The Putin Files: Masha Gessen

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Captions
MICHAEL KIRK - Let’s start in Dresden. Who is that man in Dresden? MASHA GESSEN - Well, he’s an unhappy man. He has wanted to be a secret agent all of his life, as long as he can remember, and he was—waited patiently for his foreign posting. Then he gets posted to East Germany, and not even to Berlin, to Dresden, which is just such a backwater, and his job in Dresden isn't even to spy on the East Germans. His job in Dresden is actually to try to work remotely to get intelligence from the West. So he’s working with students in Dresden who might have friends who are students in Berlin, and his big “get” during his entire time in Dresden is buying a 700-page unclassified U.S. Army manual. That’s all he’s managed to do. Another thing that’s happened to him is that he’s experienced envy like I think he didn’t expect. The fact that he recounted it nearly 20 years later, when he was already a wealthy man, but you know, they got to Dresden, and East Germany was not terribly exciting or glamorous or wealthy place by any means, especially Dresden, which had been, you know, virtually destroyed in the bombings in 1945. So here is this bland city, and still he sees that East Germans, ordinary East Germans live better than a KGB officer in the Soviet Union. They all have their own separate apartments. They have washing machines in their apartments. They have color televisions. All these things are luxury in the Soviet Union. He grew up in a communal apartment. His parents still live in a communal apartment. He’s never had a washing machine in the house, an automatic washing machine, that sort of thing. So he’s a very unhappy man. He’s drinking a lot of beer, getting fat and wiling away his time uselessly. Meanwhile, back home, things start happening as soon as he left the country. The country started to transform, which is something that no one could have predicted, because it felt, you know, that era in Soviet history is known as the era of stagnation. It just felt like time had stopped. People were living in sort of horizontal time. There was no future; there was no past. Things were always going to be the same. And suddenly Mikhail Gorbachev, who’s the new head of the Central Committee, the first sort of young person—he’s in his 50s—to have that post in generations, he comes out and says: “We need change. We need transformation. We need perestroika.” He says that word, and “glasnost.” “Perestroika” is restructuring, and “glasnost” is transparency. And it actually begins. At first, for people in the West, it seemed like so much hot air, and the system really couldn’t be transformed. And Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote this scathing book about how the Soviet Union could never be transformed; it could only bring its own collapse on, which turned out to be a prescient book. But people in the Soviet Union are completely caught up in the excitement of change, because suddenly things can be said, things can be done. Things that were unthinkable yesterday are entirely normal today, like having a demonstration in the street, which first people sort of tried gingerly, and then they see that people aren't getting arrested, and then all of a sudden, there are thousands and hundreds of thousands of people in the streets. All of that excitement and all of that discussion that’s starting to happen out in public, like “What should the state be like? Should there be one party, or maybe more than one party?,” That’s a radical idea; all of that is happening back in the Soviet Union, and Putin has no way of knowing about it. MICHAEL KIRK - We’re going to get back there, but let’s go just quickly back into a little back story. When I read the books about him, they always say at 16 he wanted to join the KGB. It isn't until he’s 23 that he does, but he walked by the building every day and saw it or something. How much of any of that is true? And I think you say that his dad was actually a KGB agent. MASHA GESSEN - His dad was actually in the NKVD [People’s Commissariat for Internal Affairs]. NKVD was the precursor to the KGB, at the start of the war, the start of World War II. This is something that’s very much a part of Putin’s personal mythology, and he’s pedaled the story more and more as time has gone on. We have no way of knowing if it’s true. I would assume that it’s true. I would assume that he was indeed in NKVD at the start of the war. The thing about the Russian secret police and the Soviet secret police is that one never leaves the secret police. Once a KGB man, always a KGB man. It seems that probably Putin’s father maintained some connection to the secret police throughout his life. One sign of that is that they had a telephone, and people didn’t have telephones in the Soviet Union in the 1950s. Very rarely would a communal apartment have a telephone, and never would somebody have a personal phone inside a communal apartment, which is what Putin’s