TSAR PUTIN?

Audio-book Review
By Chet Yarbrough

(Blog:awalkingdelight)
Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The New Tsar: The Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin

Written by: Steven Lee Myers

Narration by:  Rene Ruiz

Steven Lee Myers has written a highly polished and informative biography but fails to convince one that Putin is a Tsar.  Putin is more Richard Nixon than Catherine the Great.   Putin, like Nixon, is smart and thin-skinned.  Putin, like Nixon, makes personnel decisions based on loyalty, and views the world in real-politic terms.

Myers shows Putin comes from a family of Russian patriots with a grandfather and father that fought in Russian armies in different generations.  Each lived during the Stalinist years of Gulags and terror but none rebelled against the power of Russia’s leadership.

Myers explains how Putin becomes interested in the KGB at the age of 16 and grooms himself for a life in the secret service.  Putin’s KGB-influenced’ career-path is to become an attorney.  He learns German and is assigned to East Germany in his first years as a KGB agent.

Myers explains how Putin’s steely disposition grows in East Germany, and later St Petersburg, Russia. Putin keeps a low profile but exhibits bravery, independence, and initiative when his country’s leaders are overwhelmed by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain.

Sobchak is initially recognized as a representative of new Russia but the power of his position is diminished by the ineptitude of his administration.  In spite of Sobchak’s mistakes, Myers shows that Putin stands by him.  Loyalty is a characteristic of Putin that is expected of all who work with him.  Eventually Sobchak is electorally defeated and Putin is left out of a job.  

Putin’s relationship with the mayor of Leningrad reminds one of his support for Lukashenco, the President of Belarus, who illegally diverted a commercial airline to capture a government political dissident (Roman Protasevich). 

Russia is unlikely to return to hegemonic control of adjacent countries. Ethnic nationalism and desire for greater freedom are unquenchable thirsts.  Ukraine, Georgia, and even Belarus, seem unlikely to rejoin Russia in a new Socialist Republic.

Russia will remain a major international power and influence in the world.  Nuclear capability and cybernetics (particularly as a weapon of political and economic disruption) guarantees Russia’s position in world affairs.

Forcing Ukraine or Georgia to return to the Russian block is beyond the military strength of Russia’s Putin or his successors.  Putin successfully destroyed Chechen resistance in Russia but only by severe repression within the Russian state’s border, mobilization of the press against Chenchen terrorism, and co-optation of a Chechen leader who is now a Putin’ mercenary in Ukraine. Reassembly of a form of the U. S. S. R. is only conceivable based on political accommodation based on economic influence or volitional federation.  Neighboring countries can only be seduced, i.e., either by economics, or cybernetic influence.  A majority vote of neighboring countries; not military dominion, will be the “modus vivendi” for Russian expansion.

But what about the Crimea.  It is a part of the Ukraine.

An argument can be made that territory of the Crimea is not an exception.  Millions of dollars were spent by Russia to modernize Crimea for the Olympics.  Undoubtedly, a great deal of time was spent influencing Crimea’s population (which is ethnically 65% Russian).  It is conceivable that a majority of the Crimea residents voted to become part of Russia.

Of course, this sets aside the truth of Crimea’s territorial and nationalist connection with Ukraine.  One might argue this is analogous to Hitler’s invasion of Czechoslovakia.  Hitler used the excuse that ethnic Germans were being abused in the Sudetenland.  In this view, Putin is no Tsar; i.e. he is more Stalinist accolade.

(To make Crimea the equivalent of the Sudetenland one might ask oneself if the majority in the Sudetenland were ethnic Germans, and was there a vote by Sudetenland residents.)

Myers cogently reveals the strengths and weaknesses of modern Russian rule.  In a limited sense (limited by Myers’ independent research and fact checking), Myers’ corroborates the experience noted in William Browder’s book, “Red Notice”.  Putin is certainly capable of undermining the influence or action of any person who chooses to challenge his authoritarianism.

In spite of Putin’s great power, Myers shows there are chinks in his invincibility.  Putin’s sly manipulation for re-election after Medvedev’s only term as President fails to quell the desire for freedom of Russian citizens.  Just as Watergate exposed the hubris of Nixon, Putin will suffer from the sin of being a flawed human being.  Putin, like Nixon, is a great patriot of his country but neither exhibit the inner moral compass that make good leaders great leaders.  This is a reminder of the 45th American President who focused on the business of America; not its role as a beacon for freedom and equality of opportunity.

An odd article in the NYTs (4/6/22) notes America is perplexed by what Putin owns in order to punish him with confiscation or restriction of assets. Putin is a true believer in communism. His position and property are owned by the State. In one sense that makes Putin vulnerable because his money, power, and prestige is dependent on his government’ position. In another, his position insulates him from international economic sanction.

Myers creates a convincing portrait of a man who is subject to the sins of most who rise to power.  Putin believes he has become a god among men.  He rationalizes his greed by thinking the fate of Russia’s re-ascendance lies in his hands.  Even in the days of Stalinist governance, relationship to the leader was the sine ne quo of wealth and power.  Putin carries on that tradition.  Putin’s friends and associates from the KGB and his tenure in St. Petersburg are critical components of Putin’s control of the economy and government.

Putin is no Tsar but he could have been if education had not advanced society and freedom of expression  had not entered the internet age.