11 ms·

Putin's People – a groundbreaking study that follows the money

158 points by BerislavLopac 6y ago

xenospn 6y ago
I’m often wondering if Putin is, in fact, the most powerful person in the world by a very large margin. He might not have a billion people or a space force, but he plays everyone like a fiddle.
- zirkonit 6y ago
  Interestingly enough, Putin's space force predates Trump's by years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Aerospace_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Aerospace_Forces (Air-Space Force, in Russian).
- gear54rus 6y ago
  He might be the most powerful in current soviet union that is CIS. However I fail to see how he can be the most powerful in the world given that USA surpasses russia in both military and economic might (which are pretty much the same thing if you think about it). Russia has no answer to sanctions and those counter-sanctions are just a delusion. USA can make many other countries respect the sanctions due to dollar being universal currency. There's also China which is simply too populous to challenge for anyone.
  - namdnay 6y ago
    The difference being that we suspect Putin has pretty much total control over his empire, whereas a US president for example operates with checks and balances
  - berdario 6y ago
    I think that GP point might be about being able to direct the military and economic might. The US is surely ahead in terms of numbers... but even if they wanted to stop any military involvement in the middle east tomorrow, and pull back from NATO, there'd be a lot of push-back and it would heavily disappoint its allies. Compare with Russia: they have some involvement in Syria (and other places, I'm sure), but if they'd pull back from Syria, I'm not sure who else besides Assad would complain. From this point of view, their hands might not be as tied as the US' I agree that Russia counter-sanctions can be just a delusion, but I think that another interesting point is that sanctions aren't biting as hard as they could've in Russia, due to their massive reduction in public debt: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/09/11/russias-net-public-debt-falls-to-zero-a67238 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/09/11/russias-net-public... They had slow (or absent) growth, otoh.
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    Putin is dangerous because he realised that in the Internet age, you can do incredible damage to a country with social media messaging, hacking, and bribery. The US has been using the media like this for decades, but it's always been considered a side game. Russia has made it a primary mode of attack - partly because it's vastly cheaper and more effective than spending extreme sums of money on super-weapons. So we know that Putin has been financing the subversion of social democracy and the promotion of far-right nationalist narratives in the US and the EU through a combination of direct funding, social media troll farming, and straightforward financially advantageous diplomacy - and possibly also direct election hacking, although so far that's been harder to prove. The UK has been almost destroyed by this. It's a shell of the country it was when the century started, and the poison of Brexit hasn't even worked its way fully through the system yet. I expect I'll get the usual downvotes for posting this out, but the downvoters might want to address the points made here before they waste their time on that: https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/is-brexit-a-russia-backed-coup https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/is-brexit-a-russia-b... There's much more detail about this in a book which is being released soon.
    - lovelyviking 6y ago
      I do not understand why people downvote you if they are sincere to the truth. You points are correct and what West doesn't realise is that Putin is at war with West civilisation. He acts like it's a war and he thinks in terms of war. People do not realise, because it seems crazy to create war when there is no need for it, but this is exactly why they loose, because Putin uses it for his advantage. I just hope people would wake up and understand how serious threat is.
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    Disclaimer: I'm no politician or economist, but while I do believe the US has military superiority still, they won't be able to wage a large scale war at the moment; they simply cannot afford it. They would have to take out even more loans, and right now the US' money lenders are the UAE and China; given that they are both close to Russia, they may opt to not lend money to fund the US' wars. And even without the threat, they may opt to not lend the money because the US will never be able to pay it back. I suspect WW3 is kept at bay not because of MAD anymore, but because of financial interests. If a country decides "fuck it, we'll forfeit this debt", we'll likely see more armed conflicts. I don't see Russia opting for a conflict though, they too cannot afford it. Not unless they're backed by a well-to-do country like China. I don't believe China would become a direct aggressor either, if they would, then their economy would quickly grind to a halt due to sanctions and import stops from the US and Europe. They'd probably a proxy like North Korea.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - frockington1 6y ago
      70% of US debt is owned by American citizens. I do agree with the premise of nobody going to war because they can't afford it. The only caveat I would add would that America tends to do pretty well when armed conflicts happen as they supply the world with weapons Souce: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-who-owns-a-record-2121-trillion-of-us-debt-2018-08-21 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-who-owns-a-record-21...
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    Russia's economy is the sum of 3 countries in Europe ( I think France, Belgium and Netherlands would do) and they redirect an insane amount of their GDP % to military. But even then their army is ancient and mostly predates the fall of Soviet Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_militar...
    - konart 6y ago
      >But even then their army is ancient and mostly predates the fall of Soviet Union. >Post link to aircrafts stats only While it is true that Russia is behind the other major players on modernisation - russian military does get new toys quite often these days on a stable basis. Same goes for upgrading old T-72 tanks for example. What's the point of building armada of Armata if modernised T-72 has basically the same capabilities as T-90 which is more than enough in most scenarios? T-72 Where used in Ukraine and Russia was able to get enough data from operations to do some improvements to the machines and even to upgrade the majority of them even before the 'hot' part of the conflict was over for them. Also how did you count the size of the economy exactly?
      - NicoJuicy 6y ago
        You can use wolfram alpha to get their GDP and re-calculate my statement. And considering Russia is marketing their Jets heavily to everyone, i think the aircraft stats are enough to make it obvious how ancient their army actually is ( majority is ~ 50 years old).
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- senectus1 6y ago
  shut down the oil and gas out of russia and you shut down putin.
  - creato 6y ago
    You also shut down Europe. Who has the power in this situation?
    - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