dad had. So he was possibly on active duty. He was possibly on what's called active reserve, which is what Putin himself was for a little bit after he returned from Dresden. But it’s basically when somebody doesn’t have—when the KGB doesn’t have a job to give you, but they keep you on the payroll, and you keep coming back and sort of snitching on whatever workplace you were actually in. MICHAEL KIRK - When you talk about a communal apartment, maybe you could describe it. I know that, as a boy, he liked to play in the courtyard. This is the version of it that some people tell us. He liked to play in the courtyard and define himself—he was a slight boy—by judo and other things. But it was a kind of rough-and-tumble world, I gather. Could you help us understand that? MASHA GESSEN - Communal apartments, especially in St. Petersburg, or Leningrad at the time, were this very weird thing. St. Petersburg, under the czars, had been a grand city. It was a planned city, and it had—there were all these Parisian architects who had been brought in to build the apartment buildings in the center of town. So they had these vast lavish apartments that were broken up after the revolution, in the first few years after the 1917 revolution, so that the rich were either exiled or killed or imprisoned, or in some cases, just forced to occupy one room out of what had been seven or 15 rooms in this communal apartment. Putin grew up in one of those apartments that had been, two generations before he was born, had been opulent but now was dilapidated. Putin was born seven years after World War II ended. During World War II, Leningrad was under siege for 900 days. A million people died of starvation; at least a million people died of starvation. And the city itself was constantly shelled. One wonderful Russian writer who did an oral history of the siege had this phrase that “It’s like living in St. Petersburg after the war. Living in Leningrad after the war is like, if soldiers had never left the trenches after the war ended, and just continued to live there.” I mean, they lived where it had all happened, where people had died, where they had struggled to survive. Most people had lost family members, often the entire families. They had seen their neighbors die. They may have eaten their neighbors after they died. MICHAEL KIRK - Eaten? MASHA GESSEN - Yes, eaten. There's a lot of cannibalism. And they also, you know, burned their books, their furniture, their window frames, to keep warm. These were these buildings that had been shelled, that had been disassembled by their residents for firewood, that were being heated with these tiny little wood-burning stoves, one per room sort of thing. That’s where Putin was born, and in a town—in a city that was still scarred in all these different ways. It was also a period of extreme poverty throughout the Soviet Union. Basically, people were always on the edge of subsistence. Food was scarce. All goods were scarce. There was also no child care. People worked six days a week. There was no state-subsidized child care. There was no retirement. The retirement benefits were introduced for the secret police in the 1950s and for everybody else much later. Children were basically left to their own devices. Putin’s parents worked pretty much around the clock, his mother various unskilled jobs, his father at a factory. And he was left to his own devices. He hung out in the courtyard with other boys, like all children did. And he was often picked upon and bullied until he started studying Sambo, which was a Soviet version of martial arts, and then later switched to judo so he could compete. MICHAEL KIRK - What is the composite of that character who comes up out of there and finds himself in Dresden? MASHA GESSEN - He’s scrappy, very ambitious, very, very greedy. This is actually an extraordinary trait of his, something that he has talked about. He doesn’t call it greed, but the behavior he describes is so atypical for a Soviet boy or a young man that it really stands out. There aren't a lot of things that are extraordinary about Putin, but his greed is truly extraordinary. He describes a couple incidents. ... One is, is he had a wristwatch as a kid. Now, even when I was growing up, and I'm 15 years younger, a wrist—and I come from a much more privileged background—a wristwatch for a kid was something that just you didn’t see, and certainly not a little kid. A wristwatch was a luxury. It was a luxury object, and he had one. We don’t know the provenance of the wristwatch, but the fact that he got it, which probably means that his father gave it to him and didn’t have a wristwatch himself, shows a very skewed and unusual relationship, both for material things and between sort of child and his parent. The second story is, when he was in college, he got a very well-paying summer job building up in the far north, which was not unusual for Soviet college students, boys. So he made a lot of money. The first summer he did it, he went to Crimea