Through a glass, darkly
February 16, 2015 12:47 PM Subscribe
The Atlantic has published a thoughtful piece on Vladimir Putin co-authored by a Director and a Senior Fellow of the Brookings Institution. Within they link Putin's Op-Ed in The New York Times from September 11, 2013, perhaps worth rumination now 18 months later.
Surely you mean the Russian soldiers in the Ukraine on holiday that have nothing whatsoever to do with Russia?
posted by Sangermaine at 1:04 PM on February 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Sangermaine at 1:04 PM on February 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
"The problem you Americans have in dealing with us is that you think you understand us, but you don't. You look at the Chinese and you think: 'They're not like us.' You look at us Russians, and you think, 'They’re like us.' But you're wrong. We are not like you.""Russia is a Sphinx. Rejoicing, grieving,
And drenched in black blood,
It gazes, gazes, gazes at you,
With hatred and with love!"
—Scythians, Alexander Blok.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:14 PM on February 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
"The problem you Americans have in dealing with us is that you think you understand us, but you don't. You look at the Chinese and you think: 'They're not like us.' You look at us Russians, and you think, 'They’re like us.' But you're wrong. We are not like you."—Vladimir "Pootie-Poot" Putin
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straight-forward and trustworthy—I was able to get a sense of his soul."—George "Dubya" Bush
"I looked into his eyes and I saw KGB."—Colin Powell
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:16 PM on February 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him very straight-forward and trustworthy—I was able to get a sense of his soul."—George "Dubya" Bush
"I looked into his eyes and I saw KGB."—Colin Powell
posted by Doktor Zed at 1:16 PM on February 16, 2015 [19 favorites]
No, Vlad, you say you're not like us, but you personally seem to have more in common than you think with a lot of past and future American Presidential candidates. And THAT is what's scary.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:41 PM on February 16, 2015
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:41 PM on February 16, 2015
I'm no Putinologist but this piece seems to willfully misinterpret a great deal of Putin's actions, mainly by failing to interpret them. (This begins, somewhat irrelevantly, with the authors' use of the phrase "accomplished facts" when Putin clearly means: faits accomplis). Above all, Hill and Gaddy seem just incredibly tone deaf in this passage:
This kind of weak-sauce critical reading of Putin happens throughout the piece. Take the 2013 op-ed against Syrian intervention. Sure, American unilateralism and military intervention are disasters, and intervention in Syria would be (will be!) a nightmare. Yes, we should use the UN. But why no mention of the fact that Russia has a vested interest in the Assad regime (hardly a democracy!), which it has long given support to? And given the bald hypocrisy of the piece, in light of Putin's unilateral assault on Georgia and his current, old-fashioned landgrab in Ukraine, none of which were brought up at the Security Council, shouldn't the piece be interpreted as the diplomatic legerdemain that it is, rather than some sort of expression of Putin's real attitude. I mean, jesus, listen to this:
I don't know that I've ever read a less enlightening or insightful piece on Putin.
posted by dis_integration at 2:45 PM on February 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
After the invasion of Iraq, and the U.S. failure to find any WMD, a comment attributed to Putin was passed around European diplomatic circles: "Pit about the WMD. I would have found some." In other words, the U.S. intelligence services and government were beyond incompetent--if you're going to use a pretext, do your homework; make sure it's a good one.The incompetence hinted at here is not "make sure you do your homework and there really are WMDs", but rather: if you say there are WMDs, make sure you fabricate sufficient evidence and get your propaganda right. You better come out of there with WMDs whether Hussein had them or not. American incompetence here was a failure of spycraft (and it's always something baffling to me: why didn't Bush plant some evidence? Did he flinch at that, but not flinch at fucking torture?).
This kind of weak-sauce critical reading of Putin happens throughout the piece. Take the 2013 op-ed against Syrian intervention. Sure, American unilateralism and military intervention are disasters, and intervention in Syria would be (will be!) a nightmare. Yes, we should use the UN. But why no mention of the fact that Russia has a vested interest in the Assad regime (hardly a democracy!), which it has long given support to? And given the bald hypocrisy of the piece, in light of Putin's unilateral assault on Georgia and his current, old-fashioned landgrab in Ukraine, none of which were brought up at the Security Council, shouldn't the piece be interpreted as the diplomatic legerdemain that it is, rather than some sort of expression of Putin's real attitude. I mean, jesus, listen to this:
We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.Putin's mode of civilized diplomacy is to agree to a ceasefire while ramping up the shelling. If he argues against intervention, it's because war would be harmful to his interests. He doesn't give a fuck about anything else. The guy makes Bush look like fucking Jimmy Carter. Ugh.
