Putin: Great Visionary or Just Lost

[Richard Coleman]

An excellent critique of the Russian elites by Vladimir Suchan. He sees Putin as another version of Yeltsin. I am beginning to think he is correct.

The Cold War was not only a geopolitical clash, it was, as well known, also a clash of ideologies (both of which were products of the Western Enlightenment/Illumination/Lustration). The Cold War was, however, also a clash of political cultures. It would certainly be a gross simplification, but one which does hold an important kernel of the truth within, that at first jazz and then rock'n roll were something, which the Soviet Union and its top-down heavy and progressively bureaucratically deadening "culture" could not match or outgun. If the early 1960s were marked by the triumph of Soviet cosmos and rocket technology, the cultural revolution of that time was a global revolution blazed by the American spirit.

In this regard, bureaucrats, especially the soulless ones or those spiritually dead, either tend to see culture not much more than a can of worms with some occasional mass diversion functions and if these do show any taste, it weighs heavily on the side of the vulgar and the base, but of an especially hollow kind (think of Yeltsin or the other one). In a sense, the Cold War was also decided by a competition of the two systems' music and "spirit of music." Had someone like Nietzsche lived today or in those days, we would have had a very interesting book about it, which would be very instructive and valuable in this respect.

In this regard, we do also know that, despite occasional pretense or protestations to the contrary, the Russian leadership and the current Russian elite (oligarchy, really a hybrid and merger of certain sections of the KGB, former party bosses, the mafia, and the higher state apparatchiks), their desire and goal, which they do regularly state openly and vehemently, is to be part of Western (political) culture (and the Western elite) as they understand and perceive it.

So, if one wants to be objective and realistic, one has to recognize (without aspiring to be any Tocqueville) that U.S. political culture includes certain traits and strengths that proved to be not only more popular in the end, but that they also had more vitality and were not only more "compatible with the next stage of the development of the production forces and relations of productions," as they used to say, but also more conducive to the demands and requirements of technological progress. In my view, the deep down reason for this was quite simple--the ugly truth was that the bureaucrats did lack proper political and even social culture and what they have was a strong sense of jealousy for other people's excellence, talents, worth, and intelligence. Once you give these people with such a character power over others, there is not much that can save or redeem the situation.

No system is inexhaustible, and each system can afford to neglect and waste human and social capital only up to a certain point of perceived "return," behind which lurks the point of no return. In its initial phase and first decades, the Soviet system unleashed and tapped into an enormous human potential and power. The final phases were those of mortification--some of its planned, some of it out of ignorance, other part out of utter disdain for human potential, and the rest was due to incompetence.

Anyway, much of this was to serve but as a sort of musing and introduction for acknowledging and singling out these peculiar traits in American political culture--its pragmatism (a sense of realism and a focus on the results), the enormous drive, which lifeless and soulless bureaucrats cannot quite match, unless they mistake energy for some their outbursts of anger, sophistication (good liberal arts education helped the Romans, helped the British, and also helped the US elites), and, at times, even a sort of disarming honesty (contrast that, for example, with the veil of secrecy with which Putin is trying to shroud his daughters and their billions, thus according them the status of the highest state secrets).

Speaking of that sort of thing, which I dubbed disarming honesty, and which may be especially of great significance for the "negotiations" ordered by the US with Russia's help for transiting Bashar al Assad out and moving in some new "provisional government" presumably with a notable "FSA" input, I have become puzzled by the provenance of the strange brand and meme called South or Southern Front. Then, thanks to US technology and that honesty, which has almost a certain democratic feel to it, google search offered to me right on top of the quick search this suggested answer:

"The Southern Front was established on 14 February 2014 in southern Syria[1] and receives support from the US led Military Operations Center (MOC) based in Amman, Jordan."

"...the Russian leadership and the current Russian elite (oligarchy, really a hybrid and merger of certain sections of the KGB, former party bosses, the mafia, and the higher state apparatchiks)."

OIC. And our esteemed American "leadership" differs fundamentally from this.....how?

"the veil of secrecy with which Putin is trying to shroud his daughters and their billions, thus according them the status of the highest state secrets".

If they're shrouded in secrecy, how does this writer know about them and their "billions"? Billions of what? Where? "Billions" of anything leave some kind of trace. Evidence please?

