Inside Putin's Circle

https://www.ft.com/content/503fb110-f91e-4bed-b6dc-0d09582dd007

by mayiplease • 4 years ago

214 183 4 years ago

ft.com

mayiplease• 4 years ago

https://archive.ph/RXgCG

ordu3• 4 years ago

These men are known in Russia as the “siloviki” — “men of force”, or perhaps even, in the Irish phrase, “hard men”.

Just to clarify. The word "siloviki" made from "силовые структуры", which may be translated literally as "structures of force", or less literally but preserving some meaning "armed organizations" (maybe "armed forces", but I think that in English "armed forces" doesn't include the likes of police and security guards). It refers to police, military or any other organization with a dress code that requires a gun.

twelve40• 4 years ago

yes, definitely not "hard men", more like what you described, except various intelligence agencies who don't always wear a gun, are also included.

ordu3• 4 years ago

Well, FSB is an intelligence agency, and they wear guns or at least have a license to wear gun.

Though I cannot argue. I rely on my intuitive knowledge of Russian which is hard to use as a rational argument. This knowledge tells me that "силовые структуры"/"structures of force" are organizations that use force to solve problems. And I think that all of them wear guns. But I may be wrong with that last statement, and moreover language is changing, so the generally accepted meaning of the word can differ from what I had learnt in my childhood.

qiskit3• 4 years ago

We get what you are trying to say, but people carry guns, they don't wear guns.

throwawaymanbot• 4 years ago

The Irish term “hard man” is more of a meaning about a persons spirit/ attitude to certain things. It does mean someone you don’t want to mess with or in fact have any sort of dealings with. (unless you can equivalently “nullify” their attitude and there’s only one thing usually that can nullify a “hard man”… and this the cycle begins.

lordnacho• 4 years ago

other organization with a dress code that requires a gun

Sounds a lot like organized crime, is it supposed to have that undertone?

skrtskrt• 4 years ago

or mercenaries/"private security"

xxs• 4 years ago

is it supposed to have that undertone?

nope. the 2nd word means "structures" and it implies part of the state.

hunterb1232• 4 years ago

other organization with a dress code that requires a gun

No, that sounds like any armed forces, police force, the secret service, etc.

ordu3• 4 years ago

Policemen wear guns, and it doesn't sound like an organized crime.

The root of the word "siloviki" is "sila", which means "force". And it is about using force in order to perform their job. Like policemen do. Or security guards. Or soldiers.

And it is not used to refer to crime activities. They also use force, but they are not "siloviki".

IncRnd• 4 years ago

Sounds a lot like organized crime, is it supposed to have that undertone?

As does "Department of Homeland Security". That was the first federal agency named that way, and prior to that people would have thought that sort of naming to be associated with the Stassi or a totalitarian regime. I suppose it is commonplace now.

fragmede• 4 years ago

Unconscious bias at work. Russians aren't mostly mobsters wearing Adidas track suits, despite what you see on TV and in movies.

thanatos519• 4 years ago

"other organization with a dress code that requires a gun" ⇒ mafia.

watwut2• 4 years ago

Not all mafia have dress code. Some do, but it is not norm or anything.

huhtenberg• 4 years ago

"siloviki" is literally a "men of power" ("sila" in Russian is "power" in English) => these include the FSB (an FBI equivalent, or the ex-KGB in practice) and MVD (the police). That's it.

trhway2• 4 years ago

Good news - as result of Ukraine war failure these lowlifes are starting to eat each other - the director of foreign intelligence of FSB has just got arrested for "embezzling money intended for sabotage and gathering of intelligence in Ukraine and for providing false information about political situation in Ukraine" :)

From https://www.thedailybeast.com/now-russia-is-bombing-western-... :

"Meanwhile, panic appears to be setting in within Putin’s inner circle, with the Russian leader allegedly firing eight generals and putting the head of his FSB spy arm Sergei Beseda and his deputy under house arrest"

Russian: https://meduza.io/news/2022/03/11/zhurnalist-andrey-soldatov...