I don't know that I've ever read a less enlightening or insightful piece on Putin.
posted by dis_integration at 2:45 PM on February 16, 2015 [13 favorites]
(and it's always something baffling to me: why didn't Bush plant some evidence? Did he flinch at that, but not flinch at fucking torture?).
Because it wasn't lies, it was bullshit in the formal sense. Once GWB and repubs had what they wanted, they just didn't give a shit about the truth value of WMDs in Iraq - they never did.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:10 PM on February 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
Because it wasn't lies, it was bullshit in the formal sense. Once GWB and repubs had what they wanted, they just didn't give a shit about the truth value of WMDs in Iraq - they never did.
posted by Meatbomb at 3:10 PM on February 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
(and it's always something baffling to me: why didn't Bush plant some evidence? Did he flinch at that, but not flinch at fucking torture?).
That whole thing really cured me of my lingering attachment to the occasional conspiracy theory. The White House either wouldn't plant evidence, or couldn't– either actively making up lies was morally unpalatable, or they knew that some conspirator would eventually leak. And if Dick fucking Cheney wouldn't do it, no one would.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 4:21 PM on February 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
That whole thing really cured me of my lingering attachment to the occasional conspiracy theory. The White House either wouldn't plant evidence, or couldn't– either actively making up lies was morally unpalatable, or they knew that some conspirator would eventually leak. And if Dick fucking Cheney wouldn't do it, no one would.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 4:21 PM on February 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
There was also A LOT of skeptical media coverage and attention focused on the issue of WMDs in Iraq at the time--far more skepticism and scrutiny than there had ever been in the run up to the war. As I remember it, by that time the political winds had shifted so much no one was just willing to toe the administration line without questioning it anymore.
posted by saulgoodman at 4:44 PM on February 16, 2015
posted by saulgoodman at 4:44 PM on February 16, 2015
What can we say that we really know about him? From all appearances he drafted a cease fire agreement that was designed to fail, knowing full well that Ukranian troops in Debaltseve will continue fighting rather than die. As I type this... shells keep falling. In less than 24 hours it can be said to be an unequivocal failure by NATO and hawks in the American Congress will be screaming to send hardware from Germany to Kiev...
I don't think that most people on this planet realize just how close we are to really fucking up... for the last time.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:47 PM on February 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
I don't think that most people on this planet realize just how close we are to really fucking up... for the last time.
posted by PROD_TPSL at 5:47 PM on February 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
(and it's always something baffling to me: why didn't Bush plant some evidence? Did he flinch at that, but not flinch at fucking torture?)
You would be surprised and appalled at how many people -- actual intelligent human beings, experienced in the ways of weapons, diplomacy, military affairs, and many other fields of endeavor -- really did believe in 2003 that Iraq had an active and functional WMD program if not actual WMDs, and that such a program could produce WMDs within a few years if Saddam Hussein was left to his own devices.
posted by Etrigan at 6:10 PM on February 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
You would be surprised and appalled at how many people -- actual intelligent human beings, experienced in the ways of weapons, diplomacy, military affairs, and many other fields of endeavor -- really did believe in 2003 that Iraq had an active and functional WMD program if not actual WMDs, and that such a program could produce WMDs within a few years if Saddam Hussein was left to his own devices.
posted by Etrigan at 6:10 PM on February 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Has he followed his own advice—or does he assume Americans, including President Obama, will act and react as he would? Does he even care about how Americans think, what their motives and values are, how their system works? What does Vladimir Putin actually know about the U.S. and about Americans? As it turns out, very little."
I know very little about Putin, but he seems to understand us well enough. America supports economic development, but tends to invade or isolate countries when their economic development ignores U.S. companies. Putin wants American capitalism without America. Why is there no discussion in the article of Putin promoting the pro-Russia Eurasian Economic Union? Why is there no discussion of the fact that he was willing to intimidate Moldova and Georgia in his attempts to achieve this goal?
