ABSTRACT
In political science terms the debate and struggle over defining security and the security environment amounts to a struggle for the authoritative allocation of both material and immaterial values. Because scholars continue to argue about the definition and scope of the term security as applied to a state, inevitably it will remain a contested concept among practical politicians. In the Russian debate, those who can define the nature and scope of security, which issues are to be securitised, gain a large advantage over their rivals in defining the states policy and structure and in obtaining tangible and intangible political resources with which to enrich their constituents and carry out their missions. From today's vantage point in 2010, it appears that despite Medvedev's elevation to the presidency, Yuri Baluevsky and Anatoly Chubais have lost the battle to define the threat assessment and the ensuing policy requirements to ensure Russian security that it dictates.