afterward and spent all that money. Normally a young man from a not well-off family would give most of that money, and often all of that money, to his parents. It would be their—the money that they would eat on for the rest of the year, and he went and blew it all on vodka and entertainment in Crimea. The second year, he says that he learned his lesson. He didn’t blow the money. He returned to St. Petersburg with the money and bought himself a beautiful overcoat and a cake for his mother. And again, that incredible disbalance between the luxurious object that he got for himself and a cake for his mother shows a very strange relationship with his parents. The third story is that his parents won a car in a lottery. There was a single Soviet lottery that a lot of people, most people played; sometimes some people would get lucky. You could take the car, or you could take cash. If his parents had taken cash, it would have been enough to get them out of the communal apartment and into a place of their own, which was every Soviet citizen’s dream. But they took the car, and they gave it to their son, a college student. I'm quite certain that he was the only college student in Leningrad in the 1970s who had his own car. MICHAEL KIRK - What's up with the relationship? You must have asked lots of people and thought about it long and hard yourself. What is up with that? MASHA GESSEN - Well, that’s all conjecture. But he was born to his parents very late. He was a miracle baby. His parents were in their early 40s. They had lived through the siege of Leningrad. His father had been disabled in the war, and his mother had nearly died of starvation. They had lost a son during the war to starvation, and they had lost another son before the war to a childhood illness. So for them to be an intact couple in which both parents, both people survived the siege, that was already a miracle. It was something you almost didn’t see in Leningrad after the war. Then for them to be able to have a child in their early 40s would have been nothing short of a miracle. He may well have been the only child born to a couple of survivors in their 40s in 1950s Leningrad. So we can only imagine that it affected their relationship in some unusual way. MICHAEL KIRK - Well, it makes him feel, in some way, magical and entitled. MASHA GESSEN - Right, chosen. MICHAEL KIRK - Chosen. Chosen. Any proof of that, that he feels that he’s chosen? MASHA GESSEN - Yes, there's a lot of proof that he feels that he is chosen now, now that he is president. I think that his unusual path to the presidency, the fact that he was an accidental president, actually makes him feel more like he was chosen—because we don’t actually believe in accidents as humans. We always think there's a reason for something happening. MICHAEL KIRK - I make lots of films about famous presidents and leaders of agencies, and the idea that there's somebody who has “chosen” as a character trait is astonishing and wonderful. So let’s deal with KGB volunteer at 16 years of age. True story? MASHA GESSEN - I mean, there's no way to corroborate this. The way that I've always treated it is that Putin is highly unusual in that before he became the prime minister of Russia, he had no public life, so he had a chance to create his own image. I think it’s actually very important to know what he wants to communicate, what kind of image he wants to project. In a sense, it’s more important than what actually happened. This is what he wants us to know about himself. He wants us to know that at 16, he went to volunteer for the KGB. Whether it actually happened is immaterial. He is the kind of guy who, at 50, wanted people to think that at 16 he volunteered to be in the KGB. MICHAEL KIRK - Great. OK. So now we’re back at Dresden, and he’s missed glasnost and perestroika. Let’s dispel or deal with another rumor, “Moscow is silent” and the shoveling of documents into a stove so much that the stove cracks and breaks. Again, more of the myth-making? MASHA GESSEN - Again, we don’t know, right? This is a story that he tells. It’s a story that’s clearly very important to him. It’s his memory that he owns. Whether it’s based on real events, we have no idea. I mean, it’s definitely true that there were a lot of demonstrations in East Germany at the time, and especially in Dresden. Dresden was a city that the railway went through, so a lot of Hungarian refugees were going through on the trains through Dresden to West Germany after West Germany started taking refugees and Hungary opened the border. Dresden was sort of a key place in that sense. And it’s definitely true that there were huge demonstrations. Now, what Putin tells us is that during one of those demonstrations, people were outside the KGB building where he worked, and he was afraid they were going to storm the building, and then he went out on the porch and addressed them and said that he had every right to be there, although he said he was an interpreter. He didn’t say he was an officer. Then