"U.S. businesses that moved into St. Petersburg had to deal directly with Deputy Mayor Putin who, according to John Evans, the U.S. consul general in St. Petersburg at the time, was always helpful in resolving contract disputes between U.S. and Russian businesses. Within the city’s U.S. and Western business community, Putin was seen as “pro-business.” He gave no impression whatsoever of any anti-American or anti-Western views."
Is this true? If it is, it would seem consistent with Putin's behavior so far.
Like many governments with lots of natural resources, Russia has found it much more tempting to allow corruption in its natural resource extraction, instead of rushing into legal reforms and deep investment in human capital(education). One thing that countries like Japan and Israel had in common is that their economies modernized so well in part because their relatively poor natural resources did not give them this option. For a while, Russia's attempts to shake down other countries with its gas pipelines were as predictable as the cold every winter, with Ukraine more than anyone else.
One of the main differences between the post WW2 era and earlier history, is that the global economy has finally reached a place where wealthy/large countries will usually profit more from international trade with a particular country, than from invading that same country, collecting its taxes and then using those taxes to finance even more land acquisition. Putin may not understand this, but I think it's more likely that he does understand.
When the Ukraine controversy first started last spring, I distinctly remember someone tweeting that Russia's economy was only 10% larger than Canada's. That the former center of the USSR's economy had contracted so much blew my mind. As of now, Russia's economy may be even smaller than Canada's. From my perspective, it's unlikely that Putin would do all this and endure economic sanctions unless he thought it would make the Russian economy better off in the long run.
If I had to guess, I would say that Putin wants to grow Russia through capitalism, but in a form that leaves Russia highly resistant to U.S. / Nato military action, and with a free trade bloc that can ignore American companies whenever it wants. Of course, he has firmly demonstrated that he is willing to commit as many human rights violations as necessary to achieve this goal.
For very different reasons than Greece, Russia has seen the America/EU economic axis and wants a better deal. A deal where Russia is the unquestioned leader.
posted by IShouldBeStudyingRightNow at 6:59 PM on February 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
I know very little about Putin, but he seems to understand us well enough. America supports economic development, but tends to invade or isolate countries when their economic development ignores U.S. companies. Putin wants American capitalism without America. Why is there no discussion in the article of Putin promoting the pro-Russia Eurasian Economic Union? Why is there no discussion of the fact that he was willing to intimidate Moldova and Georgia in his attempts to achieve this goal?
"U.S. businesses that moved into St. Petersburg had to deal directly with Deputy Mayor Putin who, according to John Evans, the U.S. consul general in St. Petersburg at the time, was always helpful in resolving contract disputes between U.S. and Russian businesses. Within the city’s U.S. and Western business community, Putin was seen as “pro-business.” He gave no impression whatsoever of any anti-American or anti-Western views."
Is this true? If it is, it would seem consistent with Putin's behavior so far.
Like many governments with lots of natural resources, Russia has found it much more tempting to allow corruption in its natural resource extraction, instead of rushing into legal reforms and deep investment in human capital(education). One thing that countries like Japan and Israel had in common is that their economies modernized so well in part because their relatively poor natural resources did not give them this option. For a while, Russia's attempts to shake down other countries with its gas pipelines were as predictable as the cold every winter, with Ukraine more than anyone else.
One of the main differences between the post WW2 era and earlier history, is that the global economy has finally reached a place where wealthy/large countries will usually profit more from international trade with a particular country, than from invading that same country, collecting its taxes and then using those taxes to finance even more land acquisition. Putin may not understand this, but I think it's more likely that he does understand.
When the Ukraine controversy first started last spring, I distinctly remember someone tweeting that Russia's economy was only 10% larger than Canada's. That the former center of the USSR's economy had contracted so much blew my mind. As of now, Russia's economy may be even smaller than Canada's. From my perspective, it's unlikely that Putin would do all this and endure economic sanctions unless he thought it would make the Russian economy better off in the long run.
