The Kremlin remains tight-lipped about internal personnel matters, a stance echoed by Dmitry Peskov, the press secretary for the Russian president. He reiterated that the administration does not disclose details about appointments or resignations, and this policy applies to all levels of government, including regional authorities. In other words, the public and the media do not receive official timelines or confirmations regarding changes in personnel within the executive branch.
A report published on April 16 by Kommersant suggested that governors whose terms expire in 2024 are likely to seek reappointment or re-election, indicating continuity in regional leadership rather than a sweeping reshuffle before President Vladimir Putin’s next term. The newspaper framed this as a likely trend in the near term, though it did not present any formal Kremlin plan to extend or alter regional governance ahead of a potential transition.
Peskov reinforced the long-standing practice, saying, “These are questions we traditionally never answer; we never announce personnel processes, appointments or resignations. We will not do this now.” His comment underscored a preference for keeping strategic personnel decisions behind closed doors, a stance that has persisted through various political cycles and leadership updates.
According to Peskov, the president’s attention is currently absorbed with regional matters, noting that Putin is actively engaging with the governor’s office and handling the workload that accompanies governance across diverse areas. This emphasis on regional administration mirrors a broader view of governance that places substantial responsibility on regional leaders while maintaining the central role of the presidency.
In political discourse, some commentators have described politicians as “temporary workers,” a characterization that reflects the fluidity and temporariness often associated with political appointments, especially in systems where leadership changes can occur at multiple levels. This perspective highlights the ongoing balance between continuity in regional leadership and the potential for administrative reshuffles tied to national priorities and electoral timelines.
Overall, the public narrative remains one of restrained disclosure. The Kremlin’s approach to personnel matters signals a deliberate preference for preserving stability and avoiding premature confirmation of personnel trajectories, while still acknowledging the importance of regional governance in the broader political landscape. The dynamic between central decisions and regional autonomy continues to shape the readiness of regional leaders to respond to local needs while aligning with national policy objectives.