Understanding Vladimir Putin

Post Reply New Topic

Western analysts begrudgingly acknowledge that Vladimir Putin is popular in Russia, but attribute this to his supposed total control of domestic media. Without this grip on information, many of them seem to seriously believe that Alexey Navalny (or some other dissident leader crafted in their own image, such as Garry Kasparov) would sweep the country and transform it into a textbook representative democracy. Whether this judgment is rooted in stupidity, dishonesty, or mere naivety, is hard to say. Listening to Western outlets since the start of the war in Ukraine, it is hard not to think the West’s view of Russia’s media environment is a case of projection.

With few exceptions, mainstream American media uniformly believes that the Russian leader bears sole responsibility for the conflict. With no other issue before could one expect to hear precisely the same opinions from NPR and the screaming brand of conservative talk radio. The only difference is the tone: NPR‘s broadcasters rarely forget to take their valium, and so are less likely to yell into their microphones that Putin is “an evil dictator,” a “vicious tyrant” or simply “a butcher.” The propaganda is as vociferous as that directed against the “bloodthirsty” German “huns,” who were supposedly lifting Belgian children on their bayonets for sport in 1914.

Speaking of Germany, its press isn’t any better. On its nightly political talk shows, politicians across the spectrum have been overusing the term “Vernichtungskrieg” (war of annihilation), which is particularly lurid given that this word is generally applied to Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union and the Holocaust. It is hard to hear such hyperbole and not think the West is committed to waging war on Russia, and is prepared to say anything to bring it about.

With this background and skeptical attitude in mind, I sat down to watch Oliver Stone’s series of interviews with Putin recorded between 2015 and 2017. My aim was to escape the Western attitude of “it is always and forever September 1938,” and simply listen to what Putin had to say. Diplomacy, after all, used to be about what Robert Wright refers to as “cognitive empathy,” an effort to see the world from your counterpart’s perspective, recognize legitimate aims and objectives, and try to reach some sort of solution that avoids conflict. What follows is my own effort to understand aspects of the Russian narrative without immediately assuming bad faith at every turn.

What's to understand? He's an evil dictator with expansionist desires who made up some BS about border concerns to justify his "crusade". Individuals like him don't care about anyone but themselves. There will be much celebrating the second he leaves this world and goes to be with Father Satan.

With the hope that people have the capacity to constrain their responces to the article\its content and remain objective about this when responding...

The one question in this article I find very troubling is: why does NATO still exist?
Because he is right to ask this.

Silly question.
It exists because of the aggression of other nations.

Eastern European counties as shite scared of Russian aggression.
Haven't you been paying attention?
Now, Sweden and Finland are requesting to be part of NATO, also.

N.B.
NATO is a *defensive* alliance.

Stop thinking of geopolitics as a battle of good people and evil dictators. Putin is a gangster, not the devil. He doesn't hold power over Russia through metaphysical forces, but through strategic alliances and force that might well also hold it together.

Who was Nato defending its members against for the last 30 years? It's enemy? So... The cold war wasn't really over then, was it?

The Eastern European states, Finland and Sweden are justifiably afraid of Russia, now.
But immediately after the Fall of the SU, there was no reason for that. And no reason to keep the guard up, the enemy was defeated.
The signal to Russia looked like: no, no, you still are the enemy. Tit-for-tat.
I can understand that, without intending to accept it as an excuse to invade Ukraine.

Who was Nato defending its members against for the last 30 years? It's enemy? So... The cold war wasn't really over then, was it?

The Eastern European states, Finland and Sweden are justifiably afraid of Russia, now.
But immediately after the Fall of the SU, there was no reason for that. And no reason to keep the guard up, the enemy was defeated.
The signal to Russia looked like: no, no, you still are the enemy. Tit-for-tat.
I can understand that, without intending to accept it as an excuse to invade Ukraine.

You aren't on top of this topic, are you?
pootin wanted to join NATO, but because NATO said he had to go through the usual procedures, he spat the dummy and basically said: "Don't you know who I am?"

Poor little pootin's ego was offended, so he was left out in the cold, by his own choice.

Normally, I like to see both sides of a conflict, but in this case, there really is only good and evil.