If I had to guess, I would say that Putin wants to grow Russia through capitalism, but in a form that leaves Russia highly resistant to U.S. / Nato military action, and with a free trade bloc that can ignore American companies whenever it wants. Of course, he has firmly demonstrated that he is willing to commit as many human rights violations as necessary to achieve this goal.
For very different reasons than Greece, Russia has seen the America/EU economic axis and wants a better deal. A deal where Russia is the unquestioned leader.
posted by IShouldBeStudyingRightNow at 6:59 PM on February 16, 2015 [5 favorites]
One thing I thought was odd about the Atlantic article:
From the linked article
The article also glosses over what Putin was (supposedly) doing in East Germany. From Putin's Wikipedia page (citations on the linked page)
posted by chambers at 8:29 PM on February 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
He was too low in the KGB rankings to have much interaction with any top-level espionage targets, which would have included Americans. Until he came back from Dresden in 1990 and began working for the mayor of St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin may have never met an American in any personal context.This photo seems to contradict this at least a bit. At the time this photo was released, there was some debate about whether it actually is Putin meeting Reagan in that photo, but as I understand it, other than the standard denials from Moscow and some questions about the thickness of his hair, the general consensus is that it is him.
From the linked article
Reagan (and now Obama) White House photographer Pete Souza, who took the photo, recalled in a 2012 interview on NPR that “there were these differrent groups of quote- unquote tourists” in Red Square who kept asking Reagan about “human rights in the United States.”This one photo does not mean Putin was extremely familiar with Americans, but it seems unlikely that the KGB would just throw anybody they could find just sitting around at the KGB office for such an occasion.
Souza said he asked a Secret Service agent how “how these tourists in the Soviet Union are asking these pointed questions.” The agent answered: ” Oh, these are all KGB families.”
The article also glosses over what Putin was (supposedly) doing in East Germany. From Putin's Wikipedia page (citations on the linked page)
From 1985 to 1990, the KGB stationed Putin in Dresden, East Germany.[38] During that time, Putin was assigned to Directorate S, the illegal intelligence-gathering unit (the KGB's classification for agents who used falsified identities) where he was given cover as a translator and interpreter.[39] One of Putin's jobs was to coordinate efforts with the Stasi to track down and recruit foreigners in Dresden, usually those who were enrolled at the Dresden University of Technology, in the hopes of sending them undercover in the United States.It seems logical that one in such a position would be given at least a modicum of training and familiarity with westerners and their ways, especially in a department whose assigned duties require skills with knowing, understanding, manipulating, and exploiting various potential foreign assets.
posted by chambers at 8:29 PM on February 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
Re-reading Putin's NYTimes op-ed, two things jump out at me:
He was pretty dead-on about the situation Syria. Our press at the time was carrying nothing but images and stories of the Assad government's atrocities, and next to nothing about the extremism of some of the rebel factions. It was a little unsettling to see that, reminding me a lot of the press coverage of Iraq before the 2003 invasion.
Putin has obviously ignored his own advice about military intervention. That said, I wonder if in his mind intervention was permissible -- even demanded -- because the U.S. intervened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. He might have seen this as his final plea -- straight to the American people.
As for the WMDs, and why Bush didn't create false evidence? For one, I think he didn't care. It was his reason for invading; once he got that, I'm sure he and his cronies thought victory would erase all that from our memory.
But more importantly, I suspect they thought they would find WMDs in Iraq. I mean, after all, Donald Rumsfeld himself orchestrated the sale of chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. So they knew Hussein had them at one time.
Remember that old I-may-be-paranoid-but-that-doesn't-mean-they're-not-out-to-get-me line? I think that kind of fits here. Just because they made up evidence about WMDs in Iraq doesn't mean they didn't think there were any WMDs there.
Of course, they ignored the apparent evidence pre-war that there wasn't any WMD in Iraq. That interfered with what they already believed, and we know how reality is treated when it doesn't jibe with conservative belief.
posted by touchstone033 at 9:01 PM on February 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
He was pretty dead-on about the situation Syria. Our press at the time was carrying nothing but images and stories of the Assad government's atrocities, and next to nothing about the extremism of some of the rebel factions. It was a little unsettling to see that, reminding me a lot of the press coverage of Iraq before the 2003 invasion.
