An Honest Assessment of Putin
An Honest Assessment of Putin
Here is an assessment of Putin by Sharon Tennison
who for 20 years ran a NGO in Russia funded by USAID and the US Department of
State.
From the questions Tennison asks at the end about
the US projecting its own bad behavior onto Putin, it is obvious that Tennison
is unaware that Russia is targeted for two main reasons. One is that the
military/security complex needs an enemy to justify its enormous budget and
power. The other is that the neoconservatives who control US foreign policy
believe in US hegemony over the world, and Russia is able to block US
unilateralism.
Nevertheless, Tennison’s assessment of Putin is
honest. It demonstrates clearly the lies we are told by “our” government and
“our” media.
Is Putin profoundly corrupt or
“incorruptible?”
As
the Ukraine situation has worsened, unconscionable misinformation and hype is
being poured on Russia and Vladimir Putin. Journalists and pundits must scour
the Internet and thesauruses to come up with fiendish new epithets to describe
both. Wherever I make presentations across America, the first question
ominously asked during Q&A is always, “What about Putin?” It’s time to
share my thoughts which follow:
Putin
obviously has his faults and makes mistakes. Based on my earlier experience
with him, and the experiences of trusted people, including U.S. officials who
have worked closely with him over a period of years, Putin most likely is a
straight, reliable and exceptionally inventive man.
He
is obviously a long-term thinker and planner and has proven to be an excellent
analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can quietly work toward his goals
under mounds of accusations and myths that have been steadily leveled at him
since he became Russia’s second president.
I’ve
stood by silently watching the demonization of Putin grow since it began in the
early 2000s –– I pondered on computer my thoughts and concerns, hoping
eventually to include them in a book (which was published in 2011). The book
explains my observations more thoroughly than this article.
Like
others who have had direct experience with this little known man, I’ve tried to
no avail to avoid being labeled a “Putin apologist”. If one is even neutral
about him, they are considered “soft on Putin” by pundits, news hounds and
average citizens who get their news from CNN, Fox and MSNBC.
I
don’t pretend to be an expert, just a program developer in the USSR and Russia
for the past 30 years. But during this time, I’ve have had far more direct,
on-ground contact with Russians of all stripes across 11 time zones than any of
the Western reporters or for that matter any of Washington’s officials.
I’ve
been in country long enough to ponder on Russian history and culture deeply, to
study their psychology and conditioning, and to understand the marked
differences between American and Russian mentalities which so complicate our
political relations with their leaders.
As
with personalities in a family or a civic club or in a city hall, it takes
understanding and compromise to be able to create workable relationships when
basic conditionings are different. Washington has been notoriously
disinterested in understanding these differences and attempting to meet Russia
halfway.
In
addition to my personal experience with Putin, I’ve had discussions with
numerous American officials and U.S. businessmen who have had years of
experience working with him––I believe it is safe to say that none would
describe him as “brutal” or “thuggish”, or the other slanderous adjectives and
nouns that are repeatedly used in western media.
I
met Putin years before he ever dreamed of being president of Russia, as did
many of us working in St.Petersburg during the 1990s. Since all of the slander
started, I’ve become nearly obsessed with understanding his character. I think
I’ve read every major speech he has given (including the full texts of his
annual hours-long telephone “talk-ins” with Russian citizens).
I’ve
been trying to ascertain whether he has changed for the worse since being
elevated to the presidency, or whether he is a straight character cast into a
role he never anticipated––and is using sheer wits to try to do the best he can
to deal with Washington under extremely difficult circumstances.
If
the latter is the case, and I think it is, he should get high marks for his
performance over the past 14 years. It’s not by accident that Forbes declared
him the most Powerful Leader of 2013, replacing Obama who was given the title
for 2012. The following is my one personal experience with Putin.
The
year was 1992
Putin
with Anatoly Sobchak, Mayor of St. Petersburg, early 1990s. Putin was one of
Sobchak’s deputies from 1992-96
It
was two years after the implosion of communism; the place was St.Petersburg.
For
years I had been creating programs to open up relations between the two
countries and hopefully to help Soviet people to get beyond their entrenched
top-down mentalities. A new program possibility emerged in my head. Since I
expected it might require a signature from the Marienskii City Hall, an
appointment was made.
My
friend Volodya Shestakov and I showed up at a side door entrance to the
Marienskii building. We found ourselves in a small, dull brown office, facing a
rather trim nondescript man in a brown suit.