      The US is trying to grab it; they're actively threatening with sanctions to dozens companies that are building a new gas pipeline at the moment (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnos.nl%2Fartikel%2F2338823-strijd-om-gas-tussen-vs-en-rusland-treft-nederlandse-bedrijven.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https%3...), and they're successful in that some companies have backed out. The pipeline is already mostly finished though. But basically the US is trying to stop it because it'll reduce the dependency of Europe on American resources. More information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream
      - Mirioron 6y ago
        Or you could think of it as the US helping (some of) its NATO allies in Europe. Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been vocally against Nord Stream 2. Just because Western Europe is for it doesn't mean all the other countries in Europe are as well. Even the previous president of the European Council came out against it.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  I beg to differ. Putin's law school thesis was "The Most Favored Nation Trading Principle in International Law." Granted, that may be slightly better than "Tentative Study of Agricultural Marketization", but both are only theses, not a full book: "The Art of the Deal." The difference is also clear in their propaganda: Putin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r29k_T_o9To https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r29k_T_o9To (any reccos for Xi? I ought to frequent youku.com more often) Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXTA36HO65g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXTA36HO65g Edit: removed snark
- op03 6y ago
  He does not play everyone like a fiddle because he is just one man and there are a million things requiring Control in the world. By the time he makes a move a million new things have happened. Ofcourse he has a network but that network suffers from the same flaw. So its all illusion of control. Easier to achieve among some parts of the population when anyone who points it out gets killed. But don't mistake it for control. He has lot of buttons he can push but what Outcomes he produces is all bullshit. The world is too complex and even Putin has a 7 inch head which can't fit in all of it.
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  That's utter bullshit and i'll tell you why: Russia has been severly weakened by democratic Europe. They have lost an insane amount of area since the fall of USSR and Europe has never been "closer" to Moscow, their capital. They are now getting punished for actions of last resort. Eg. Invading Ukraine, because otherwise their entire naval fleed would be rendered useless, since it couln't even go out. Russia is weak, although Putin tries to portray it like it isn't. The conflicts they create (eg. with their jets) is just for the show, they can't even afford it to build those jet en masse for themselves, lol.
  - namdnay 6y ago
    I don't think he's saying that Russia is the most powerful country in the world, I think he's saying that as an individual person, Putin is more powerful than any other individual person. I guess the main question would be "is Putin with total control of a less powerful country more powerful than the US president with carefully defined control of a more powerful country?"
    - NicoJuicy 6y ago
      I'm implying on the : "he plays everyone like a fiddle". The sanctions against Russia are still in place and it seems to be working. It will only get worse when Trump will ( probably) lose. Their ally is China and they are the weak partner on that end and China knows it. Additionally, Russia is probably getting an extra "big reward" in the coming year for their meldding in the western world.
      - namdnay 6y ago
        He's managed to keep sole control of Russia for 20 years, and probably made himself one of the wealthiest people in the world, so he's definitely playing fiddle for a lot of people
        brutt 6y ago
        Putin had plan to make himself and his friends richest people in the world. According to this plan, Gazprom must be valuated at $1T at the end of 2016[0]. [0]: https://politua.org/ekonomika/30270-gazprom-ostanavlivaemyj/ https://politua.org/ekonomika/30270-gazprom-ostanavlivaemyj/
- patrec 6y ago
  What makes you think of him as more powerful than Xi Jinping?
roenxi 6y ago
> The revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine of 2004-5 fed Putin’s “dark paranoia” that the Kremlin was threatened by a western plot to topple his regime. The Kremlin has subsequently revelled in escalating conflicts with the western powers as a marker of Russia’s newly regained stature on the world stage. The US has spent a generation pushing first the Soviets, then Russia, back into a very tightly confined sphere of influence. There is no obvious limit to the amount of harm the US has been wishing on Russian interests. It is a remarkably cycloptic perspective call such fears 'paranoid' or to paint Russia as some sort of aggressor. Russia isn't the one with military bases set up in North America. Russia isn't cutting people off from the global trade network or invading every other country in Western Asia. They are a relatively neutral country on the world stage in terms of aggressive foreign posture, even accounting for this article.
- maharajatever 6y ago
  The bit that you miss is that the people who had the misfortune to live in the Russian "sphere of influence" did not want, and will never want to be in it. The former Russian "spheres of influence" are very happy to be out of it, and terrified by the prospect of finding themselves drawn into it.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    I am the first person to criticise the Russian sphere of influence. They did a terrible job from the rise of the proletariat through to today. Even I could do a better job if left to administer the country. However to call them aggressors is a total perversion of the word aggression. Their posture is backs-to-the-wall defensive in relation to Western powers.
    - redis_mlc 6y ago
      No, Russian doctrine is to occupy neighboring countries to fight outside their own borders. Just because they're afraid of having their "backs-to-the-wall" doesn't mean their doctrine is legitimate.
pythonwizz 6y ago
"Khodorkovsky was no saint" From Corruption, tax evasion, illegal business to contract killing. Yes, No kidding, he was not a saint. As far as I know, his former security guard Alexey Pichugin is still in prison for murder. If you are able to read German, this article is funny (German equivalent of "The Onion"): Edward Snowden not rich and criminal enough [compared to Khodorkovsky] to deserve asylum in Germany. https://www.der-postillon.com/2013/12/edward-snowden-nicht-reich-und.html https://www.der-postillon.com/2013/12/edward-snowden-nicht-r...
truth_be_told 6y ago
Russia has been more sinned against than sinning. Gorbachev was lied to and manipulated with assurances of a "Marshall -like plan" to get him to dissolve the Soviet Union. During the Yeltsin years the West literally had advisors dictating every aspect of the Political, Economic and Monetary recovery plans in the newly formed countries. Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan were persuaded to give up their nukes in exchange for economic/monetary help. The result? They have been made irrelevant on the world stage and nobody cares about them anymore. Luckily Russia escaped worse fate and is now hitting back. Since then the entire Western media has been whipping up Russo-phobia everywhere.
- throwaway8941 6y ago
  I live in Kazakhstan. We are irrelevant to the world because we have very weak economy and terrible, all-pervading corruption, not because we don't have nukes. If we had them, they would probably have been sold to some terrorist groups out there already.
  - monkeycantype 6y ago