Putin has obviously ignored his own advice about military intervention. That said, I wonder if in his mind intervention was permissible -- even demanded -- because the U.S. intervened in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria. He might have seen this as his final plea -- straight to the American people.
As for the WMDs, and why Bush didn't create false evidence? For one, I think he didn't care. It was his reason for invading; once he got that, I'm sure he and his cronies thought victory would erase all that from our memory.
But more importantly, I suspect they thought they would find WMDs in Iraq. I mean, after all, Donald Rumsfeld himself orchestrated the sale of chemical weapons to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. So they knew Hussein had them at one time.
Remember that old I-may-be-paranoid-but-that-doesn't-mean-they're-not-out-to-get-me line? I think that kind of fits here. Just because they made up evidence about WMDs in Iraq doesn't mean they didn't think there were any WMDs there.
Of course, they ignored the apparent evidence pre-war that there wasn't any WMD in Iraq. That interfered with what they already believed, and we know how reality is treated when it doesn't jibe with conservative belief.
posted by touchstone033 at 9:01 PM on February 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Russian, and the Russians are definitely not like us. They have suffered so much in the last 100 years, outrageous losses, changes, all on an incredibly varied field of cultures. They are more brutally or elegantly pragmatic than we can get our heads around. While our senate and house try to nitpick women to death, wash industry's ass with sweet soap, bring them some burbon and do their nails; Russia is putting up with having the plug pulled on their economy, world scrutiny over their business as usual in the USSR (ex) treatment of the Ukraine. Russia is a close family that doesn't fight fair among themselves, but there is a loyalty bought by suffering, survival and a certain grace of survivorship. We do not understand them and our infantile, institutionalized, Sunday School posing in among the weapons collection makes us marks on the international stage. We don't even get it that we have no allies in the Middle East, we are just a permanently hacked ATM.
We have made some outrageous diplomatic errors with regard to Russia, and we seem to be more stuck in the cold war mentality than they are. This the recent return to mid twentieth century social ideals rather than the realities of current time, is not working out for the US. Just wait until all the homeland security folks go home because the house is having a temper tantrum. This stuff is incomprehensible to a pragmatist, but it is dinner on the table for our many enemies.
posted by Oyéah at 9:25 PM on February 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
We have made some outrageous diplomatic errors with regard to Russia, and we seem to be more stuck in the cold war mentality than they are. This the recent return to mid twentieth century social ideals rather than the realities of current time, is not working out for the US. Just wait until all the homeland security folks go home because the house is having a temper tantrum. This stuff is incomprehensible to a pragmatist, but it is dinner on the table for our many enemies.
posted by Oyéah at 9:25 PM on February 16, 2015 [2 favorites]
the general consensus is that it is him.
I don't know that there is a "consensus" beyond "possibly".
There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical beyond thickness of hair (his was thinning at an early age). Putin's height is at most 5'7" and he's usually been the shorty at summits (even more so on video because of his natural somewhat introverted posture). The guy in that photo looks more average in height, although it's hard to be certain with Reagan leaning in like that. The boy is definitely not his; he has only daughters, and it would be tricky to scare up on short notice a 13-year-old who could convincingly play that part. Much easier to use a trusted operative and his real son. Cheekbones and ear look closer to me now than at last review (I found a very recent photo with a similar profile to compare), but the real question is why they would bring in someone from Dresden, which was hardly a glamorous posting (and his tenure there does not suggest a comer, either, one of the many mysteries about the man). Meanwhile there are thousands of KGB operatives in and around Moscow as a matter of course. Finally, at this late date, what reason would exist for concealing this minor legerdemain? He's never concealed his past in the KGB. I think this is looking for a zebra instead of a horse, myself. Bottom line: although suggestive, I don't think it's in any way certain enough to draw broad conclusions from.
As to omissions from this article, it seems clear that the magazine excerpt was trimmed to focus on his experience with and views on Americans, not so much the Eurasian culture stuff. No doubt the book goes into such things.
A deal where Russia is the unquestioned leader.
That may be projection. At the very least, Russia views itself as one axis in a multipolar world, something that is difficult for Americans to conceive. The philosophical issue is primarily one of whether Russia exercises a geographic sphere of influence. In a lot of ways the US does, to be sure, but it's carefully buried in a stack of international protocols.