he called the local Red Army outpost and asked them to send security, and they said, “We can't do that without orders from Moscow, and Moscow is silent.” He then went and started burning documents that they had in this KGB building, and he burnt them in the furnace until the furnace cracked from the heat. That’s the story as he tells it. I think the important elements for him in this story are sort of three. One is that he’s afraid of public protest, and that’s demonstrably true. He is terrified of people in the streets. The other is that he felt betrayed by the Soviet Union as a KGB agent in Germany. I think that that’s the reason that he keeps returning to this sort of origin story, is that it partly explains his understanding of the collapse of the Soviet Union as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of our time, as he’d have said. And number three is that he is loyal. Moscow had betrayed him, the Red Army had betrayed him, but there he was, burning documents to the last for some reason that only he could actually deduce. But it’s very clearly a story about how he continued to do his duty, even though he could have walked away. I mean, clearly understand that he could have just shut the door or padlocked the door and joined the protesters, right, but he continued doing his job even after the Kremlin had abdicated. MICHAEL KIRK - There's this film that he apparently watched all the time, again, another part of the story, The Shield and the Sword or whatever it is. And by the time—it doesn’t matter. But I think it’s remarkable the way he has invented a sort of him that explains the him that will live in the world in his 50s and early 60s. MASHA GESSEN - Well, we all do it. MICHAEL KIRK - Well, not me. (Laughs.) No, I'm sure that’s true. But it, in this case, manifests itself in some amazing ways, which we’ll get to. One of the things we seem to be sort of discovering is, he and all the KGB people that supposedly leave in the collapse of the Soviet Union, 800,000 men and women who disappear or who fall out of their jobs, are kind of—the word we keep coming up with is “shipwrecked.” They're just out there somewhere, right? MASHA GESSEN - Right. MICHAEL KIRK - He lands in Leningrad and then St. Petersburg. I don’t know how much time we need to spend in this territory as we get him up to the FSB [Federal Security Service] in Moscow. But is there something about the era, the place, the time, other than the documentary he has made about himself at that time, that is relevant and important for us to know about? MASHA GESSEN - Well, the important thing is that he stayed in the KGB. He returned to Leningrad. He got a job. And this was a classic KGB posting. He got a job as the man in charge of foreign relations for the university at the time. Very sensitive posting at the time, because universities were just starting to open up to foreign students, foreign teachers, foreign exchange programs, so of course you needed a KGB man to oversee all of that. He was in that position not for very long, and then he takes another classic KGB posting, which is being an assistant to an official, who was one of the first elected officials in the country. Leningrad was the first city in the country to hold elections to its city council. It’s a very large legislature. It’s a huge city. It’s 5 million people and a very exciting election. They were really trying sort of radical democracy at the time. They wanted a leaderless city council, some of them, and direct democracy of all kinds. It was really beautiful. [Anatoly] Sobchak, the mayor, emerged as a kind of centrist. He had been a member of the Communist Party, unlike some of the new democrats. He had very much been a member of the establishment, a professor at the university. It means that his ideological credentials had passed muster with the Communist Party. Now he’s a democrat, but not as radical as some of these Leningrad direct-democracy advocates and that sort of thing. He is able to get sort of the more conventional communist constituency and the new democratic constituency, so he gets elected by the city council to be mayor, and Putin becomes his assistant. He served as his deputy up until 1996. Now he was in charge of the city’s foreign business. Again, that would be something that would be a logical sort of place to plug a KGB man into, but also, in all fairness, probably a job that he could navigate better than many other people. He had been abroad; he had been trained in talking to foreigners. So it makes sense that his skills would appeal to someone like Sobchak. Sobchak wrote in his memoirs that he was fully aware that Putin was with the KGB, and he implied that he preferred to pick his own KGB agent rather than have one sent to him. MICHAEL KIRK - But wait a minute. I thought the KGB was disbanded. MASHA GESSEN - … Right, right. The KGB was not disbanded. After the failed August 1991 coup, Yeltsin gave orders, or actually forced Gorbachev to give an order to the new director of the