    One day I hope to come to your country and travel on horseback. I don't know if there really are forests of apple trees that grow apples I'd need two hands to hold, but if it's true I want to ride through in spring when the trees are in blossom. The few Kazakh people I've mentioned this too, have dismissed the idea with phrases like 'don't bother, it's an ex soviet strongman kleptocracy shit hole with las vegas architecture.' But I'm hanging onto the hope that in any country, city people don't really know much about the world beyond where the paved roads end.
    - sitkack 6y ago
      This kind of thing is possible starting in eastern Turkey and continues in the rural areas going east. I don't know about security, is probably ok, who knows. But you should do it now, don't wait.
      - 6y ago
eukgoekoko 6y ago
> by a coterie of former KGB officers, or "siloviki" "Siloviki" are not exactly KGB officers, "silovik" is a name for every security, military or intelligence serviceman which is accurately described in the linked article https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/20/west-putin-russia-spymaster-spies-ukraine-us https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/20/west-p... It's fun to see how Guardian keeps playing Chinese whispers.
- willvarfar 6y ago
  The article gets the gist across. If articles were written with caveats and exactness galore, it wouldn't be readable.
  - eukgoekoko 6y ago
    As a Russian national sharing most of anti-Putin sentiments I can tell that Guardian tends to provide an oversimplified picture of Russia. Most importantly this very article misses the fact that there were many actors in Russian political theatre at the time when Putin became prime minister. For instance, the article tells nothing about the involvement of oligarch Boris Berezovsky in the coup. But yes, I get your point, reading fairy tales is far more entertaining than reading chronicles.
    - corford 6y ago
      It's an article about a book that surely will cover that info if you buy and read it.
      - eukgoekoko 6y ago
        What if it doesn't? Would I be able to get my money back? Just as I've said, mentioning Sergei Pugachev and not mentioning Boris Berezovsky in one article looks strange. I totally get it why Pugachev is being mentioned: he's been advertising himself ever since leaving Russia. OTOH Berezovsky's dead so books about his influence might not sell well. Fun fact: it's Pugachev's own claim he was the architect of the coup https://www.bbc.com/russian/uk/2015/07/150724_brit_press https://www.bbc.com/russian/uk/2015/07/150724_brit_press
trabant00 6y ago
Nothing I would call "groundbreaking", but I do salute the warning about Russia's money and influence being happily accepted by the west right now. As somebody who grew up in communist eastern europe I fear this russian strategy apparent success. A completely corrupt regime which puts incredibly little value on human rights is agitating people in the west with accounts of (comparatively ) minor incidents and imperfections in western systems and institutions. This includes a lot of things from anti EU sentiments to racial tensions. And it's working if you ask me.
- luckylion 6y ago
  A completely corrupt regime which puts incredibly little value on human rights in it's country. We (as in NATO, but mostly done by the executor of NATO, the US) don't really care about human rights globally either, but we're very adapt at pretending to when it's to our advantage, e.g. when we can use it to mobilize the population against China, or Russia. We're also very good at looking away when it's about our allies or our wars. I don't know whether "it" is working and if it is, how successful it is. I believe that it's a colossal mistake to say "well, there is anti EU sentiment, so Putin's strategy is successful" as if that sentiment couldn't exist without any outside influence. The same goes for racial tensions, they are not a new thing at all, and they go back to before Putin was born, so to ascribe them (in full or in significant part) to Russian influence is questionable at best. Here is my take: I'm sure there are Russian intelligence operations. I'm also convinced that they aren't "behind it all". Much like we did with the civil war in Syria (that is: provide money, guns, and training, because we wanted Assad gone), they are adding a bit of oil to the fire, but they can't start something where there is nothing to start a fire with. This whole "it's Russian propaganda, you're a bot/paid shill" bit, that also get thrown around on HN on relevant posts, is just a lazy way to silence dissent, and usually followed up with "the moderators should look into the posting patterns and ban these people". I'm sure the moderators would disclose it if it happened, and they haven't, so my money is on there being no such thing here, but still people believe in it, because it's an easy explanation for the experience of people disagreeing with them. The same, I believe, is true in society in general. If people can just hand-wave away different opinions with "ah, the Russian influence has created a movement", they're happy to do so, because it allows them to not question whether the other side might have a point. The Russians do the same, only to them it's American Agents that have infiltrated Russia and want to harm the Russian people.
toyg 6y ago
Putin and his friends do a pretty decent job of running an old-school oligarchy. That's not really the problem, there is nothing groundbreaking in their approach. The problem is that the "Western" bloc (if there ever was such a thing, really) is currently ruled by elites that fundamentally share those values: weak collective institutions, strong private corporations, the bottom line as the final measure of virtue, and exploitation of the weak as socially acceptable. That means "we" end up fundamentally unable to oppose putinism on a principle basis, let alone in practice. That's how we end up with what the study reports: Western interests fundamentally welcome Putin's money and influence on a systemic level. "We" now run the world on gangster capitalism, and Putin is fairly good at playing that game. In fact, we will see more and more Putin-like figures appearing as time goes on. Unless we significantly change the game, Putin will keep winning.
- w_t_payne 6y ago
  That's a very interesting perspective. I shall have to ponder on that for a while.
  - netsharc 6y ago
    Just look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks, and who got to be president of the European Commission for many years. Or what Paul Krugman (and Matthew Yglesias) surmised: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/greece-the-tie-that-doesnt-bind/ https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/greece-the-tie-... ; when Greece got a bunch of left "radicalists" into power, it got the elite to bully mode, because usually (prime) ministers could be offered cushy European gigs as long as they do what the "elite" wants, but the non-tie-wearing Greeks actually wanted to save their population. The book "Adults in the Room" by Yanis Varoufakis is also an eye opener...
- simonh 6y ago