All that while 3 generals have already been killed in Ukraine in addition to uncounted number of officers with no major military success. That is bound to cause "friction" between various arms of the "siloviki". There is also a large fight brewing between FSB and Chechens (they have been in "cold war" state) as large convoy of Chechen forces in Ukraine was completely destroyed by Ukrainians based on information that seems to had been leaked by FSB.

just-ok2• 4 years ago

“sila” is strength, not power. Power is “vlast.”

zoomablemind2• 4 years ago

...The word "siloviki" made from "силовые структуры", which may be translated literally as "structures of force"...

"siloviki" => members/heads of the law enforcement and security agencies, read "enforcers". But "hard men" passes the forceful connotation well enough.

doe88• 4 years ago

Another interesting opinion piece in NYT on this subject https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/opinion/putin-russia-ukra...

te_chris• 4 years ago

Excellent and thorough piece of writing

mekkkkkk• 4 years ago

I read an incredibly thorough book about Putin a year or so ago, and what stuck with me is how political his career in the KGB was. In those final years of the USSR, everything was in shambles, and any position of power became so through-and-through political. That makes his rise so interesting and frightening. He has been forged in a dark web of covert slush funds, power projection and kompramat. He was obviously very good at that game, and it continues today.

EDIT: The book was "Putin's People" by Catherine Belton

agumonkey6• 4 years ago

there's also long interviews from 2017~ on PBS Frontline IIRC, a series called "Putin files"

Julia Ioffe, Masha Gessen

It's partial but has a lot of detail

On the other side there are the Russian friendly views such as Mearsheimer or even Stone.

It's difficult to weigh what is true (even though I'm biased anti aggressor in this case)

dralley• 4 years ago

I watched both of those interviews yesterday, they are excellent.

yucky8• 4 years ago

Russian friendly views such as Mearsheimer

I don't know that I would refer to Professor Mearsheimer's view as pro-Russian, he has plenty of criticism of Putin and the Russian political system in general. But the fact that he has been railing on the likely consequences of our approach for dealing with the Russia/Ukraine situation for years, and been proved right, should make his writing and interviews required for anybody seeking to better understand who we got here.

stjohnswarts4• 4 years ago

Seems to me like he has lost that and becoming just an angry old man playing with people's lives because he can.

khazhoux2• 4 years ago

Or, he amassed all the power, and is now wielding it :-\

mmaunder• 4 years ago

I’ve been a paid subscriber of FT for years. It’s horrifically expensive and worth every penny.

notyourwork2• 4 years ago

I had to check pricing after reading your comment. $375/year! That sounds crazy.

jfk13• 4 years ago

Does a dollar a day sound more affordable? Just read the news over a cup of home-brewed coffee instead of getting a take-out, and you should easily break even. :)

ghaff• 4 years ago

New York Times is around $200. The Economist is something north of $100. So the FT is on the high side but hardly out of the ballpark.

melony• 4 years ago

That's cheap compared to the Bloomberg terminal. High quality news is not free (news is not necessarily the same as journalism).

cellis• 4 years ago

Bloomberg is even more at $415, and that's just the baby bloomberg! I pay for it and think it's worth it too.

tatrajim• 4 years ago

I was a subscriber for ten years, but gave up on them over mediocre coverage of important issues in the US and East Asia, about which I had some knowledge. Relying on their reporting risked costing me money in my investment decisions.

alecco• 4 years ago

Indeed. FT used to be a must-read 15 years ago with investigative journalism and decent counterpoints on any issue. Now it's mostly one-sided opinion with little more information than you can read everywhere else. It's very sad.

malloryerik3• 4 years ago

Do you have an opinion on Asia.Nikkei.com?

jason_pomerleau• 4 years ago

This sounds like an instance of the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. At the end of the day, it’s still journalism.

anothernewdude• 4 years ago

Can read every article on archive.is. And I still don't think they should be posted here.

leoh• 4 years ago

One of the perks of Google is a free FT subscription, as it were

Animats3• 4 years ago

That's a very useful and important article. So that's who Putin talks to. A very small group who share his worldview: It is the manifest destiny of Mother Russia to have an empire in Eastern Europe.

