Understanding Vladimir Putin, the man who fooled the world | Hacker News Reader

Understanding Vladimir Putin, the man who fooled the world

theguardian.com

8 pointsbelter12 comments

From the article: Looking back, however, it is clear that the outside world has consistently misread him. From the moment he took power, outsiders too often saw what they wanted and played down the darkest sides of Putinism.

People have preyed on hopes and dreams forever, at large and small scale. People see what they wish to see, which has been amply demonstrated in politics and other collective activities. Russia was supposed to be different, somebody European who could be dealt with. Err, no. Unfortunately, the eu is learning others share that approach and might be cuckoos in the nest.

“When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” ~Maya Angelou

I don't buy that the outside world misread Putin, at least that governments misread him.

The question is what they could and were willing to do. Political, geopolitical, and self-interests constraints meant that the answer has been "nothing or little". But it's easier to claim that he was "misread".

Mikhail Khodorkovsky, speaking about Putin's rise to power in the documentary Citizen K -

> "It seemed to me that, ideologically, he was one of our people. A man of our generation, who gets it, who wants to push Russia in the same direction that we want for it. That is towards openness, towards democracy.

Boy was I mistaken.

He's a very talented KGB guy. Very talented. You like leftists? Putin will behave around you in a way that you will be convinced that he's a leftist. You like nationalists? Putin is going to act around you in a way that you'll think that he's a bit of a nationalist. You like conservatives? Talk to him and you will get an impression that he's a conservative.

That's a talent."

I find this either delusional or disingenuous. Putin has been Putin forever. Remember that Khodorkovsky had a massive fallout with Putin and ended fleeing the country, he has a vested interest in painting himself in a certain way.

He’s also saying Putin hasn’t changed, and that he’s able to present himself as aligned with the listener. Makes sense as the best politicians can do this well.

I don't know what you find hard to believe in the idea that an ex-KGB man who has been an autocratic illiberal leader for over 20 years now, might just be quite manipulative and duplicitous in his diplomatic communications.

Because it has always been quite clear, and he has always been quite clear, about what he is about. And that's also not new for Russia.

Do you think the guys in Langley haven't known exactly what he is about all along?

Of course Khodorkovsky knew as well but now it's best for him to say he was played and is a victim.

Well, if they knew who and what he was, they could have avoided building their energy policy on Russian materials…

Where can you buy gas and oil? You have a good choice of dictatorships! The game is to try to control those dictatorships but that only works with small countries.

Uhh, you could use local sources that are “distasteful” rather than turning them off and subordinating yourself to countries you find out are distasteful…

On the contrary, Putin has been pretty clear in expounding his warnings to the West, and expounding Russia's wants and needs for fifteen years or more.

There was a famous speech in Munich in 2007, which was ignored by the West, as were all of those further communications up to and including the draft Security Treaty in November of last year.

Several times over the years, he has even said during his speeches "Are you listening to us now?". Of course the West never bothered to listen at all.

The West can't complain that Putin hasn't been keeping them 'in the loop'. But then the West has always suffered from NIH Syndrome.

No one paying attention is complaining. They didn't see exactly this exact sequence coming until it was all in motion, but they also aren't surprised. The people most surprised are: the businesses that invested so heavily in Russia, the people who swore that capitalism would have made Russia adopt democratic institutions, those who were convinced that Russia wanted to stop having unstable government and economy, and certainly the true believers of democracy who just aren't prepared, ever, to admit democracy didn't take hold and instead a kleptocracy sank its teeth into Russia, and the Russian people just shrugged rather than revolting.

What if the U.S. had changed policy, following the Munich speech? Announce Russia is becoming autocratic, expressing imperialistic aspirations, is directly contradicting its obligations under the UN Charter, Budapest memorandum and other treaties, and therefore is a major thread to world peace? What then? The U.S. would have been accused of thwarted Russia, trying to prevent it from finding its own path to global world order, and self-determinism. Certainly China and almost certainly India would have scoffed at what they would have seen is an overreaction. China and India right now can't even get on board with saying what Russia has done is wrong and should withdraw.

So instead the policy was to give everyone enough rope, and oh look they just hanged themselves.

A lot of these kinds of things just have to play out before anyone takes either ideas or the new reality seriously. Governments and businesses just aren't going to make big changes to policy because some policy wonks listened carefully to the speech of an envious leader of a 3rd rate power, and think he's going to make a major play for imperialism. They'd be laughed out of the room because it's that dangerous and chaotic to do it, not least of which it's bad for Russia so why do it?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com