  I see your point with respect to the US, there's a very corporatist oligarchic tendency on the right, but I really don't see that in Europe at all. Europe has gone to great lengths to stand up to corporations, and that includes many European conservatives of which I count myself one. There's a much broader acceptance among moderate European conservatives that regulation is essential to well functioning market economies for example. In terms of facing up to Putin though, despite the fact that European governments, and as a result the EU, are less corporatist than the US they also tend to be softer on Putin. The Germans particularly, for example their support for the Russian gas pipeline. Meanwhile the US has tended to want to be much tougher on Putin. In this respect Trump is an outlier. He definitely does seem to see Putin as a kindred sprit personally and seems incapable of dealign with him effectively, but this is not at all representative of Republican policy and attitude towards Putin over the last few decades. If anything it was the Democrats who tended to be over-optimistic about the chances of rapprochement with Russia as in the failed "reset' of relations under Obama. So yes there are definitely corporatist oligarchic forces in the west that bear comparison with the Russian system, but I see them as mainly being US based not western in general. However that doesn't make them natural allies with Russian oligarchism, rather they're directly competitive power structures. Their similarities can potentially make them less compatible with each other not more. If they were to work out how to become compatible with each other we'd really be in terrible trouble.
chaoz_ 6y ago
Russia is losing points in the tech innovation category, but is definitely leading in the autocracy innovation. As Sergei Guriev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Guriev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Guriev) pointed out, the regime will perish when government will have to pay too much for the information war and the population simple won't be able to satisfy their basic needs (empty fridge). This is quite scary.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  The information war is a lot cheaper than the Cold War was. They seem to be making a significant profit from insider trading, manipulating markets, and selling military arms. It's hard to see a negative end-game to the Russian story in the short term. The biggest threat seems to be a disorganized power grab after Putin retires or kicks the bucket - but I suspect they have a secret succession plan for that.
Synaesthesia 6y ago
People seem to think Putin is beholden to oligarchs, when actually he has taken them on and even sent some to jail! We must remember who created the oligarchs in the first place, and the fact that in the West they never seem to be called “oligarchs”
- lovelyviking 6y ago
  Correct!
rainworld 6y ago
Part of the continuing British infowar against Russia. If you want to understand how modern Russia came to be, start with Paul Klebnikov’s Godfather of the Kremlin. Klebnikov, who was in fact murdered for his fearless journalism, very likely by said Godfather, Boris Berezovsky. Berezovsky, who received shelter, protection and more from the UK. Excellent documentaries on the topic: https://youtu.be/oLNKqbwec0s https://youtu.be/oLNKqbwec0s https://youtu.be/ZLPxyDlQfBc https://youtu.be/ZLPxyDlQfBc
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
hogFeast 6y ago
Confused and confusing. Saying that Khordokovsky was "no saint" is...an understatement. He refused to pay tax in Russia, he was charged in the US for money laundering resulting from one of the largest tax fraud schemes ever, he was the main money launderer for Russian organised crime, he was involved in massive political corruption (it is forgotten today, the reason why Yukos was targeted was all of the above...Western investors, Bill Browder, worked with Putin to take Khordokovsky down), he got "his start" by stealing a bank from the state and paying bribes to win rigged auctions (an idea suggested by Western economic consultants, even well after it was apparent they were being rigged). Khordokovsky lived by the sword, and died by it. To suggest that Putin was immensely powerful from the off and schemed his way into the Presidency is also not true. It took him nearly half a decade to build a power base. The corruption and incompetence around Yeltsin was also very real (it is amazing how almost every Western accounts ignores this), elections were rigged, big donations from foreigners were produced (one even went to pay state pensions before an election), and this was a govt run by oligarchs around Berezovsky (all of whom refused to pay tax and controlled the media, all of whom fled to the UK and were sheltered by the govt...which wasn't particularly smart). Not to mention that Yeltsin was then basically dead on his feet (he had heart surgery, was polling near 0%, and the corruption against him was basically proven). If you want to understand Putin, you have to understand the 1990s (funnily enough, 1998 isn't mentioned...it never is, a financial crisis triggered by bad advice from the West doesn't fit the narrative). Btw, this isn't to say that Putin isn't corrupt, etc. But it is to say that West reaped what it sowed in Russia. Bad economic advice (amazingly, some involved are regarded as economic experts of great gravitas and wisdom) and hitching our star to Yeltsin were errors (inevitably and accurately, Russians believe the West is hypocritical...Yeltsin's corruption was fine because he was "our man"). And say what you will but when Putin came to power, Russia's economy had basically imploded, there was essentially a civil war going on, the oligarchs were paying no tax, and looting everything that wasn't nailed down. He ended that (and btw, he won great plaudits from the West for this until he took over Yukos) and brought some measure of stability that Yeltsin was nowhere close to achieving (again, largely because the purpose of his govt was to be run by the West and oligarchs looking to loot Russia...Putin was focused on what was good for Russia). I am not sure why journalists push this narrative either. Everything doesn't need to be characterised as good or bad. It isn't binary. Putin is a function of the system that exists in Russia, and the situation that he inherited. Russia isn't like the West. To expect that it should be or judge him solely by those standards may feel comfortable but it makes no logical sense.
sheeshkebab 6y ago
A bunch thugs from late 80s and 90s are still fighting it out. It will be another 10 years before they die off, hopefully.
WinstonSmith84 6y ago
"a groundbreaking study..." hm, I'm left wondering what's groundbreaking in this article. It's all accurate and well known information and barely scratched the surface. If anyone learned anything reading this, they are simply not knowing Russia beyond Hollywood movies.
- touristtam 6y ago
  Sorry, are you saying you have read the book already? I know it was released in April as a hard cover.
  - mszcz 6y ago
    It's been available on Kindle for some time now, I bought it on April 12th.
  - WinstonSmith84 6y ago
    The teaser shall have been simply more exciting (if there is really something groundbreaking). Reading well known "facts" is not going to make buy this book...
shusson 6y ago
There's an irony that a western country, Germany, moved Lenin to Russia in 1917, which was a significant factor in the revolution that followed.
- danjac 6y ago
  Germany was not really a democracy in 1917. It was nominally a constitutional monarchy under the Kaiser, with a very limited parliamentary system elected by male sufferage that could pass budgets but little else. By the end of the war - before the Kaiser abdicated - it was pretty much a defacto military dictatorship run by the General Staff.
  - shusson 6y ago
    Yes my mistake, corrected.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    An elected parliament that controls the budget is actually a very core part of democracy. Power flows from budgets.
    - heavenlyblue 6y ago
      Well, yesterday you’ve controlled the budged, and today you were killed by our special police.
- fsagx 6y ago
  How is that ironic? It was a deliberate strategy to destabilize Russia and undermine their war effort. It worked.
  - toyg 6y ago
    I guess the irony is that, in the long run, it turned Russia into an even stronger competitor.

