The Russia Journal

Oleg Sysuyev, once known as "the sad face of the Kremlin" for having to constantly explain Russia's inexplicable situation to the press and public, served as the first deputy head of the presidential administration from the fall of 1998 to May 1999, when he resigned to join Alfa Bank.

Before that, he was vice prime minister from 1997 to 1998 and head of the administration of the city of Samara from 1992 to 1997.

Over the years, Sysuyev nurtured close ties to Russia's liberal reformers but refused to join Pravoe Delo, the party led by Boris Nemtsov and Irina Khakamada. When he resigned, he said, he was leaving politics behind for good.

Now, the 46-year-old is in charge of regional programs for Alfa Bank, one of the few to come out of Russia's financial collapse relatively unscathed. In his scant spare time, he discussed his views on his old profession with The Russia Journal.

RJ: After several months in banking, do you think business is still alive in this country?

OS: I can only speak for Alfa. We're developing a regional network - that's something new for us. We have a credit of $41 million from ARCO (the Agency for Restructuring Credit Organizations) and we already have 21 branches now.

RJ: Has the crisis made clear who was doing real business and who was not?

OS: I don't think so. It will only happen after power changes hands and new people emerge.

RJ: How do you see things developing?

OS: I think we'll see a period where things will be clear, but not particularly liberal - a stagnant but predictable time. Stability is what we haven't been able to provide. I don't think that business will grow very actively during this time, but neither will there be any serious downturn.

RJ: Do you mean there will be a centrist victory in the elections?

OS: It looks that way. They're united, they've got their backers in the political elite and among the governors. It's a case of power for those already in power.

RJ: And who will the Kremlin support, overtly or covertly?

OS: I don't know. [President Boris] Yeltsin named [Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin his successor, but Putin would only stand a chance if he has the backing of at least one political party or group. Perhaps he's right not to get involved in the fight for the parliament, but it's hard to say who will back him. The problem is that the Kremlin should have been preparing long ago for a civilized hand-over of power rather than just naming a successor, but it missed its chance. A calm transfer of power, with an honorable, maybe even very honorable pension for the president and some guarantees for his family's peace and quiet, is not even so important for them as it is for the state. It would be a way for us to demonstrate that we do merit a place among the world's civilized countries.

RJ: But could Yeltsin still find a way to ensure a peaceful change of power?

OS: I like to believe that he could still do it. But someone with his character, in power for a long time, doesn't always make the best decisions.

RJ: Putin's designation as official successor could be interpreted in two ways. Either it will put an end to his future career, or, with the resources he could mobilize, he could become president.

OS: Yes, people in Russia love authority. They complain about it, but bow down before it at the same time. And Putin is a competent man. His statements show that.

RJ: But he lacks charisma, he admits it himself.

OS: I don't agree. I think there was a point when he was reluctant, but people say that has changed. Anyone who has become prime minister starts to think that, who knows...

RJ: He could become president?

OS: I don't see in Putin the burning ambition to become president that [former Prime Minister Sergei] Stepashin had. Then there's the question of who would support him. The teams have been formed, and Putin is on the sidelines. Some kind of realignment will probably take place.

RJ: Maybe Putin's seeming reluctance is just the mask that as a professional intelligence officer, he knows how to wear.

OS: Yes, one person put it to me in exactly those same words.

RJ: Looking at the other most talked-about candidates, [former Prime Minister Yevgeny] Primakov, Stepashin, they're also linked to the intelligence services. Is that a sign of the times or just coincidence?

OS: A sign of the times. People want order, like in [former Premier Yury] Andropov's day.

RJ: One PR specialist suggested that Putin capitalize on Andropov's image. Do you think that's a good tactic?

OS: People want it, and if he could back it up with action, he could become very popular.

RJ: Turning to the parliamentary elections, what do you think of the right wingers' efforts to woo the younger electorate with concerts and so on?

OS: The young people want beer, or to hug [Boris] Nemtsov. But they don't want to go and vote on a Sunday. They don't see a threat. In 1996, it was communists or non-communists. Now, we've made progress, we've got several serious political forces contesting the election, and no communist threat.

RJ: But some say that Primakov could usher in an authoritarian regime, link up with the Communists.

OS: I put that question repeatedly to Alexander Yakovlev, who is a friend of Primakov's. "Absolutely no way," he said. But a lot of undoubtedly educated people support Primakov because they think if they're close to him, they'll be close to power and nothing will happen to them.

RJ: But you see no return to a totalitarian regime?

OS: It can't be ruled out that a Chinese-style scenario would suit these people. But, you can't forget that [Moscow Mayor] Yury Luzhkov, for example, has a personal stake in protecting the concept of private property. Of course, some people want private property only for themselves and their entourage. But I think they [the centrists] have some people like [Sergei] Yastrzhembsky, [Alexander] Zhukov and [Georgy] Boos who are very committed to making progress. That dilutes things a bit, they have their own internal problems.

RJ: Don't you think that any internal dissent they have could be just snuffed out by their leader?

OS: No, Primakov knows how to get consultation going. Yeltsin, he makes the decisions, Primakov seeks advice. He changed for the better while prime minister, and that's at his age. At first, he was talking about freeing up 90,000 prison cells for economic criminals. Five months later, in Vladikavkaz, he said "I spoke with a clever person, my friend [arbitration court judge] Yakovlev, and he has the right view. He says that businessmen aren't thieves, just clever people who know how to use the loopholes in the law."

RJ: So Primakov is not someone likely to make impulsive decisions, and if he's part of a team, he'll work with that team.

OS: On the whole, yes. But he would want the hierarchy to be respected. I'm not sure that Yury Luzhkov understands this. I was told how on one occasion, Primakov had to wait 40 minutes for Luzhkov to turn up so things could begin. I don't imagine he much appreciated this. But Luzhkov can be like that. His speeches are always lengthy, "a short 40 minute speech," on any subject. Culture? Certainly. Education? Why not. Domestic goods production? Of course.

RJ: The West had its doubts about Luzhkov. Will his teaming up with Primakov win him some more support in the West?

OS: The West needs a Russia that won't cause them any problems. They take a pragmatic approach. It's no coincidence that China is communist but stable and gets more investment than we do. They value predictability. It's also important to them who we're friends with. If our friends are Iraq and Syria, that's one thing. If we really do believe in a multi-polar world, that's another. A lot will depend on how Primakov and Luzhkov behave and on who, among their team, gets the upper hand, younger figures like Yastrzhembsky, or others.

RJ: Who will Russian business support?

OS: Russian business has become like Western business in that it takes a pragmatic approach to politics.

RJ: It will try and be with the winning side?

OS: Yes, and this is what makes the situation different from 1996. We've worked out that we can live with almost anyone, except the communists. It seems to me that after the failure of the impeachment vote, the Communists are a spent force. They have little hope of returning to power.