"[size=12]In a sense, the Cold War was also decided by a competition of the two systems' music and "spirit of music."

Bullshit. I'm not so sure the Cold War has been decided yet. In any case the Soviet Union didn't collapse because of Chuck Berry or It Came From Outer Space, or bell-bottoms. It collapsed in major part because they were suckered into spending themselves into oblivion on an arms race in a futile attempt to "keep up" with the U.S. And a number of other things due to the self-interest of a "class" of bureaucrats intent on protecting their priviledges
and power, whose policies were based on that and that alone.

This is a very deep and complex subject, whose history goes back to the beginning years of the Soviet Union. I'll just say here that in his waning months, Lenin recognized and attempted to fight the growing canker of bureaucratism within the party and the state. He failed.

[/SIZE]

[Lauren Johnson]

And our esteemed American "leadership" differs fundamentally from this.....how?

That's the point. Not very much at all.

Bullshit. I'm not so sure the Cold War has been decided yet.

Agree. Any semblance of Putinism has to go. Of course, Suchan is saying that Putin is closer to Yeltsin than what is usually thought.

Another theory about the collapse of the Soviet Union is that it was engineered by moles.

[Richard Coleman]

And our esteemed American "leadership" differs fundamentally from this.....how?

That's the point. Not very much at all.

Bullshit. I'm not so sure the Cold War has been decided yet.

Agree. Any semblance of Putinism has to go. Of course, Suchan is saying that Putin is closer to Yeltsin than what is usually thought.

Another theory about the collapse of the Soviet Union is that it was engineered by moles.

What is Putinism? Yeltsin was a drunk and a fool. Just how is Putin similar? What moles? How did they do it?

[Magda Hassan]

FWIW a friend with close interest in Russia told me he saw Putin interviewed on French TV many years ago. Putin was asked about the communist party and his relationship to it. He said that he never left the communist party that the communist party left him. Make of that what you will.

As for the moles yes definitely there in waiting and quietly working. Putin isn't one of them though. His relationship with Yeltsin is for me problematic though.

[Lauren Johnson]

FWIW a friend with close interest in Russia told me he saw Putin interviewed on French TV many years ago. Putin was asked about the communist party and his relationship to it. He said that he never left the communist party that the communist party left him. Make of that what you will.

As for the moles yes definitely there in waiting and quietly working. Putin isn't one of them though. His relationship with Yeltsin is for me problematic though.

Frankly, Putin is a mystery to me. I put up this thread to put another side out and it is now my current favorite.

Rumor has it that he is spending New Year's with his 'ol bud, Silvio Burlesconi. Make of that what you will. ::hush::

[Richard Coleman]

Well, here it is. Although not a close student of Russian politics, I would say I really like what I see of Putin. His statements are direct and to the point. He doesn't seem to have any obvious talking points or make rote statements that insult the intelligence of his audience (listen to any speech by 90% of American politicians) or Russian citizens.* I agree with his position on Syria and if the reports from sources like RT and consortiumnews are accurate, the Russians are kicking the crap out of the Islamic Republic by orders of magnitude greater than "we" ever did. So far, I have heard of no complaints of civilian "collateral damage" such as are regularly lodged against American drone attacks.

*He's smart as hell too!

Liberals like Rachel Maddow and Huffington Post resolutely despise Putin (Lauren and Magda: you're in good company. Not.) and have nothing whatever good to say about him, but I have yet to hear one accusation of lying or betrayal of commitments such as Obama's promise to close Guantanamo. As for Obama's "hope and change", how about his nomination of Mary Jo White to head the SEC?


"WASHINGTON -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) stunned Wall Street this week with a scathing letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White. The letter said White had been soft on high finance felons, but raised eyebrows in the nation's capital for another reason -- publicly accusing White of "misleading" Warren in a private meeting.
White identifies as a political independent and frequently votes with the SEC's Republican commissioners, creating a 3-2 majority that thwarts the agency's Democratic appointees. The commission has granted a host of waivers shielding big Wall Street banks from what would have been the automatic consequences of wrongdoing." (HuffPo June 3, '15)" Thanks Bam.