A key point that has emerged from a number of sources is that Putin's crowd has no plan B. This isn't considered by Russia's leadership to be just a military adventure - if it works, great, if it doesn't work, pull back and try something else. It's a must-win operation.

Historically, this sort of thing ends only when the leader is killed.

worik• 4 years ago

Historically, this sort of thing ends only when the leader is killed.

Or Russia wins

stjohnswarts4• 4 years ago

that's not going to happen. When they try to take a NATO country it's over for them. Possibly over for all of us.

mirntyfirty• 4 years ago

They aren’t going to win. Their economy started with noticeable issues and has since been obliterated. Aggression wars against a weak opponent are remarkably expensive and Ukraine has received a significant amount of support (I’d estimate around 20b so far) whereas the ruble and Russian markets (bond, equity, and a large portion of export/import) have been nuked. They are running on fumes in a war that is projected to run for quite some time.

jacquesm8• 4 years ago

I'm sure that if they are the last man standing and all of Ukraine is turned into rubble soaked through with blood that they'll declare victory. But it won't amount to much.

Real people with power build they don't destroy. The likes of Putin only know how to kill and how to destroy.

AnimalMuppet2• 4 years ago

Historically, this sort of thing ends only when the leader is killed.

Sometimes not even then. If the person who takes over is also a true believer in this manifest destiny, it can go on until all the believers in the inner circle die off.

bogomipz3• 4 years ago

Curiously Orthodox Christian mysticism creeps in to this sense of destiny as well which is really scary. See:

"Russia’s Menacing Mix of Religion and Nuclear Weapons In the Kremlin, Faith and Force Go Hand in Hand"[1]

Another member of this inner circle not named in this article is Yuri Kovalchuk who's the largest sharedholders in Rossiya Bank in addition to National Media Group. He is a long time friend and advisor to Putin and subscribes to this same Orthodox Christian mystic narrative where Russia needs to save the world from the West.[2]

There's a book by Gary Lachman about this that came out a couple of years ago called:

"The Return of Holy Russia: Apocalyptic History, Mystical Awakening, and the Struggle for the Soul of the World"

[1] https://archive.ph/EeaaG

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/opinion/putin-russia-ukra...

Animats3• 4 years ago

Putin finds the support of the Russian Orthodox Church useful, but it's not clear whether he believes in it.

jacquesm8• 4 years ago

Historically, this sort of thing ends only when the leader is killed.

It can't happen soon enough.

Razengan2• 4 years ago

I’m curious, would you have called for the assasination of Bush during the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan?

Or the American presidents during the massacres in Vietnam?

2-718-281-8282• 4 years ago

can somebody tell me why pretty much any (even random) configuration sounds kind of good?

2-718-281-8282• 4 years ago

why the downvotes? I am actually wondering about that?

tapas732• 4 years ago

I assume your comment is accidentally on a wrong thread.

JumpCrisscross3• 4 years ago

"I believe, however, that Putin and the siloviki (though not many in the wider elites) welcome this isolation [from the west]. They are becoming impressed with the Chinese model: a tremendously dynamic economy, a disciplined society and a growing military superpower ruled over with iron control by a hereditary elite that combines huge wealth with deep patriotism, promoting the idea of China as a separate and superior civilisation."

Money quote.

hcarvalhoalves• 4 years ago

The idea of a centralised planned state fell with the USSR, and it was widely argued that it fell _because_ of central planning. China is becoming a counter-example for the people who have always been fond of the idea of having a state ruled by an "elite", with the perception that democracy is fragile and doesn't work for long-term (more than a 4/5 years mandate) planning.

the_lonely_road• 4 years ago

The world changed in a very significant way over the last 70 years. Even more so over the last 20 years. It may very well end up that the Information Age has tipped the scales and our large meandering decentralized democracies are no longer the superior model they were back when it took 4 weeks to get a letter from New York City to Washington DC. Now it’s a synchronous call with satellite footage of every inch of the earth. It may very be that centralized planned economies are now the superior model and only the test of time will unveil which is true.

