
Putin's People – a groundbreaking study that follows the money - BerislavLopac
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/06/putins-people-by-catherine-belton-review-a-groundbreaking-study-that-follows-the-money
======
chaoz_
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
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.

------
eukgoekoko
> 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-p...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/20/west-
putin-russia-spymaster-spies-ukraine-us)

It's fun to see how Guardian keeps playing Chinese whispers.

~~~
willvarfar
The article gets the gist across. If articles were written with caveats and
exactness galore, it wouldn't be readable.

~~~
eukgoekoko
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.

~~~
willvarfar
The article is a book review. What do you think of the book that is being
reviewed? Does it go into enough detail, and get its facts straight?

~~~
eukgoekoko
Given all these inaccuracies in this advertising artice I don't feel too much
convinced. I'd recommend everyone reading the book by Paul Khlebnikov
[https://books.google.de/books?id=vb2ZAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y](https://books.google.de/books?id=vb2ZAAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y)
which gives a detailed insider view on Russian politics of that era. BTW,
writing this book has costed the guy his life. As for "Putin's People" it
looks like an another unwitting attempt to cash in on anti-Putin hysteria.

~~~
sitkack
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Journalists_killed_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Journalists_killed_in_Russia)

------
rainworld
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)

------
WinstonSmith84
"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
Sorry, are you saying you have read the book already? I know it was released
in April as a hard cover.

~~~
WinstonSmith84
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...

------
toyg
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.

~~~
simonh
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.

~~~
jgaa
Read the book. Pay attention to how russian money flow into London, the
English elite and the conservative party there. Putin got at least one of his
people /very/ close to Boris Johnson.

Europe may pretend to have principles, something USA seems to have given up
upon, but in the end, - for a huge part of the ruling class - it's all about
the money.

~~~
simonh
Oh I’m sure there are plenty of people in the west who would like it to be all
about the money, Trump for example looks at the corrupt oligarchic system in
Russia and sees huge commercial opportunities, it’s right up his street. The
trouble is the Russians keep insist on playing their stupid Cold War spy,
assassination and destabilisation games mucking things up.

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

------
shusson
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
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.

~~~
koheripbal
An elected parliament that controls the budget is actually a very core part of
democracy. Power flows from budgets.

~~~
heavenlyblue
Well, yesterday you’ve controlled the budged, and today you were killed by our
special police.

------
xenospn
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.

~~~
gear54rus
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.

~~~
NicoJuicy
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_militar...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_Russian_military_aircraft)

~~~
konart
>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
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).

------
hogFeast
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.

~~~
tlear
Yeltsin was in power during a period when people in Russia and outside thought
that Russia can be a liberal free market democracy. Of course that was never
going to happen, and will not happen in our lifetime or the next.

Whatever advice he got was useless as it never could be applied to Russia and
they did not even try. They just stole whatever they could.

As Chernomyrdin said: We wanted to make it better but it ended up as usual.

Putin also did what was good for Putin and reestablishment of the empire.
Problem of course is that as great player as he is Russia is still in deep
trouble. Reckoning when it come will be terrible.

------
Synaesthesia
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
Correct!

------
trabant00
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
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.

~~~
kindly_fo
I always find it funny to see 1-2 people on hn defend russia, that killed
thousands of people, kids in moldova, georgia, ukraine, syria. You are just
braindead or paid russian troll.

~~~
luckylion
Literally the response I described, my prediction powers are increasing, it
seems.

If you read my comment again, you'll see that I don't defend Russia _at all_.

------
roenxi
> 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.

~~~
slezyr
> such fears 'paranoid' or to paint Russia as some sort of aggressor.

Did you missed how Russia invaded those both countries? It's an aggressor.

~~~
orbital-decay
You're making their point, kind of. The conflict of 08.08.08 started with
Georgians attacking a city of Tskhinvali with MRLs, a very indiscriminate
weapon.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tskhinvali#Georgian_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tskhinvali#Georgian_attack)

------
truth_be_told
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
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
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
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.

~~~
monkeycantype
Thanks Sitkack, I have four children. So my adventures are on hold for a bit,
and while the risk of this journey may be increasing year on year, in 15 years
when the youngest is an adult, my willingness to take on risk is going
probably go back up quickly. What I'd really love to do is travel east to west
and cross into Mongolia. How important is the radioactive contamination from
nuclear testing in along the border?