He
inquired about my reason for coming in. After scanning the proposal I provided
he began asking intelligent questions. After each of my answers, he asked the
next relevant question.
I
became aware that this interviewer was different from other Soviet bureaucrats
who always seemed to fall into chummy conversations with foreigners with hopes
of obtaining bribes in exchange for the Americans’ requests. CCI stood on the
principle that we would never, never give bribes.
This
bureaucrat was open, inquiring, and impersonal in demeanor. After more than an
hour of careful questions and answers, he quietly explained that he had tried
hard to determine if the proposal was legal, then said that unfortunately at
the time it was not. A few good words about the proposal were uttered. That was
all. He simply and kindly showed us to the door.
Out
on the sidewalk, I said to my colleague, “Volodya, this is the first time we
have ever dealt with a Soviet bureaucrat who didn’t ask us for a trip to the US
or something valuable!”
I
remember looking at his business card in the sunlight––it read Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin.
1994
U.S.
Consul General Jack Gosnell put in an SOS call to me in St.Petersburg. He had
14 Congress members and the new American Ambassador to Russia, Thomas
Pickering, coming to St.Petersburg in the next three days. He needed immediate
help.
I
scurried over to the Consulate and learned that Jack intended me to brief this
auspicious delegation and the incoming ambassador.
I
was stunned but he insisted. They were coming from Moscow and were furious
about how U.S. funding was being wasted there. Jack wanted them to hear
the”good news” about CCI’s programs that were showing fine results. In the next
24 hours Jack and I also set up “home” meetings in a dozen Russian
entrepreneurs’ small apartments for the arriving dignitaries (St.Petersburg
State Department people were aghast, since it had never been done before––but
Jack overruled).
Only
later in 2000, did I learn of Jack’s former three-year experience with Vladimir
Putin in the 1990s while the latter was running the city for Mayor Sobchak.
More on this further down.
December
31, 1999
Boris
Nikolayevich Yeltsin leaves the Kremlin on the day of his resignation, December
31 1999. Prime Minister Putin (second left) became acting president.
With
no warning, at the turn of the year, President Boris Yeltsin made the
announcement to the world that from the next day forward he was vacating his
office and leaving Russia in the hands of an unknown Vladimir Putin.
On
hearing the news, I thought surely not the Putin I remembered––he could never
lead Russia. The next day a NYT article included a photo.
Yes,
it was the same Putin I’d met years ago! I was shocked and dismayed, telling
friends, “This is a disaster for Russia, I’ve spent time with this guy, he
is too introverted and too intelligent––he will never be able to relate to
Russia’s masses.”
Further,
I lamented: “For Russia to get up off of its knees, two things must happen:
1) The arrogant young oligarchs have to be removed by force from the Kremlin,
and 2) A way must be found to remove the regional bosses (governors) from their
fiefdoms across Russia’s 89 regions”.
It
was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have the instincts
or guts to tackle Russia’s overriding twin challenges.
February
2000
Almost
immediately Putin began putting Russia’s oligarchs on edge. In February a
question about the oligarchs came up; he clarified with a question and his
answer:
What
should be the relationship with the so-called oligarchs? The same as anyone
else. The same as the owner of a small bakery or a shoe repair shop.
This
was the first signal that the tycoons would no longer be able to flaunt
government regulations or count on special access in the Kremlin. It also made
the West’s capitalists nervous.
After
all, these oligarchs were wealthy untouchable businessmen––good capitalists,
never mind that they got their enterprises illegally and were putting their
profits in offshore banks.
Four
months later Putin called a meeting with the oligarchs and gave them his deal:
They
could keep their illegally-gained wealth-producing Soviet enterprises and they
would not be nationalized …. IF taxes were paid on their revenues and if they
personally stayed out of politics.
This
was the first of Putin’s “elegant solutions” to the near impossible challenges
facing the new Russia. But the deal also put Putin in crosshairs with US media
and officials who then began to champion the oligarchs, particularly Mikhail
Khodorkovsky.
The
latter became highly political, didn’t pay taxes, and prior to being
apprehended and jailed was in the process of selling a major portion of
Russia’s largest private oil company, Yukos Oil, to Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately,
to U.S. media and governing structures, Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and
remains so up to today).