Do you fault Putin's actions toward Ukraine and Crimea? Wasn't that whole mess created by one Victoria Nuland, a dedicated neocon and her machinations to overthrow the elected president there? (Nuland was appointed to her post by---you guessed it, Barack Obama. Her hubby is Robert Kagan. Oh, you don't know who he is? Well, he's one of the original founders of the Project For A New American Century, and collaborated on the infamous policy statement "Rebuilding America's Defenses". Never mind, let's get back to bashing Putin 'cause he's like Yeltsin!) And even if Putin had ordered units of the Russian army into Crimea, so what? (They had a referendum to unite with Russia, didn't they?) At least Crimea directly borders on Russia. What would be the response of Washington and all you Putin-haters if we sent troops into, say Mexico, and Putin reacted with outrage and demanded that we leave at once? Wouldn't our response be, "Mind your own goddam business, Mexico is nowhere near you"?

As Putin has pointed out, the US has hundreds of military bases in foreign countries, mostly circling Russia. Russia has exactly two. How many aircraft carriers does the US have? 11. How many does Russia have? 1. That's ONE. And Putin is accused of being expansionist and aggressive. Please!

And, as Vonnegut would say, so it goes. On and on.

[David Guyatt]

I agree that Putin is as smart as a whip. I watched part of his recent 3 hour pre-Christmas Q & A and found him impressive. No speaking notes or talking points, no vacuous or deflecting answers -- just a case of ask a question and get an answer. Simples. Did he have people in the audience with prepared questions? Maybe. But frankly, I don't have the impression that he needs props like that. He has clarity.

Is Russia an honest country? No. Is there an established Oligarchy and thieves world? Obviously. Has Putin stashed fabulous sums of money away in offshore banks? Probably.

In the last analysis, I'm with Peter Dale Scott in always looking for the government within a government and the deep state involvement in all nations and in most nations foreign policies.

But compared to the United State of America, and the British poodle that supports it in every act of buggery that is committed on the world, Russia is relatively more honest and more democratic. What an amazing turn around from just a few decades ago. Or maybe, not at all?

We in the west have become so thoroughly corrupted and so scared of losing our selfish grip on the world, that we no longer dare harbour truth or honestly, but cull it ruthlessly.

[Lauren Johnson]

Is Russia an honest country? No. Is there an established Oligarchy and thieves world? Obviously. Has Putin stashed fabulous sums of money away in offshore banks? Probably.

David, what you said here is part of my attempt to wrap my head around the mythology of Putin. As much as he is not Satan, he is not ever going to be what many want -- the guy who brought down The Empire. When you have billions in foreign banks, you know that it all can be confiscated. Furthermore, you will need people appointed who will keep your secrets.

Putin has too many ties to The Empire to want to oppose it too strongly. And therefore, his country will always be subservient.

[Richard Coleman]

David: Thank you for your reasoned and reasonable response, although I'm not sure about Putin's foreign bank stash. (I know this is churlish, but is it any less likely that Bam has offshore $$$ as well? Do we just assume that Putin maybe does but Bam probably doesn't?)


Lauren: I'm not sure what you mean by opposing the empire, or how strongly you would wish him to do it. Seems to me that throwing major air and missile attacks in support of a regime the empire demands be "changed" is pretty strong. Denouncing "the West" (another term for empire) as being the cause of the Islamic State before the UN is pretty strong if you ask me. Russia and China held joint naval exercises in the Mediterranean Sea this year (see http://thediplomat.com/2015/05/china-and...terranean/). I suppose NATO was thrilled about that?


What would you have the man do, short of starting a thermonuclear world war?

[David Guyatt]

My sense is that these days Pols in the west get nice little earners once they leave office as a reward for their understandings in office. I saw Bill Clinton globe trotting after he left the White House pocketing money as fast as he could. And John Major and Tony Blair have both done very nicely once they left office. Dubya was an oil man before he took office, so no shortages in the pantry there either.

There was a lot of rumours doing the round during the financial crisis in Cyprus that besides powerful Russian oligarchs, and doubtless a few senior member of the Vor, had money stashed in the Island's banks. The name of Putin was amongst those whispered, too. And it was said that these monies were permitted to flee Cyprus prior to the lid slamming shut.

Just sayin'...