[mekkkkkk]

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

[stjohnswarts]

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

[khazhoux]

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

[agumonkey]

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]

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

[agumonkey]

It lacks the first hand soviet agent data that the ft article has, which more important in my view. Still better than nothing.

[yucky]

>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.

[dillondoyle]

What would the better approach be? Sorry Ukraine, the Maidan was cute but no, you can not join 'the west'

[yucky]

Well it's at least telling that we're not allowed to refer to that as a coup, isn't it? I mean, what else would we call a revolution where a democratically elected government is removed from power and replaced with one backed by an adversary, which then immediately rewrites the Constitution to put that country in an adversarial foreign policy position to their powerful neighbor?

Is that not a coup? Is that not a recipe for war?

[dillondoyle]

No.

1: Democratically elected stretches reality towards the end. The end was not a free and fair democracy nor free and fair elections.

Yanukovych was an autocrat and stooge. copying many of the same tactics as his protector Putin to stay in power beyond public support: suppressing opposition, faking votes with international orgs deemed un true/not valid election, using his private military to intimidate and suppress.

The people of Ukraine WANT to join the EU and be a part of European trade. Perhaps not all but a vast majority.

That's the crux of Maidan.

Yanukovych said he would sign the economic agreement which had broad support across the country. But did a 180 and ran to Putin (literally and figuratively, he physically fled). If any country was holding a gun it was Russia.

2: It was not a coup. This was not a military take over, decapitation by a 3rd party nation, or middle of the night execution.

He was removed through an act of parliament after IMENSE popular opposition via democratic sentiment/uprising among the people.

Even if that act itself wasn't laid out exactly in their constitution, what came next were legitimate free and fair elections which is indisputable.

People and countries should be free to chart their own future.

To remove themselves from the foot of authoritarianism and to rewrite and reimagine their government towards Democracy, European trade, & freedom.

A bully autocrat & former controlling country shouldn't be allowed to shut down the will and future of tens of millions just because they have a larger army and threaten nuclear war.

[yucky]

>Even if that act itself wasn't laid out exactly in their constitution

Way to bury the lede. This is the issue. The coup was illegal, was it not? That doesn't even mean it was necessarily wrong, but can we at least be honest and call it unconstitutional?

[agumonkey]

That's why I said russian friendly.. it's a subtle topic.

[jacquesm]

Mearsheimer has been trotted out by so many people that likely never heard of him three weeks ago that it's getting a bit tiring.

[agumonkey]

Many of us are binge reading history in all directions. But yeah the authority-flooding is exhausting. I mostly mentioned him to balance my comment. I have no idea which is true or not here.

[jacquesm]

What he states is historically true, and if you oversimplify it you might come to the conclusion that Russia simply had to invade Ukraine. But that's bullshit, nothing good ever came of it. The dumb part is that the West financed this war, not that they caused it.

[yucky]

That tends to happen when someone turns out to have accurately predicted the future.

[jacquesm]

No, it's just that he happens to allow you and others to do what you like about it: trumpet all over that 'the West' caused Russia's invasion into Ukraine. When in fact if you follow that line of thought it was Hitlers mom who caused World War II.

The only person responsible for the invasion into Ukraine is Putin, it was entirely optional, no matter who predicted that it would happen.

Also: there is a substantial number of HN accounts in recent times whose only purpose seems to be to plant Russian talking points and I wonder if those are mostly by useful idiots or by hostile parties, so be careful whose water you carry.

I'm sure you will find a way to tie each and every man, woman and child murdered by Russian soldiers to 'the West' but it isn't very believable, even if you have to find the need to quote a professor (your appeal to authority was noted).