March
2000
I
arrived in St.Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) since 1983 came for
our usual visit. My first question was, “Lena what do you think about your
new president?” She laughed and retorted, “Volodya! I went to school
with him!”
She
began to describe Putin as a quiet youngster, poor, fond of martial arts, who
stood up for kids being bullied on the playgrounds. She remembered him as a
patriotic youth who applied for the KGB prematurely after graduating secondary
school (they sent him away and told him to get an education).
He
went to law school, later reapplied and was accepted. I must have grimaced at
this, because Lena said:
Sharon
in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who worked there
were patriots and were keeping the country safe. We thought it was natural for
Volodya to choose this career.
My
next question was:
What
do you think he will do with Yeltsin’s criminals in the Kremlin?
Putting
on her psychologist hat, she pondered and replied:
If
left to his normal behaviors, he will watch them for a while to be sure what is
going on, then he will throw up some flares to let them know that he is
watching. If they don’t respond, he will address them personally, then if the
behaviors don’t change–– some will be in prison in a couple of years.
I
congratulated her via email when her predictions began to show up in real time.
Throughout
the 2000s
St. Petersburg’s
many CCI alumni were being interviewed to determine how the PEP business
training program was working and how we could make the U.S. experience more
valuable for their new small businesses. Most believed that the program had
been enormously important, even life changing. Last, each was asked:
So
what do you think of your new president?
None
responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated Russia’s
bureaucrats. Most answered similarly, “Putin registered my business a few years
ago”.
Next
question:
So,
how much did it cost you?
To
a person they replied, “Putin didn’t charge anything”. One said:
We
went to Putin’s desk because the others providing registrations at the
Marienskii were getting ‘rich on their seats.’
Late
2000
Into
Putin’s first year as Russia’s president, US officials seemed to me to be
suspect that he would be antithetical to America’s interests––his every move
was called into question in American media. I couldn’t understand why and was
chronicling these happenings in my computer and newsletters.
Year
2001
Jack
Gosnell (former USCG mentioned earlier) explained his relationship with Putin
when the latter was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg. The two of them worked
closely to create joint ventures and other ways to promote relations between
the two countries. Jack related that Putin was always straight up, courteous
and helpful.
When
Putin’s wife, Ludmila, was in a severe auto accident, Jack took the liberty
(before informing Putin) to arrange hospitalization and airline travel for her
to get medical care in Finland. When Jack told Putin, he reported that the
latter was overcome by the generous offer, but ended saying that he couldn’t
accept this favor, that Ludmila would have to recover in a Russian hospital.
She
did––although medical care in Russia was abominably bad in the 1990s.
A
senior CSIS officer I was friends with in the 2000s worked closely with Putin
on a number of joint ventures during the 1990s. He reported that he had no
dealings with Putin that were questionable, that he respected him and believed
he was getting an undeserved dour reputation from U.S. media.
Matter
of fact, he closed the door at CSIS when we started talking about Putin. I
guessed his comments wouldn’t be acceptable if others were listening.
Another
former U.S. official who will go unidentified, also reported working closely
with Putin, saying there was never any hint of bribery, pressuring, nothing but
respectable behaviors and helpfulness.
I
had two encounters in 2013 with State Department officials regarding Putin:
At
the first one, I felt free to ask the question I had previously yearned to get
answered:
When
did Putin become unacceptable to Washington officials and why??
Without
hesitating the answer came back:
The
knives were drawn’ when it was announced that Putin would be the next
president.”
I
questioned WHY? The answer:
I
could never find out why––maybe because he was KGB.”
I
offered that Bush #I, was head of the CIA. The reply was
That
would have made no difference, he was our guy.
The
second was a former State Department official with whom I recently shared a
radio interview on Russia. Afterward when we were chatting, I remarked, “You
might be interested to know that I’ve collected experiences of Putin from
numerous people, some over a period of years, and they all say they had no
negative experiences with Putin and there was no evidence of taking bribes”. He
firmly replied:
No
one has ever been able to come up with a bribery charge against Putin.”
From
2001 up to today, I’ve watched the negative U.S. media mounting against Putin
…. even accusations of assassinations, poisonings, and comparing him to Hitler.
No
one yet has come up with any concrete evidence for these allegations. During
this time, I’ve traveled throughout Russia several times every year, and have
watched the country slowly change under Putin’s watch. Taxes were lowered,
inflation lessened, and laws slowly put in place. Schools and hospitals began
improving. Small businesses were growing, agriculture was showing improvement,
and stores were becoming stocked with food.
