Back in April 2010, Brian Whitmore of RFE/RL's The Power Vertical wrote this about Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov‘s complex relationship with the Kremlin: It's hard to imagine Moscow being run by anybody but Yury Luzhkov. But then again, it was hard to imagine Tatarstan being run by anybody other than Mintimer Shaimiyev — until, of course, somebody else was running it. […] There is little doubt in my mind that [PM Vladimir Putin] and [President Dmitry Medvedev] would like to remove Luzhkov, who has been able to operate as a more-or-less independent player in the capital for nearly two decades — annoying three successive presidents in the process. The problem is that while Medvedev could get rid or Luzhkov with the stroke of a pen, replacing him could literally become a bloody mess. The struggle for control of post-Luzhkov Moscow would likely descend into a vicious struggle among Kremlin factions for control of the economically lucrative capital. It could be the mother of all Kremlin clan wars, which is surely giving Putin and Medvedev pause. It took about five months for Luzhkov to be “[relieved] of his duties as Moscow Mayor ahead of term” – by President Medvedev's Sept. 28 “executive order” – “in connection with the Russian President’s loss of confidence in him.” The subsequent discussion on the English-language Russia blogs focused as much on Putin and Medvedev (and their complex pre-election relationship) as on Luzhkov himself (and the future of his wife‘s business). As Streetwise Professor wrote, “Kremlinology is back in vogue”: […] You could argue that Medvedev and Putin are sufficiently confident in the stability of the country that it could withstand the messiness inherent in a transition to a new equilibrium. You could argue the reverse, that the political condition in the country is so fraught that Medvedev, or Medvedev and Putin, determined that extraordinary measures were required, even knowing that the immediate consequences bear their own risks for the system. You could argue that this is a unilateral political strike by Medvedev. Or you could argue the reverse yet again, that it is the result of an agreement between Putin and Medvedev. In fact, I’ve seen people argue all of the above. Given the information at hand, the best we can do is advance hypotheses, and be sure to keep in mind that they are just that. It is very difficult to know exactly what is going on under the rug: what the dogs are fighting over, how the fight started, who is winning. […] Julia Ioffe wrote this in her Foreign Policy piece: […] Most voices have been praising Medvedev for proving his independence from Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the man thought to be the real decider in this town. The theory goes that Medvedev wanted Luzhkov out but Putin wanted him to stay, causing a split behind the scenes. The fact that Luzhkov was fired, according to this school of thought, indicated that Medvedev won and Putin lost. […] But that explanation makes little sense […]. […] Instead, Putin determined that Luzhkov needed to go and sent in Medvedev to do the dirty work, a move that not only knocks out a powerful rival but leaves his hands unsoiled in what has become a bloody fight. […] A Good Treaty responded to Ioffe's arguments: […] Ms. Ioffe’s central thesis is that firing Luzhkov does nothing to boost the power of President Medvedev, and that the entire bonanza was the “dirty work” of Vladimir Putin. She argues that people are wrong to say that Medvedev won and Putin lost. […] This is a scarecrow argument insofar as it assumes the relationship between the tandem partners is a zero sum game. Characterizing this interplay as a win/lose scenario forgets the fact that Vladimir Putin himself gave Medvedev his biggest credibility boost of all by promoting him as his successor. […] The reelection of Medvedev, while far from predetermined, is a very real option under Putin’s consideration. That being reality, it’s over-simplistic if not foolish to dismiss the growth of President Medvedev’s influence on the grounds that it assumes his every advance comes at the expense of the Prime Minister. Medvedev’s gain is Putin’s gain, as it adds credibility to the tandem’s junior partner and preserves the choice ahead for 2012. […] Whitmore wrote this on The Power Vertical: […] Luzhkov's removal was not, as some media have reported, a sign of a split in the ruling tandem. And it was most certainly not, at least as far as I can see, a “victory” for President Dmitry Medvedev over Prime Minister (and national leader) Vladimir Putin. It seems pretty clear at this point that Putin was on board with the decision to sack the Moscow mayor. […] The Ivanov Report wrote: […] [Luzhkov] picked a fight he could not win, and he did not.