KGB, who replaced the one who had organized the coup, to disband the KGB. This new man had four months to work on it, four months that the Soviet Union remained legally an entity, and all he succeeded in doing was breaking it up into 15 different KGBs, for each of the constituent republics of the Soviet Union. MICHAEL KIRK - … So here he is, he’s made the— MASHA GESSEN - Maybe we should then mention the embezzlement in St. Petersburg. MICHAEL KIRK - In the food? MASHA GESSEN - Yes. MICHAEL KIRK - Yes, OK, let’s go do that. We’re back in Leningrad. MASHA GESSEN - So as the deputy to the new elected mayor in 1991, Putin has to administer this weird program. The new Russian government, the new government of the independent Russia, was terrified that people were going to starve, because food shortages had become so profound that they had no way of basically ensuring that the population would have enough food to not start starving. And they decided to issue different regions of Russia permissions to use strategic reserves to exchange for food imports. At the time, the ruble was not convertible, so they couldn’t give them money to buy food. But they could tell them, “You have timber or precious metals,” or whatever else they had in that particular city, “that you can use to procure food for your city’s population to prevent starvation.” Putin had $100,000 worth of those credits that he could use, and he had to create a system for exchanging timber, in that case, timber and metals for food. He created a system that never delivered any food. But the city council, when it began investigating what had happened, concluded that he had purposely created companies with faulty contracts that could not be enforced so that the company could basically write off a loss, and the city could never demand reparations because the contracts were purposely constructed in such a way as to prevent enforcement. The city council investigation concluded that Putin needed to be prosecuted, but that required an order from the mayor to allow the prosecution of his deputy. Instead of allowing that, the mayor actually disbanded the city council and proceeded to govern by decree for about a year and a half. MICHAEL KIRK - So much for democracy, yes? MASHA GESSEN - Right. MICHAEL KIRK - Fledgling democracy, strangled, drowned, whatever you do with it. So how do his characteristics manifest themselves as he’s made the head of the FSB in Moscow? MASHA GESSEN - Unsurprisingly, we know the least about his time as head of the FSB, except that he was a bit of an outsider there, even though he was a career KGB man. He was a colonel, or actually a lieutenant colonel, when he was promoted to head of the FSB. He felt that he wasn’t trusted and that he didn’t trust the men there. He held his meetings in a disused elevator shaft in the FSB building because he was afraid of being wiretapped. That's about all we know. So not—he wasn’t a reformer. He didn’t leave a trace on the FSB except for that, that funny story about taking his meetings in the elevator shaft. MICHAEL KIRK - And that was with [Boris] Berezovsky, right— MASHA GESSEN - That was with Berezovsky. MICHAEL KIRK - —who plays a central role in the ascension of Vladimir Putin. MASHA GESSEN - Right. Berezovsky was an oligarch who fancied himself a kingmaker. There was this sort of phenomenon of men who had become very, very wealthy, very, very quickly, in the 1990s, because they were smart and well-placed. Berezovsky was one of them, and that really went to his head. He was a masterful sort of bluffer. He would buy a minority stake in a company and then pretend that he owned the whole company and proceed to give orders, and people would believe him. I think he felt a little bit like that with the whole country, and Yeltsin seemed to like him and trust him. He made him the head of his Security Council at one point. He was very much part of Yeltsin’s inner circle, what was called “The Family,” even as Yeltsin alienated everybody else, and Berezovsky lobbied for Putin as a successor to Yeltsin. Yeltsin needed a handpicked successor because he was afraid of being prosecuted in case the opposition took power after his second term was over. He was a very different kind of man [as compared] to Putin. I don’t think he considered the possibility of, say, canceling elections and going for a third term, something that Putin has done. He is now in his third term—although he hasn’t canceled elections, but he’s fiddled with the constitution in all sorts of creative ways. But Yeltsin wasn’t like that, but he certainly didn’t want to go to prison. The idea was that they would put somebody they could play in the president’s chair, someone loyal, who would prevent Yeltsin’s prosecution. Because I think Berezovsky fancied himself so much a kingmaker, he didn’t consider the fact that picking a KGB man for this job might be dangerous, or anybody else. I think he just thought it was such a brilliant scheme. Here he was; he pulled this guy out of