158 points by BerislavLopac 6y ago

I’m often wondering if Putin is, in fact, the most powerful person in the world by a very large margin. He might not have a billion people or a space force, but he plays everyone like a fiddle.

zirkonit 6y ago
Interestingly enough, Putin's space force predates Trump's by years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Aerospace_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Aerospace_Forces (Air-Space Force, in Russian).
gear54rus 6y ago
He might be the most powerful in current soviet union that is CIS. However I fail to see how he can be the most powerful in the world given that USA surpasses russia in both military and economic might (which are pretty much the same thing if you think about it). Russia has no answer to sanctions and those counter-sanctions are just a delusion. USA can make many other countries respect the sanctions due to dollar being universal currency. There's also China which is simply too populous to challenge for anyone.
- namdnay 6y ago
  The difference being that we suspect Putin has pretty much total control over his empire, whereas a US president for example operates with checks and balances
- berdario 6y ago
  I think that GP point might be about being able to direct the military and economic might. The US is surely ahead in terms of numbers... but even if they wanted to stop any military involvement in the middle east tomorrow, and pull back from NATO, there'd be a lot of push-back and it would heavily disappoint its allies. Compare with Russia: they have some involvement in Syria (and other places, I'm sure), but if they'd pull back from Syria, I'm not sure who else besides Assad would complain. From this point of view, their hands might not be as tied as the US' I agree that Russia counter-sanctions can be just a delusion, but I think that another interesting point is that sanctions aren't biting as hard as they could've in Russia, due to their massive reduction in public debt: https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/09/11/russias-net-public-debt-falls-to-zero-a67238 https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/09/11/russias-net-public... They had slow (or absent) growth, otoh.
- TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
  Putin is dangerous because he realised that in the Internet age, you can do incredible damage to a country with social media messaging, hacking, and bribery. The US has been using the media like this for decades, but it's always been considered a side game. Russia has made it a primary mode of attack - partly because it's vastly cheaper and more effective than spending extreme sums of money on super-weapons. So we know that Putin has been financing the subversion of social democracy and the promotion of far-right nationalist narratives in the US and the EU through a combination of direct funding, social media troll farming, and straightforward financially advantageous diplomacy - and possibly also direct election hacking, although so far that's been harder to prove. The UK has been almost destroyed by this. It's a shell of the country it was when the century started, and the poison of Brexit hasn't even worked its way fully through the system yet. I expect I'll get the usual downvotes for posting this out, but the downvoters might want to address the points made here before they waste their time on that: https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/is-brexit-a-russia-backed-coup https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/is-brexit-a-russia-b... There's much more detail about this in a book which is being released soon.
  - lovelyviking 6y ago
    I do not understand why people downvote you if they are sincere to the truth. You points are correct and what West doesn't realise is that Putin is at war with West civilisation. He acts like it's a war and he thinks in terms of war. People do not realise, because it seems crazy to create war when there is no need for it, but this is exactly why they loose, because Putin uses it for his advantage. I just hope people would wake up and understand how serious threat is.
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  Disclaimer: I'm no politician or economist, but while I do believe the US has military superiority still, they won't be able to wage a large scale war at the moment; they simply cannot afford it. They would have to take out even more loans, and right now the US' money lenders are the UAE and China; given that they are both close to Russia, they may opt to not lend money to fund the US' wars. And even without the threat, they may opt to not lend the money because the US will never be able to pay it back. I suspect WW3 is kept at bay not because of MAD anymore, but because of financial interests. If a country decides "fuck it, we'll forfeit this debt", we'll likely see more armed conflicts. I don't see Russia opting for a conflict though, they too cannot afford it. Not unless they're backed by a well-to-do country like China. I don't believe China would become a direct aggressor either, if they would, then their economy would quickly grind to a halt due to sanctions and import stops from the US and Europe. They'd probably a proxy like North Korea.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - frockington1 6y ago
    70% of US debt is owned by American citizens. I do agree with the premise of nobody going to war because they can't afford it. The only caveat I would add would that America tends to do pretty well when armed conflicts happen as they supply the world with weapons Souce: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-who-owns-a-record-2121-trillion-of-us-debt-2018-08-21 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-who-owns-a-record-21...
- NicoJuicy 6y ago
  Russia's economy is the sum of 3 countries in Europe ( I think France, Belgium and Netherlands would do) and they redirect an insane amount of their GDP % to military. But even then their army is ancient and mostly predates the fall of Soviet Union. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_militar...
  - konart 6y ago
    >But even then their army is ancient and mostly predates the fall of Soviet Union. >Post link to aircrafts stats only While it is true that Russia is behind the other major players on modernisation - russian military does get new toys quite often these days on a stable basis. Same goes for upgrading old T-72 tanks for example. What's the point of building armada of Armata if modernised T-72 has basically the same capabilities as T-90 which is more than enough in most scenarios? T-72 Where used in Ukraine and Russia was able to get enough data from operations to do some improvements to the machines and even to upgrade the majority of them even before the 'hot' part of the conflict was over for them. Also how did you count the size of the economy exactly?
    - NicoJuicy 6y ago
      You can use wolfram alpha to get their GDP and re-calculate my statement. And considering Russia is marketing their Jets heavily to everyone, i think the aircraft stats are enough to make it obvious how ancient their army actually is ( majority is ~ 50 years old).
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
senectus1 6y ago
shut down the oil and gas out of russia and you shut down putin.
- creato 6y ago
  You also shut down Europe. Who has the power in this situation?
  - Cthulhu_ 6y ago
    The US is trying to grab it; they're actively threatening with sanctions to dozens companies that are building a new gas pipeline at the moment (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fnos.nl%2Fartikel%2F2338823-strijd-om-gas-tussen-vs-en-rusland-treft-nederlandse-bedrijven.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&u=https%3...), and they're successful in that some companies have backed out. The pipeline is already mostly finished though. But basically the US is trying to stop it because it'll reduce the dependency of Europe on American resources. More information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nord_Stream
    - Mirioron 6y ago
      Or you could think of it as the US helping (some of) its NATO allies in Europe. Poland, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania have been vocally against Nord Stream 2. Just because Western Europe is for it doesn't mean all the other countries in Europe are as well. Even the previous president of the European Council came out against it.
082349872349872 6y ago
I beg to differ. Putin's law school thesis was "The Most Favored Nation Trading Principle in International Law." Granted, that may be slightly better than "Tentative Study of Agricultural Marketization", but both are only theses, not a full book: "The Art of the Deal." The difference is also clear in their propaganda: Putin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r29k_T_o9To https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r29k_T_o9To (any reccos for Xi? I ought to frequent youku.com more often) Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXTA36HO65g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXTA36HO65g Edit: removed snark
op03 6y ago
He does not play everyone like a fiddle because he is just one man and there are a million things requiring Control in the world. By the time he makes a move a million new things have happened. Ofcourse he has a network but that network suffers from the same flaw. So its all illusion of control. Easier to achieve among some parts of the population when anyone who points it out gets killed. But don't mistake it for control. He has lot of buttons he can push but what Outcomes he produces is all bullshit. The world is too complex and even Putin has a 7 inch head which can't fit in all of it.
NicoJuicy 6y ago
That's utter bullshit and i'll tell you why: Russia has been severly weakened by democratic Europe. They have lost an insane amount of area since the fall of USSR and Europe has never been "closer" to Moscow, their capital. They are now getting punished for actions of last resort. Eg. Invading Ukraine, because otherwise their entire naval fleed would be rendered useless, since it couln't even go out. Russia is weak, although Putin tries to portray it like it isn't. The conflicts they create (eg. with their jets) is just for the show, they can't even afford it to build those jet en masse for themselves, lol.
- namdnay 6y ago
  I don't think he's saying that Russia is the most powerful country in the world, I think he's saying that as an individual person, Putin is more powerful than any other individual person. I guess the main question would be "is Putin with total control of a less powerful country more powerful than the US president with carefully defined control of a more powerful country?"
  - NicoJuicy 6y ago
    I'm implying on the : "he plays everyone like a fiddle". The sanctions against Russia are still in place and it seems to be working. It will only get worse when Trump will ( probably) lose. Their ally is China and they are the weak partner on that end and China knows it. Additionally, Russia is probably getting an extra "big reward" in the coming year for their meldding in the western world.
    - namdnay 6y ago
      He's managed to keep sole control of Russia for 20 years, and probably made himself one of the wealthiest people in the world, so he's definitely playing fiddle for a lot of people
      - brutt 6y ago
        Putin had plan to make himself and his friends richest people in the world. According to this plan, Gazprom must be valuated at $1T at the end of 2016[0]. [0]: https://politua.org/ekonomika/30270-gazprom-ostanavlivaemyj/ https://politua.org/ekonomika/30270-gazprom-ostanavlivaemyj/
patrec 6y ago
What makes you think of him as more powerful than Xi Jinping?

