The announcement that Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin plan to switch positions in March is being portrayed by the international press in terms of personal relations between the two men. For Mexican analyst Alfredo Jalife, reducing Russian policy to these two figures is a ploy by the corporate media to hide what is really at stake: the recovery of Russia’s energy sovereignty and its military rapprochement with the BRICS countries, mainly China.
The return of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin - grand energy czar - as presidential candidate marks Russia’s geostrategic toughening stance in the face of the unraveling of savage capitalism and the threats of a new world war by the Israeli-Anglo-American financial circuits.
Such tightening was to be expected after the countless affronts made against Russia and China by what still remains of the financially crippled "West": oil conquest of Libya, installation of a NATO missile defense system in Russian’s "near abroad", provocative sale of US arms to Taiwan; forthcoming US Africom wars for oil and gas, as was innocently expounded by Johnnie Carson, Assistant Secretary of State .
The outrageous disinformation campaign by the Israeli-Anglo-American media oligopoly (eg. the Rothschild-Murdoch duo via Fox News and Sky News) contrived a fantasy narrative depicting an intractable confrontation between outgoing President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin with overtones of a civil war and a new balkanization of Russia.
The campaign went so far as to unabashedly flaunt its choice: Medvedev, the "modernist" and pro-Western lawyer willing to open the succulent oil market to NATO transnationals, against the chauvinistic and anachronistic Putin, a former KGB "spy" thirsty for autocratic power.
Resorting to a gross caricature of Russia’s domestic correlation of forces and faithful to its own oil interests, the mendacious corporate-owned media attempted to distort the reality which today explodes in their faces.
No one is claiming that the Putin-Medvedev tandem (in that order) is inevitable or that it symbolizes the Russian two-headed eagle, but it is undeniable that this country - a nuclear geostrategic superpower on a par with the United States, that miraculously arose from the 1991 geopolitical gloom in which Yeltsin-Gorbachev had engulfed it - has made its comeback since 2000 thanks to Putin’s leadership.
It is Putin who engineered Russia’s geostrategic resurrection, thanks primarily to the recovery of its hydrocarbon reserves. The great Russian nation is perfectly aware of this.
If their furious reactions are any indication, the financial circuits of Great Britain’s neoliberal oligarchical plutocracy, whose utmost mouthpiece is the triplet The Financial Times / The Economist / BBC (as acknowledged by Jeremy Browne, Cameron’s cabinet minister), reacted vehemently against the Putin’s sure return to power since it undermines their geopolitical interests in Eurasia.
Suffice it to mention the recent nihilistic headlines of the The Economist, which didn’t bite its tongue from the capital of a country that had just been set ablaze by its hungry and unemployed youth: "Russia and its discontented"; "Putin’s return to the Kremlin marks the end of four-year charade. The real question is how he will remain in power,"; "Putin’s return is bad for Russia","The Russian election circus,"; "Russia today is stagnant and without hope." I will only refute the last headline: Putin-Medvedev’s Russia is in far better shape than Great Britain which is in decadent free fall.
I was deeply struck by the silkiness (so far) of the The New York Times’s reaction, due perhaps to the perezagruzka (reset) of US-Russia relations and the amazing, though very recent, "business alliance" of a major geostrategic reach between Exxon Mobil and Rosneft  for hydrocarbon exploration in the Arctic, which sidelined British BP - an alleged Rothschild Bank fixed asset and leading Gulf of Mexico predator - in unison with its "drilling" partners: the criminal (literally) Halliburton and Schlumberger.
It is no trivial matter for Exxon Mobil to explore in the Kara Sea (Arctic) near the Russian coast . Alexander Rahr, Russia expert at the German Foreign Policy Association (DGPA) in Berlin, told German newspaper Bildzeitung  that "Putin was good (sic) for Russia." Is what is "bad" for Great Britain "good" for Germany?
Rahr commented that Germanophile Putin (fluent in German) "wants to penetrate the West through Germany" when "the alternative to Putin would be anti-Western nationalists." Indeed, the "Western prospects" for GB and Germany are diametrically opposed.
One day before the unveiling of a third term for Putin, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Sedyukov hosted in Moscow Guo Boxiong, Vice Chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission of the Chinese Communist Party .
More important still, after being proclaimed presidential candidate, Putin announced a trip to China of wide-ranging geostrategic potential to strengthen bilateral relations.
What calls one’s attention is that Stratfor , the Texas-Israeli portal of global disinformation, should have covered Putin’s return with excessive mildness: "A strong concern for the influential establishment of Russian security services is that Medvedev is viewed internationally as a weak leader (sic) as compared to his predecessor. Putin is not interested (supersic!) in the presidency, unless it is necessary in order to restore the perception of a more assertive Kremlin."
If "democracy" is the quintessence of popular power, then Putin not only adheres to the rules of the Russian Constitution, but, better still, he is even more "popular" than his "Western" rivals, at an extremely critical world juncture when the idealistic concepts of political philosophy are rapidly eroding.
The Russian premier boasts an overwhelming public support of 80 percent, which, for sure, no NATO leader can claim (who constantly cackle about universal suffrage for the others, but not for themselves), starting with the increasingly blobby Obama (kidnapped by the "13 Wall Street bankers," Simon Johnson dixit), through to Sarkozy (the "conqueror of Libya’s oil" who was hideously battered in the senatorial elections by the Socialist Party), and down to pusillanimous British leader David Cameron, who does not know where to hide in the midst of his country’s double fire (literally), at the urban and financial levels.
While Obama, totally captive of and emasculated by the Wall Street banksters, participates in the destruction of the world - by rescuing the insolvent yet arrogant bankers rather than the citizens - Putin seeks to restore the world balance that was lost during the unfortunate phase of US unipolarism, in harmony with China (by extension: BRICS including South Africa), to reorganize the world from a multipolar perspective.
Will he succeed?