Presidential elections or, instead, and paradoxically, more weakened? The answer, clearly, risks reflecting the different point of observation of the matter, since the empirical data, in itself considered in its consistency, would reflect only one circumstance, namely that for which the percentage of voters, indeed very high, seems to confirmed his approval of the political and military leadership of the country by the outgoing President. And what Vladimir Putin himself seems to need in this precise historical moment seems to be precisely "internal stability", which, up to now, seems to have been based on the leader's apparent ability to offer appropriate reassurances to that part of the People Russian, very numerous, which the general "disorder" created by globalization, with the sudden social transformations that it had engendered, had in some way destabilized.
The circumstance appears to be anything but of little importance considering the geographical dimensions of the country. If Mikhail Gorbachev, last secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, dreamed of realizing the dream, which was never realised, of "humanitarian socialism", with the subsequent disintegration of the USSR, Vladimir Putin, i.e. the Russian president, elected for the first time in 2000, he had, and probably still has, politically "capitalised", so to speak, that feeling of original disorientation of his own People since, at least apparently, he seems to have been capable of giving the events attributable to the time of the nineties, an original and innovative political reading, through a proposal hypothetically perceived as suitable for reinvigorating certain identity traits that have survived from the strictly understood Soviet period and are still widespread among the Russian population.
The fact would remain that "Putinism" presents itself as an illiberal political regime and there does not appear to be an effective rule of law in Russia today. Going beyond any consideration inherent to internal facts of the Russian Federation, and bringing the terms of the speech back to the meaning that Vladimir Putin's persistence in the Presidency entails, what stands out seems to be the circumstance that he seems to remain, even in current affairs, the only contradictory , in this situation, in relation to international issues of close relevance, i.e. those directly relating to ongoing conflicts.
The re-establishment of peace in Europe still appears today as a long and complex process, difficult to reconcile with the geopolitical objectives of Putin's Russia. In this sense, his reconfirmation as President of the Russian Federation could make it much more laborious to find equal inter partes intermediation agreements, since the progressive "de-escalation" of the conflict, in fact, could only be based on potential mutual advantages between the contenders who they would probably allow a truce that would still be fragile, but probably suitable, with good likelihood, to put an end to the emergency on a humanitarian level linked to the conflict underway today in Ukraine.
It seems difficult to predict what will happen in the near future also because a lot could depend on the outcomes of the American Presidential elections given the different international political vision between the two major competitors, namely Biden and Trump. Europe, in the context, appears, at least this is what the feeling might seem to be, largely weakened due to its failure to carve out a pre-eminent role on a diplomatic level that could make it the protagonist and essential pivot of an authentic path to peace.
At present, only diplomacy, correctly and effectively exercised, can contribute to re-establishing effective balances which, far from being able to be considered only in terms of regulating conflicts, appear entirely suitable also for regulating economic issues, not least in a historical period , such as the current one, which is particularly complex for all populations.
If we consider it carefully, the outcome of these polls in Russia seems to have confirmed the status quo ante on an international level, while on a domestic level it seems to have reinvigorated the power of Vladimir Putin by confirming him at the helm of the Federation. At present, the wise use of diplomatic channels seems to remain the only way to achieve peace as well as the conclusion of existing conflicts. And Europe should be at the forefront of promoting peace by re-establishing international order.
Giuseppina Di Salvatore – Lawyer, Nuoro