I personally think that Russia, or at least Putin, has found that while it cannot exercise superpower latitude of influence, it can manipulate events at a level that at least acts as a kind of spoiler, for better or worse, and they hit that lever as often as they can. This can be infuriating to those in, say, Washington, who are trying to lay plans one way or the other. This cunning, as a replacement for actual might and power, has served them quite well, energizing pro-Russian partisanship in the former USSR and allowing operations like Crimea to be pulled off.
But in a lot of ways it's not so much that our worldview is at odds, it's that we're running into real conflicts within pre-existing worldviews.
posted by dhartung at 10:37 PM on February 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know that there is a "consensus" beyond "possibly".
There are a lot of reasons to be skeptical beyond thickness of hair (his was thinning at an early age). Putin's height is at most 5'7" and he's usually been the shorty at summits (even more so on video because of his natural somewhat introverted posture). The guy in that photo looks more average in height, although it's hard to be certain with Reagan leaning in like that. The boy is definitely not his; he has only daughters, and it would be tricky to scare up on short notice a 13-year-old who could convincingly play that part. Much easier to use a trusted operative and his real son. Cheekbones and ear look closer to me now than at last review (I found a very recent photo with a similar profile to compare), but the real question is why they would bring in someone from Dresden, which was hardly a glamorous posting (and his tenure there does not suggest a comer, either, one of the many mysteries about the man). Meanwhile there are thousands of KGB operatives in and around Moscow as a matter of course. Finally, at this late date, what reason would exist for concealing this minor legerdemain? He's never concealed his past in the KGB. I think this is looking for a zebra instead of a horse, myself. Bottom line: although suggestive, I don't think it's in any way certain enough to draw broad conclusions from.
As to omissions from this article, it seems clear that the magazine excerpt was trimmed to focus on his experience with and views on Americans, not so much the Eurasian culture stuff. No doubt the book goes into such things.
A deal where Russia is the unquestioned leader.
That may be projection. At the very least, Russia views itself as one axis in a multipolar world, something that is difficult for Americans to conceive. The philosophical issue is primarily one of whether Russia exercises a geographic sphere of influence. In a lot of ways the US does, to be sure, but it's carefully buried in a stack of international protocols.
I personally think that Russia, or at least Putin, has found that while it cannot exercise superpower latitude of influence, it can manipulate events at a level that at least acts as a kind of spoiler, for better or worse, and they hit that lever as often as they can. This can be infuriating to those in, say, Washington, who are trying to lay plans one way or the other. This cunning, as a replacement for actual might and power, has served them quite well, energizing pro-Russian partisanship in the former USSR and allowing operations like Crimea to be pulled off.
But in a lot of ways it's not so much that our worldview is at odds, it's that we're running into real conflicts within pre-existing worldviews.
posted by dhartung at 10:37 PM on February 16, 2015 [1 favorite]
Dhartung, you have good points about why the photo is still questionable. I probably did present that as something stronger than it is, but as I read that article I couldn't help seeing that picture again and again and just kept thinking about all the stuff we don't know about his past.
No doubt the book goes into such things.
Ah, I missed the line at the end where it said it was an adapted excerpt from their book. That explains why the structure of the article felt odd to me.
He's never concealed his past in the KGB.
True, but there are only a few bits of information about his time in Dresden. A few articles I found have been interesting, though. This article goes into how the events that happened in Germany during his time there may have had a significant effect on Putin. He is also referenced several times in recovered and released Stasi files that give a few more clues to his role there.
Stanislav Lunev (born 1946 in Leningrad) is a former Soviet military officer, the highest-ranking GRU officer to defect from Russia to the United States, and AFIK still in the witness protection program. He believes(around page 15) that Putin was punished for something that went wrong in Dresden, and after several months of empty space, he was moved from intelligence to counterintelligence (apparently considered a demotion), and then moved from active to reserve, and sent to Leningrad University. Lunev makes some other, weirder claims about what else the USSR was up to that make most of what he says to be taken with a grain of salt. In this particular case, though, when you look at the reference in the Stasi files link about a spy ring collapse just before he is recalled from Dresden, it seems to fit the pattern of intelligence failures - on one hand he's given an award but then left in limbo for months, then reassigned to a 'lesser' position, then shuffled out (at least on paper) and sent to a University.