roenxi 6y ago

> The revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine of 2004-5 fed Putin’s “dark paranoia” that the Kremlin was threatened by a western plot to topple his regime. The Kremlin has subsequently revelled in escalating conflicts with the western powers as a marker of Russia’s newly regained stature on the world stage. The US has spent a generation pushing first the Soviets, then Russia, back into a very tightly confined sphere of influence. There is no obvious limit to the amount of harm the US has been wishing on Russian interests. It is a remarkably cycloptic perspective call such fears 'paranoid' or to paint Russia as some sort of aggressor. Russia isn't the one with military bases set up in North America. Russia isn't cutting people off from the global trade network or invading every other country in Western Asia. They are a relatively neutral country on the world stage in terms of aggressive foreign posture, even accounting for this article.

maharajatever 6y ago
The bit that you miss is that the people who had the misfortune to live in the Russian "sphere of influence" did not want, and will never want to be in it. The former Russian "spheres of influence" are very happy to be out of it, and terrified by the prospect of finding themselves drawn into it.
- roenxi 6y ago
  I am the first person to criticise the Russian sphere of influence. They did a terrible job from the rise of the proletariat through to today. Even I could do a better job if left to administer the country. However to call them aggressors is a total perversion of the word aggression. Their posture is backs-to-the-wall defensive in relation to Western powers.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    No, Russian doctrine is to occupy neighboring countries to fight outside their own borders. Just because they're afraid of having their "backs-to-the-wall" doesn't mean their doctrine is legitimate.

pythonwizz 6y ago

"Khodorkovsky was no saint" From Corruption, tax evasion, illegal business to contract killing. Yes, No kidding, he was not a saint. As far as I know, his former security guard Alexey Pichugin is still in prison for murder. If you are able to read German, this article is funny (German equivalent of "The Onion"): Edward Snowden not rich and criminal enough [compared to Khodorkovsky] to deserve asylum in Germany. https://www.der-postillon.com/2013/12/edward-snowden-nicht-reich-und.html https://www.der-postillon.com/2013/12/edward-snowden-nicht-r...

truth_be_told 6y ago

Russia has been more sinned against than sinning. Gorbachev was lied to and manipulated with assurances of a "Marshall -like plan" to get him to dissolve the Soviet Union. During the Yeltsin years the West literally had advisors dictating every aspect of the Political, Economic and Monetary recovery plans in the newly formed countries. Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan were persuaded to give up their nukes in exchange for economic/monetary help. The result? They have been made irrelevant on the world stage and nobody cares about them anymore. Luckily Russia escaped worse fate and is now hitting back. Since then the entire Western media has been whipping up Russo-phobia everywhere.

throwaway8941 6y ago
I live in Kazakhstan. We are irrelevant to the world because we have very weak economy and terrible, all-pervading corruption, not because we don't have nukes. If we had them, they would probably have been sold to some terrorist groups out there already.
- monkeycantype 6y ago
  One day I hope to come to your country and travel on horseback. I don't know if there really are forests of apple trees that grow apples I'd need two hands to hold, but if it's true I want to ride through in spring when the trees are in blossom. The few Kazakh people I've mentioned this too, have dismissed the idea with phrases like 'don't bother, it's an ex soviet strongman kleptocracy shit hole with las vegas architecture.' But I'm hanging onto the hope that in any country, city people don't really know much about the world beyond where the paved roads end.
  - sitkack 6y ago
    This kind of thing is possible starting in eastern Turkey and continues in the rural areas going east. I don't know about security, is probably ok, who knows. But you should do it now, don't wait.
    - 6y ago

eukgoekoko 6y ago

> by a coterie of former KGB officers, or "siloviki" "Siloviki" are not exactly KGB officers, "silovik" is a name for every security, military or intelligence serviceman which is accurately described in the linked article https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/20/west-putin-russia-spymaster-spies-ukraine-us https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/20/west-p... It's fun to see how Guardian keeps playing Chinese whispers.