I’ve lost a bit of sleep wondering about this over the years.

tenpies• 4 years ago

Governments can be learning organizations, especially when they have long time horizons and balance agenda with reality. If anything, I think China has shown that central planning can work and is even the envy of Western leaders (see: Canadian PM Trudeau's admiration).

The implicit agreement in China is that in exchange for your freedom, you receive prosperity.

Russia - especially after the West seriously damages their economy - can easily form a similar narrative, especially when the West is being sadistic about it. Nationalize most things now when the equity is dirt-cheap because unwise Western governments have forced the hands of banks, investors, and funds; then privatize things as the new anointed class rises. Key for them will be to reward merit and capability, not just loyalty.

petre4• 4 years ago

democracy is fragile and doesn't work for long-term (more than a 4/5 years mandate) planning

Which is moot, because the USSR planning model also had 5 year plans. Also some European democracies are run by a coalition. See for example the Nederlands and also Germany to a lower degree. It's less efficient in case of armed conflict, but most people are represented in times of peace.

AnimalMuppet2• 4 years ago

But Putin and Co don't seem to have the tools to create a dynamic economy or a disciplined society. They may admire China; they can't follow the pattern.

scrubs2• 4 years ago

Agreed. And the reverse ... Russia may talk up china and vice versa but china more likely does that to annoy the west. China cannot see Russia as a going concern or model except for 1-3 year tactical eg. import Russian energy that Europe is buying anymore

petre4• 4 years ago

They're a mafia and a bad one at that. Russia will become a Chinese satellite just like Kazahstan and Mongolia. It was probably going to anyway, but Putin just made sure of that when he attacked Ukraine. At least China had a mechanism for continuation of power, which Russia doesn't appear to have. What happens if Putin dies or is toppled? They'll put the next NATO paranoid FSB boss in charge? Compared to the Gorbachev era USSR they look like a bunch of juveniles playing with nukes they've inherited from their parents.

yborg• 4 years ago

The "Chinese model" is as old as civilization and has been implemented and collapsed many times in China itself. If Putin establishes a new czarist dynasty in Russia, it will end up just like the last one.

pwillia7• 4 years ago

To be fair, so far it seems all empires will fall eventually.

khuey3• 4 years ago

"The Chinese model" is fundamentally underwritten by exporting vast quantities of goods to the West which Putin just blew up any hope of doing.

scrubs2• 4 years ago

Correct! Now not to say some basic competency was not there - b/c it was - but trade with west is a major part of their success sort of like Japan kind of presaged for them in the 1980s.

AussieWog93• 4 years ago

The CCP is moving away from that, though, and towards an economy driven more by domestic consumption.

pstuart3• 4 years ago

Other than fossil fuels and vodka, what does Russia have to offer the world?

outside12342• 4 years ago

We'll see how that works in China in the first serious recession

bogomipz3• 4 years ago

A related Op/Ed piece from yesterday regarding his inner circle and his isolation over the last couple of years:

"How Vladimir Putin Lost Interest in the Present":

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/10/opinion/putin-russia-ukra...

thriftwy• 4 years ago

Better read https://sputnikipogrom.com/politics/30301/story-of-faded-lov... (ru)

All the Putinology tries to sell you that the trouble with Putin is entirely subjective. But it's not (that much).

323• 4 years ago

Explaining his position on NATO, Putin said that Russia is part of European culture. “I can't imagine my own country apart from Europe and the so-called civilized world, so I can hardly imagine NATO as an enemy.

The problem is that the Russian understanding of "civilized" is different from the Western one.

Just look at the "civilized" way he treats his people.

Let's not even talk about the Moscow bombings that got him into power. The "it was an inside job" conspiracy is true, but in Russia, not in USA.