In many ways I think his time in the late 80s and early 90s is far more important to understanding just what makes the guy tick than his level of interaction with Americans specifically. Chess has often been called the national pastime of Russia, and while Putin and chess have often been referenced together, it's an oversimplification, as Putin's chess game is the KGB version, which has all sorts of mutable rules, invisible pieces, and extra players. He appears very good at planning and strategics, but he does seem to be slightly less skillful with correctly evaluating his opponents and adapting his plans to the situation once they are in motion, and overestimating his own position. This seems to fit with the mindset of a former intelligence operative that now handles a wider scope and longer time frame - skillful and talented in smaller, isolated operations, but struggling at times with the big picture in the long term - not unlike how the skills, perspective, and understanding that make a great army Captain or Lieutenant on the battlefield are different from the skills that make a great General. That's just my armchair take on it though.
posted by chambers at 9:39 AM on February 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
No doubt the book goes into such things.
Ah, I missed the line at the end where it said it was an adapted excerpt from their book. That explains why the structure of the article felt odd to me.
He's never concealed his past in the KGB.
True, but there are only a few bits of information about his time in Dresden. A few articles I found have been interesting, though. This article goes into how the events that happened in Germany during his time there may have had a significant effect on Putin. He is also referenced several times in recovered and released Stasi files that give a few more clues to his role there.
Stanislav Lunev (born 1946 in Leningrad) is a former Soviet military officer, the highest-ranking GRU officer to defect from Russia to the United States, and AFIK still in the witness protection program. He believes(around page 15) that Putin was punished for something that went wrong in Dresden, and after several months of empty space, he was moved from intelligence to counterintelligence (apparently considered a demotion), and then moved from active to reserve, and sent to Leningrad University. Lunev makes some other, weirder claims about what else the USSR was up to that make most of what he says to be taken with a grain of salt. In this particular case, though, when you look at the reference in the Stasi files link about a spy ring collapse just before he is recalled from Dresden, it seems to fit the pattern of intelligence failures - on one hand he's given an award but then left in limbo for months, then reassigned to a 'lesser' position, then shuffled out (at least on paper) and sent to a University.
In many ways I think his time in the late 80s and early 90s is far more important to understanding just what makes the guy tick than his level of interaction with Americans specifically. Chess has often been called the national pastime of Russia, and while Putin and chess have often been referenced together, it's an oversimplification, as Putin's chess game is the KGB version, which has all sorts of mutable rules, invisible pieces, and extra players. He appears very good at planning and strategics, but he does seem to be slightly less skillful with correctly evaluating his opponents and adapting his plans to the situation once they are in motion, and overestimating his own position. This seems to fit with the mindset of a former intelligence operative that now handles a wider scope and longer time frame - skillful and talented in smaller, isolated operations, but struggling at times with the big picture in the long term - not unlike how the skills, perspective, and understanding that make a great army Captain or Lieutenant on the battlefield are different from the skills that make a great General. That's just my armchair take on it though.
posted by chambers at 9:39 AM on February 17, 2015 [2 favorites]
"Under the Soviets, all senior ROC appointments were subject to Chekist review, while nobody became a bishop without the KGB having some kompromat on him. This was understood by all, including the fact that a distressing number of ROC senior clerics were actual KGB agents. It’s not surprising that Putin omits from his CV that he worked for a time in the KGB’s Fifth Directorate, which supervised religious bodies, leading some to speculate that Putin’s relationship with certain ROC bishops extends deep into the late Soviet period."
http://20committee.com/2014/12/27/putins-orthodox-jihad/
posted by dragonsi55 at 4:37 AM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
http://20committee.com/2014/12/27/putins-orthodox-jihad/
posted by dragonsi55 at 4:37 AM on February 18, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older Huey Lewis Gets His Revenge | Boom Bap Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Putin to himself: "Seriously, that faceless mercenary thing? Fucking genius. I'm going to write this one down for later."
I sincerely hope that the Ukrainian war can be de-escalated and that Putin's new orc army gets bored and comes home to roost.
posted by Behemoth at 1:01 PM on February 16, 2015 [1 favorite]