willvarfar 6y ago
The article gets the gist across. If articles were written with caveats and exactness galore, it wouldn't be readable.
- eukgoekoko 6y ago
  As a Russian national sharing most of anti-Putin sentiments I can tell that Guardian tends to provide an oversimplified picture of Russia. Most importantly this very article misses the fact that there were many actors in Russian political theatre at the time when Putin became prime minister. For instance, the article tells nothing about the involvement of oligarch Boris Berezovsky in the coup. But yes, I get your point, reading fairy tales is far more entertaining than reading chronicles.
  - corford 6y ago
    It's an article about a book that surely will cover that info if you buy and read it.
    - eukgoekoko 6y ago
      What if it doesn't? Would I be able to get my money back? Just as I've said, mentioning Sergei Pugachev and not mentioning Boris Berezovsky in one article looks strange. I totally get it why Pugachev is being mentioned: he's been advertising himself ever since leaving Russia. OTOH Berezovsky's dead so books about his influence might not sell well. Fun fact: it's Pugachev's own claim he was the architect of the coup https://www.bbc.com/russian/uk/2015/07/150724_brit_press https://www.bbc.com/russian/uk/2015/07/150724_brit_press

trabant00 6y ago

Nothing I would call "groundbreaking", but I do salute the warning about Russia's money and influence being happily accepted by the west right now. As somebody who grew up in communist eastern europe I fear this russian strategy apparent success. A completely corrupt regime which puts incredibly little value on human rights is agitating people in the west with accounts of (comparatively ) minor incidents and imperfections in western systems and institutions. This includes a lot of things from anti EU sentiments to racial tensions. And it's working if you ask me.

luckylion 6y ago
A completely corrupt regime which puts incredibly little value on human rights in it's country. We (as in NATO, but mostly done by the executor of NATO, the US) don't really care about human rights globally either, but we're very adapt at pretending to when it's to our advantage, e.g. when we can use it to mobilize the population against China, or Russia. We're also very good at looking away when it's about our allies or our wars. I don't know whether "it" is working and if it is, how successful it is. I believe that it's a colossal mistake to say "well, there is anti EU sentiment, so Putin's strategy is successful" as if that sentiment couldn't exist without any outside influence. The same goes for racial tensions, they are not a new thing at all, and they go back to before Putin was born, so to ascribe them (in full or in significant part) to Russian influence is questionable at best. Here is my take: I'm sure there are Russian intelligence operations. I'm also convinced that they aren't "behind it all". Much like we did with the civil war in Syria (that is: provide money, guns, and training, because we wanted Assad gone), they are adding a bit of oil to the fire, but they can't start something where there is nothing to start a fire with. This whole "it's Russian propaganda, you're a bot/paid shill" bit, that also get thrown around on HN on relevant posts, is just a lazy way to silence dissent, and usually followed up with "the moderators should look into the posting patterns and ban these people". I'm sure the moderators would disclose it if it happened, and they haven't, so my money is on there being no such thing here, but still people believe in it, because it's an easy explanation for the experience of people disagreeing with them. The same, I believe, is true in society in general. If people can just hand-wave away different opinions with "ah, the Russian influence has created a movement", they're happy to do so, because it allows them to not question whether the other side might have a point. The Russians do the same, only to them it's American Agents that have infiltrated Russia and want to harm the Russian people.

toyg 6y ago

Putin and his friends do a pretty decent job of running an old-school oligarchy. That's not really the problem, there is nothing groundbreaking in their approach. The problem is that the "Western" bloc (if there ever was such a thing, really) is currently ruled by elites that fundamentally share those values: weak collective institutions, strong private corporations, the bottom line as the final measure of virtue, and exploitation of the weak as socially acceptable. That means "we" end up fundamentally unable to oppose putinism on a principle basis, let alone in practice. That's how we end up with what the study reports: Western interests fundamentally welcome Putin's money and influence on a systemic level. "We" now run the world on gangster capitalism, and Putin is fairly good at playing that game. In fact, we will see more and more Putin-like figures appearing as time goes on. Unless we significantly change the game, Putin will keep winning.

w_t_payne 6y ago
That's a very interesting perspective. I shall have to ponder on that for a while.
- netsharc 6y ago
  Just look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks, and who got to be president of the European Commission for many years. Or what Paul Krugman (and Matthew Yglesias) surmised: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/greece-the-tie-that-doesnt-bind/ https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/09/greece-the-tie-... ; when Greece got a bunch of left "radicalists" into power, it got the elite to bully mode, because usually (prime) ministers could be offered cushy European gigs as long as they do what the "elite" wants, but the non-tie-wearing Greeks actually wanted to save their population. The book "Adults in the Room" by Yanis Varoufakis is also an eye opener...
simonh 6y ago
I see your point with respect to the US, there's a very corporatist oligarchic tendency on the right, but I really don't see that in Europe at all. Europe has gone to great lengths to stand up to corporations, and that includes many European conservatives of which I count myself one. There's a much broader acceptance among moderate European conservatives that regulation is essential to well functioning market economies for example. In terms of facing up to Putin though, despite the fact that European governments, and as a result the EU, are less corporatist than the US they also tend to be softer on Putin. The Germans particularly, for example their support for the Russian gas pipeline. Meanwhile the US has tended to want to be much tougher on Putin. In this respect Trump is an outlier. He definitely does seem to see Putin as a kindred sprit personally and seems incapable of dealign with him effectively, but this is not at all representative of Republican policy and attitude towards Putin over the last few decades. If anything it was the Democrats who tended to be over-optimistic about the chances of rapprochement with Russia as in the failed "reset' of relations under Obama. So yes there are definitely corporatist oligarchic forces in the west that bear comparison with the Russian system, but I see them as mainly being US based not western in general. However that doesn't make them natural allies with Russian oligarchism, rather they're directly competitive power structures. Their similarities can potentially make them less compatible with each other not more. If they were to work out how to become compatible with each other we'd really be in terrible trouble.

