Maybe they are soulmates

So, I'm reading this column by Aleksandr Arkhangelsky (Izvestiya columnist) called "Стреляли в Политковскую, целили в Путина, попали в нас" (Strelyali v Politkovskuyu, tselili v Putina, popali v nas - They shot at Politkovskaya, aimed at Putin, hit us). It's a column about the Politikovskaya assasination, or rather about the question we should be asking: not why she was killed, but rather what for - not the reason, but the motive, the gain, the goal ...

Once we've asked that, Arkhangelsky says, several scenarios can be ruled out (Kadyrov, Berezovsky, some crazy ultranationalist). No, what we have to ask is - no, not the classic "cui bono? who benefits?" but rather "who loses the most?"

And the answer, Arkhangelsky says, is Putin.

Попробуем зайти в проблему с другой стороны. Кто в данном случае проиграл больше всех - и почему? Если не брать в расчет близких и друзей (а кто же их, бедных, берет в расчет; тут ведь, дорогие мои, политика), то главный проигравший - гарант конституции. Не только и не столько потому, что на Западе ему будет объясняться еще сложнее. Не только и не столько потому, что будущая энциклопедическая статья о его правлении, внешне фантастически успешном, будет подпорчена еще одной мрачной строкой. Но прежде всего потому, что кто-то незримый напомнил главе государства, что все решения контролировать невозможно даже при рейтинге 70 процентов; что его мечта об уходе в 2008 году на вершине успеха и славы находится под постоянной угрозой, поскольку тонкий покров стабильности, накинутый им на Россию, все равно что тонкая корка льда над незамерзающим болотом. И поскольку есть внутренние силы, способные послать черный подарок ко дню рождения человеку, облеченному почти царской властью: не будем забывать, что Политковскую убили в день рождения Путина.

Let's try approaching the problem from the other side. Who, in this case, has lost more than anyone else - and why? If you don't consider the friends and relatives (and who does consider them, those unfortunates; this, my friends, is, after all, politics), then the biggest loser is the guarantor of the constitution. This not only and not so much because in the West it will be more difficult for him to explain things; and not only and so much because the future encyclopedia entry about his administration, outwardly fantastically successful, will be spoiled by yet another dark paragraph. No - it is most of all because some unseen person has reminded the head of state that it is impossible to control all things even with an approval rating of 70%; that his dream of leaving in 2008 at the height of success and praise is under constant threat, as the thin cover of stability which he has thrown over Russia is only as good as a crust of ice over a still unfrozen swamp. And because there are internal forces capable of sending a grim present for the birthday of a man who has almost tsar-like power: let us not forget that Politkovskaya was murdered on Putin's birthday.

Arkhangelsky goes on to say that if we must look for an analogy, then it isn't the murders of other crusading journalists such Listyev or Kholodov we should look at, but Father Men - a Russian Orthodox priest who was murdered in 1990. This murder, of a similarly not tremendously important person, was a precursor of bad events, including the 1991 coup which toppled the Soviet Union. He concludes by saying

Не буду развивать эту опасную мысль, но лично у меня никаких сомнений, что 7 октября 2006 года мы стали свидетелями стрельбы по скрытой цели сквозь явную мишень.

I won't develop this dangerous notion, but personally I have no doubts whatsoever that on the 7th of October 2006 what we witnessed was someone shooting at a hidden goal via a clear target.

It's an interesting column in many ways, but the thing that jumped out at me was that epithet - гарант конституции (garant konstitutsii), the guarantor of the constitution. From the context, not to mention the title, it was clearly meant to refer to Putin, but ... Well, I mean. Putin, guarantor of the constitution? Didn't sound much like Arkhangelsky, either, so I googled it. Goodness me - there are tens of thousands of hits on it. Seems to be a fairly well known epithet for the president - not just Putin, the presidency.

But really, who'd have thought it? Sounds like something our current president might dub himself, in fine Newspeak tradition.