Putin views what he's doing now in Ukraine as a civilized thing to do, Russia was promised things, wronged and now he's solving the problem after warning about it. Like civilized man do.

This is why Russia will never be in NATO. Everybody understands that the Russian bear will lash out after a perceived slight.

There is a great talk about "honor culture" versus "dignity culture". Russia is a "honor culture", the West is a "dignity culture". They don't mix.

mikkom• 4 years ago

Evaluation of Russia by Finnish Intelligence Colonel (subtitles)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kF9KretXqJw

I think this is something you should watch if you are interested in how russia works. It's very straight talk and clarified russian mindset a lot for me at least.

netsharc2• 4 years ago

Also a long and great Twitter thread: https://nitter.net/kamilkazani/status/1501360272442896388

istjohn3• 4 years ago

He has a number of good threads.

fouc2• 4 years ago

Enjoying the notion of cartels as protostates. Makes a lot of sense!

fouc2• 4 years ago

Interesting bits:

* “the Russians have the ability to expect and endure a tremendous amount of suffering”.. “they have made suffering a virtue”

* “global recession is not really a problem to Russia since they are in a recession all the time anyway”

Kind of suggestive that what's happening won't be over anytime soon.

petre4• 4 years ago

What do you expect, really? Russians live in feudalism, only with modern technology. They haven't known anything other than totalitarian regimes, and when they had a little democracy after '91, it all fell apart for most of them. Maybe all of the interested parties should read a bit of Russian literature? If you want shortcuts, just read Vladimir Sorokin, but it's really more nuanced. The thing about suffering is also very enshrined in the Eastern Orthodox mindset.

euroderf• 4 years ago

Watching this, I felt it all was a bit reductionist. But then again, if it does seem to explain how things work there...

ZeroGravitas• 4 years ago

The bit about welcoming the patriotism of war reminded me of the 'conspiracy theory' that Putin blew up some of his own people in order to consolidate his power.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

Now, some people believe that, some people don't, but since just before he invaded Ukraine he announced that they were one people, he's literally done the same thing again, blowing up "his own people", for his own political games, but openly.

istjohn3• 4 years ago

There really is no question that Putin was behind the bombings. This American Life had a recent episode about them. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/763/transcript

tim3332• 4 years ago

That's impressively evil really.

Razengan2• 4 years ago

Just like Bush was behind 9/11?

14• 4 years ago

I just want to remind people of 12ft.io to remove paywalls. It works well for most sites.

zoomablemind2• 4 years ago

Strangely, one figure is notably omitted from the "exposé" is Dmitry Medvedev. Who is none other than the former president, and still acting member of the current "politbureau"...

Who knows, maybe he is the "one senior official" mentioned as being the author's source on some of the topics. Protect your sources!

amai• 4 years ago

„ Ukraine’s place in this doctrine was accurately summed up by former US national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski: “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.” The Russian establishment entirely agrees.“

This statement about Ukraine was presented by Brezezinski without any proof. In fact he just copied that idea from 19th century British geopolitics, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_Hist....

This theory was already controversial in 19th century, but in 21st century it is completely absurd. If you want to be an empire nowadays, you don‘t need a huge Black Sea fleet or a huge amount of land. You need a very strong economy. But occupying Ukraine will not help Russia accomplishing that.

It is absurd, that the Russian elite believes into a theory written by an American, which was originally proposed by the British in the 19th century to explain why they need to fight the Russian empire in the Crimean War of 1853.

tim3332• 4 years ago

Even otherwise calm and reasonable members of the Russian establishment have snarled with fury when I have dared to suggest in conversation that it might be better for Russia itself to let Ukraine go.

This all seems a bit unfortunate. I mean there are many examples of similar countries next to each other - US/Canada, France/Belgium, maybe even England/Scotland and it's no really tragedy to let the less powerful one do it's own thing and be independent if it wants. In England in the past we've made efforts to control Ireland and it's caused a bunch of problems compared to if we had just let the thing go without the Donbass / Northern Ireland stuff.

Inside Putin's Circle

Related Stories