chaoz_ 6y ago

Russia is losing points in the tech innovation category, but is definitely leading in the autocracy innovation. As Sergei Guriev (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Guriev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergei_Guriev) pointed out, the regime will perish when government will have to pay too much for the information war and the population simple won't be able to satisfy their basic needs (empty fridge). This is quite scary.

koheripbal 6y ago
The information war is a lot cheaper than the Cold War was. They seem to be making a significant profit from insider trading, manipulating markets, and selling military arms. It's hard to see a negative end-game to the Russian story in the short term. The biggest threat seems to be a disorganized power grab after Putin retires or kicks the bucket - but I suspect they have a secret succession plan for that.

Synaesthesia 6y ago

People seem to think Putin is beholden to oligarchs, when actually he has taken them on and even sent some to jail! We must remember who created the oligarchs in the first place, and the fact that in the West they never seem to be called “oligarchs”

lovelyviking 6y ago
Correct!

rainworld 6y ago

Part of the continuing British infowar against Russia. If you want to understand how modern Russia came to be, start with Paul Klebnikov’s Godfather of the Kremlin. Klebnikov, who was in fact murdered for his fearless journalism, very likely by said Godfather, Boris Berezovsky. Berezovsky, who received shelter, protection and more from the UK. Excellent documentaries on the topic: https://youtu.be/oLNKqbwec0s https://youtu.be/oLNKqbwec0s https://youtu.be/ZLPxyDlQfBc https://youtu.be/ZLPxyDlQfBc

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

hogFeast 6y ago

Confused and confusing. Saying that Khordokovsky was "no saint" is...an understatement. He refused to pay tax in Russia, he was charged in the US for money laundering resulting from one of the largest tax fraud schemes ever, he was the main money launderer for Russian organised crime, he was involved in massive political corruption (it is forgotten today, the reason why Yukos was targeted was all of the above...Western investors, Bill Browder, worked with Putin to take Khordokovsky down), he got "his start" by stealing a bank from the state and paying bribes to win rigged auctions (an idea suggested by Western economic consultants, even well after it was apparent they were being rigged). Khordokovsky lived by the sword, and died by it. To suggest that Putin was immensely powerful from the off and schemed his way into the Presidency is also not true. It took him nearly half a decade to build a power base. The corruption and incompetence around Yeltsin was also very real (it is amazing how almost every Western accounts ignores this), elections were rigged, big donations from foreigners were produced (one even went to pay state pensions before an election), and this was a govt run by oligarchs around Berezovsky (all of whom refused to pay tax and controlled the media, all of whom fled to the UK and were sheltered by the govt...which wasn't particularly smart). Not to mention that Yeltsin was then basically dead on his feet (he had heart surgery, was polling near 0%, and the corruption against him was basically proven). If you want to understand Putin, you have to understand the 1990s (funnily enough, 1998 isn't mentioned...it never is, a financial crisis triggered by bad advice from the West doesn't fit the narrative). Btw, this isn't to say that Putin isn't corrupt, etc. But it is to say that West reaped what it sowed in Russia. Bad economic advice (amazingly, some involved are regarded as economic experts of great gravitas and wisdom) and hitching our star to Yeltsin were errors (inevitably and accurately, Russians believe the West is hypocritical...Yeltsin's corruption was fine because he was "our man"). And say what you will but when Putin came to power, Russia's economy had basically imploded, there was essentially a civil war going on, the oligarchs were paying no tax, and looting everything that wasn't nailed down. He ended that (and btw, he won great plaudits from the West for this until he took over Yukos) and brought some measure of stability that Yeltsin was nowhere close to achieving (again, largely because the purpose of his govt was to be run by the West and oligarchs looking to loot Russia...Putin was focused on what was good for Russia). I am not sure why journalists push this narrative either. Everything doesn't need to be characterised as good or bad. It isn't binary. Putin is a function of the system that exists in Russia, and the situation that he inherited. Russia isn't like the West. To expect that it should be or judge him solely by those standards may feel comfortable but it makes no logical sense.

sheeshkebab 6y ago

A bunch thugs from late 80s and 90s are still fighting it out. It will be another 10 years before they die off, hopefully.

WinstonSmith84 6y ago

"a groundbreaking study..." hm, I'm left wondering what's groundbreaking in this article. It's all accurate and well known information and barely scratched the surface. If anyone learned anything reading this, they are simply not knowing Russia beyond Hollywood movies.

touristtam 6y ago
Sorry, are you saying you have read the book already? I know it was released in April as a hard cover.
- mszcz 6y ago
  It's been available on Kindle for some time now, I bought it on April 12th.
- WinstonSmith84 6y ago
  The teaser shall have been simply more exciting (if there is really something groundbreaking). Reading well known "facts" is not going to make buy this book...

shusson 6y ago

There's an irony that a western country, Germany, moved Lenin to Russia in 1917, which was a significant factor in the revolution that followed.

danjac 6y ago
Germany was not really a democracy in 1917. It was nominally a constitutional monarchy under the Kaiser, with a very limited parliamentary system elected by male sufferage that could pass budgets but little else. By the end of the war - before the Kaiser abdicated - it was pretty much a defacto military dictatorship run by the General Staff.
- shusson 6y ago
  Yes my mistake, corrected.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  An elected parliament that controls the budget is actually a very core part of democracy. Power flows from budgets.
  - heavenlyblue 6y ago
    Well, yesterday you’ve controlled the budged, and today you were killed by our special police.
fsagx 6y ago
How is that ironic? It was a deliberate strategy to destabilize Russia and undermine their war effort. It worked.
- toyg 6y ago
  I guess the irony is that, in the long run, it turned Russia into an even stronger competitor.