Alcohol
challenges were less obvious, smoking was banned from buildings, and life
expectancy began increasing. Highways were being laid across the country, new
rails and modern trains appeared even in far out places, and the banking
industry was becoming dependable. Russia was beginning to look like a decent
country –– certainly not where Russians hoped it to be long term, but improving
incrementally for the first time in their memories.
My
2013/14 Trips to Russia:
In
addition to St.Petersburg and Moscow, in September I traveled out to the Ural
Mountains, spent time in Ekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm. We traveled
between cities via autos and rail––the fields and forests look healthy, small
towns sport new paint and construction. Today’s Russians look like Americans
(we get the same clothing from China).
Old
concrete Khrushchev block houses are giving way to new multi-story private
residential complexes which are lovely. High-rise business centers, fine hotels
and great restaurants are now common place––and ordinary Russians frequent
these places. Two and three story private homes rim these Russian cities far
from Moscow.
We
visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge super markets. Streets are in
good repair, highways are new and well marked now, service stations look like
those dotting American highways. In January I went to Novosibirsk out in
Siberia where similar new architecture was noted. Streets were kept navigable
with constant snowplowing, modern lighting kept the city bright all night, lots
of new traffic lights (with seconds counting down to light change) have
appeared.
It
is astounding to me how much progress Russia has made in the past 14 years
since an unknown man with no experience walked into Russia’s presidency and
took over a country that was flat on its belly.
So
why do our leaders and media demean and demonize Putin and Russia???
Like
Lady MacBeth, do they protest too much?
Psychologists
tell us that people (and countries?) project off on others what they don’t want
to face in themselves. Others carry our “shadow” when we refuse to own it. We
confer on others the very traits that we are horrified to acknowledge in
ourselves.
Could
this be why we constantly find fault with Putin and Russia?
Could
it be that we project on to Putin the sins of ourselves and our leaders?
Could
it be that we condemn Russia’s corruption, acting like the corruption within
our corporate world doesn’t exist?
Could
it be that we condemn their human rights and LGBT issues, not facing the fact
that we haven’t solved our own?
Could
it be that we accuse Russia of “reconstituting the USSR”––because of what we do
to remain the world’s “hegemon”?
Could
it be that we project nationalist behaviors on Russia, because that is what we
have become and we don’t want to face it?
Could
it be that we project warmongering off on Russia, because of what we have done
over the past several administrations?
Some
of you were around Putin in the earlier years. Please share your opinions, pro
and con …. confidentiality will be assured. It’s important to develop a
composite picture of this demonized leader and get the record straight. I’m
quite sure that 99% of those who excoriate him in mainstream media have had no
personal contact with him at all. They write articles on hearsay, rumors and
fabrication, or they read scripts others have written on their tele-prompters.
This is how our nation gets its “news”, such as it is.
There
is a well known code of ethics among us: Is it the Truth, Is it Fair, Does it
build Friendship and Goodwill, and Will it be Beneficial for All Concerned?
It
seems to me that if our nation’s leaders would commit to using these four
principles in international relations, the world would operate in a completely
different manner, and human beings across this planet would live in better
conditions than they do today.
As
always your comments will be appreciated. Please resend this report to as many
friends and colleagues as possible.
Sharon
Tennison ran a successful NGO funded by philanthropists, American foundations,
USAID and Department of State, designing new programs and refining old ones,
and evaluating Russian delegates’ U.S. experiences for over 20 years. Tennison
adapted the Marshall Plan Tours from the 40s/50s, and created the Production
Enhancement Program (PEP) for Russian entrepreneurs, the largest ever business
training program between the U.S. and Russia. Running several large programs
concurrently during the 90s and 2000s, funding disappeared shortly after the
2008 financial crisis set in. Tennison still runs an orphanage program in
Russia, is President and Founder, Center for Citizen Initiatives, a member of
Rotary Club of Palo Alto, California, and author of The Power of Impossible Ideas: Ordinary Citizens’
Extraordinary Efforts to Avert International Crises. The author can be
contacted at sharon@ccisf.org
/https://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2021/09/25/huawei-executive-meng-wanzhou-receives-warm-welcome-upon-return-to-china/_1_meng_wanzhou_2.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.