The Secret Source of Putin's Evil
Its not the K.G.B., or the Cold War. Its decidedly more Pushkin-esque, or Peter the Great, than that.
BY PETER SAVODNIK
JANUARY 10, 2017 5:00 AM
http://media.vanityfair.com/photos/5874192bee23284912086649/master/w_960,c_limit/vladimir-putin-evil.jpg
Henry Kissinger recently compared Vladimir Putin to a character out of Dostoevsky, which apparently delighted the Russian president. Thats not entirely surprising. No Russian writer encapsulates the many incongruous feelings and forcescultural, spiritual, metaphysicalstill coursing through the post-Soviet moment better than Fyodor Dostoevsky. Technically, our current chapter of Russian history began on Christmas Day, 1991, when Mikhail Gorbachev declared the Soviet Union dead. But, in reality, it didnt come into focus until 1999, with the outbreak of the second Chechen war and Putins rise to power, and, really, it didnt acquire any momentum or self-awareness until October 2003, when Yukos oil chief Mikhail Khodorkovsky was arrested at gunpoint on a tarmac at an airport in Novosibirsk. That was when Putin signaled that the old Boris Yeltsin configurationthe weakened head of state enveloped by a swarm of self-seeking boyars, or oligarchswas over and that the once dormant, fractured, fractious state was reasserting its authority and imposing a new order: a new telos. Since then, the question thats animated all discussion of Russia outside Russia has been: Where is Putin leading his country? What does he want?
<snip>
Assuming Kissinger is right, its unclear which of Dostoevskys characters, if any, Putin identifies with. Thats not really the point. The point is that Dostoevsky very clearly delineates right from wrong in a distinctly Manichaean way. Russia, the old Russia, is good, purechildlike or diminutive, in a way. The West is bad. Its not simply that its a rival civilization, an economic or geopolitical competitor; its that the West is impure and, when introduced into the Russian bloodstream, toxic. A Dostoyevskean vozhd, or leader, knows Russia is good and the West is not, and presumably he has learned by this late date that the only way to keep the West out is to overcome it, to expedite its undoing. The more Western leaders, and especially American presidents, talk about resetting relations with Moscow, the more the Dostoevskian president distrusts them. He hates them, and any so-called Russian president who doesnt is a traitor or a buffoon. (Exhibit A: Gorbachev. Exhibit B: Yeltsin.)
Putins goal is not just a little more turf. Russia has a lot of that. His teloshis endgameis the destabilization, the overcoming, of the whole Western order. This sounds fantastical to Americans because were an ahistorical people. That doesnt mean were ignorant of history, although theres a great deal of that, too. It means the categories with which we apprehend the world are not defined by the past, and we cant really understand how it could be otherwise. Russia, like most countries, however, is a decidedly historical country, and it appears to be seeking to rectify a 400-year-old wound. It has discovered, much to its chagrin, that you cant simply look inward. That was the tsars mistake. They thought they could keep the West out. The cost of that mistake was the Bolshevik revolution, Stalin, famine, the Gulag, world war, and, ultimately, a failed state, the decimation of a way of life, the economy, their pensions and pride and sense of place in the world.
Putin will not make that mistake. When he bombed Aleppo, it likely wasnt because of ISIS or Bashar al-Assad. It was because he wanted to assert Russias hegemonyand undermine Americas. We can presume this because no obvious Russian interests have been served by the countrys meddling in Syria, but many American interests have been thwarted. Also, it fits a pattern: Putins Russia creates chaos wherever possible and then seeks to take advantage of that chaos. (Consider, for example, the so-called frozen conflicts in Moldova, Georgia, and Ukraine.) When he allegedly hacked into the Democratic National Committee, it wasnt a personal vendetta, as Hillary Clinton suggested, and when he allegedly helped disseminate fake news about the candidates, it wasnt because he cared, first and foremost, about the election result. It was because he wanted tens of millions of Americans to doubt the legitimacy of their own election. After all, Putin cant really be sure Donald Trump will serve Russias interests better than Clinton would have. That Trump is so erratic must worry the Kremlin. That his instrument of choice is Twitter must compound those worries. What is beyond debate, however, is that Americans losing faith in their democracyand the institutions that prop up that democracy, like the mediadoes serve Russias long-term interests.
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/01/the-secret-source-of-putins-evil
Amazing.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)As fate would have it, and as I keep posting here, :> -- At the time that 'festivities' begin in DC on Jan 20, I will be landing in St Petersburg, and at the moment mr pee pee takes the oath of office I will be sitting in the Mariinsky Theater Concert Hall watching Mieczysław Weinberg's opera version of THE IDIOT.
Who would have thunk it??
PS.. The next night.. PRINCE IGOR...
Igel
(35,323 posts)The Russian's hacked the election. And the fact-free election report's #1 conclusion was that Putin/Russia wanted to undermine faith and confidence in the electoral process. HRC was personal, Trump late. The goal is to weaken the US and create chaos, undermine the system.
So in the current mess, with the secret dossiers from anonymous yet trusted sources, there are two options.
1. Some non-chauvinistic Russian officials and folk let slip secret information that Putin et al. didn't want to be released.
In this way, chaos and confusion arise that Putin doesn't like. Except that it's unclear that Putin actually supports Trump--enough info around the edges has come out that Putin basically considers Trump a fool in private and when speaking to a small Russian audience, but supports him when there are sources that might make it to the West.
This public support/private disrespect is enough to make one wonder if Putin's in a no-lose situation: If Trump's his guy through foolishness or because he thinks Putin's a swell guy, hey, it's a win; if Trump's not, then unrequired support to Putin is toxic, Trump's undermined, the US is weakened, and hey, it's a win.
2. (a) The dossier is what it appears to be, and is accurate but was fed to the Western agent.
(b) The dossier consists of false information that the FSB fed to some Western agent in bits and pieces.
Doesn't matter which is the case. Nobody can check those facts. But the #1 goal is to create chaos, undermine American elections and power. Either way, it's a reprise of the media's role against HRC: information was dumped and the media, full of glee and eager to report it, spread it around; the American public, full of glee and eager for gossip and scandal-mongering, allowed it to influence them. If the Russia's scored a coup in releasing the HRC info, they've scored a bigger coup in releasing this Trump dossier's information--true or not. And the media are playing the same game, but this time it's very well a case "fool me once" versus "fool me twice."
pangaia
(24,324 posts)And with the info....
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)agincourt
(1,996 posts)That a leader would be allowed to take power in the US, whom is the favorite of a major world leader whom does not wish us well. Whom believes what is bad for us is good for his country. Many Americans would rather live under Putin than Clinton, there sure is a desire for authoritarian government in the red states.
milestogo
(16,829 posts)and were easily conned by Trump.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Sid Fishes
(22 posts)Sounds a lot like "commie," doesn't it?