obscurity and made him president. MICHAEL KIRK - And the man he pulls out of obscurity, a lot of people I've talked to, and a lot of things I've read, this man is—everyone says: “I met him. He was sort of gray. He was sort of boring. He was completely unobtrusive,” or “He was a kind of BSer who would bring flowers to people and just self-aggrandizing in lots of ways.” Is that the man that Berezovsky moves up? MASHA GESSEN - Berezovsky perceived him as a decent man, for some reason. When I asked Berezovsky about it, he said, “Well, there was one time that I needed to open an office in St. Petersburg, and Putin didn’t take a bribe.” I mean, that is a pretty low benchmark, especially because we have plenty of information about Putin taking bribes under other circumstances. And then, at another time, when Berezovsky was sort of on the outs with the power elites, Putin brought flowers to his wife’s birthday party. Loyalty is very much sort of something that he cultivates as a part of his image, and that’s something that Berezovsky also valued. It’s a very Soviet trait, especially Soviet male trait, to value loyalty in a country that had sort of given up all principles as such. Personal loyalty was very much the currency of public men. Other than that, there was nothing to say about this man, not that he was smart, not that he was skilled, not that he had any kind of relevant experience, not that he was liked or likable. I mean, he spoke a foreign language, which made him sort of European. He wasn’t a drunk, unlike Yeltsin, which was a relief. But that’s about it. Then everybody projected onto him whatever they wanted to. People projected onto him this idea that he was going to be a democrat and an economic reformer, and the American press ran with those projections. MICHAEL KIRK - Why? Because we were hungry for that? We wanted to believe that having the Soviet Union having collapsed, it was now—and we had spent so much money and time and energy in the Yeltsin years, that we had really started something, and the green shoots of democracy were finally yielding a new, young Russia? MASHA GESSEN - I think so. I think that American correspondents and foreign correspondents tend to sort of perpetuate narratives. And the Russia narrative was the victory of democracy, the end of history, the triumph of popular will, that sort of thing. So a young guy who speaks a foreign language fits into that narrative, as long as you ignore everything else about him. MICHAEL KIRK - Well, you wrote this amazing, this wonderful little sentence about him being sleek and trim and in European-cut suits, and it made him look like, you know, the way Pierre Trudeau used to look in Canada. MASHA GESSEN - I wouldn’t go quite as far as Pierre Trudeau, but yes, he had a way about him that seemed different from those Central Committee men. Yeltsin was also not quite a Central Committee man, but he did wear these gray suits, baggy gray suits. They were like the Politburo-cut suit, and Putin had a different cut of suit. What's interesting is that now he wears those baggy suits with pants that are like eight inches too long, but he didn’t used to. He actually, he wore these expensive, well-cut suits. MICHAEL KIRK - He is an information warrior in that sense. He’s making an image, as you already articulated. He’s making an image of himself that’s almost like—you're right; he creates a numina-like effect about himself, and then we can all project onto him whatever we want. MASHA GESSEN - I don’t know how willful it is, because actually, the interviews that he gave when he was acting president—so Yeltsin resigned on Dec. 31, 1999, making Putin the fairly new prime minister. He’d only been in office for four months, making him the acting president, and a shoo-in in an early presidential election. That was very much part of the idea of resigning on Dec. 31. But Putin still has no public persona, so a media team was assembled very quickly, and he sat down for interviews with them six times, with three journalists, [Nataliya Gevorkyan, Natalya Timakova and Andrei Kolesnikov]. They wrote a book that’s still available called First Person. And if you read that book closely, there's nothing in there about his being a European. There's nothing in there about his appreciation for democracy. Basically, he’s projecting one main myth about himself, which is that he’s a thug. The story that he keeps telling over and over again, and that his friends tell, the sort of the vetted stories by friends in the book, are all stories about Putin getting into fights, and they all unfold according to the same scenario. He lashes out when he feels wronged, and then he quiets down, and everybody thinks it’s over. And then, when they least expect it, he lunges again. MICHAEL KIRK - And Masha, what did that tell you about him? MASHA GESSEN - Well, this is a story about a man who is vengeful, and he wants us to know that he is vengeful. And he’s aggressive, and he’s reckless, because he talks about how he got into a fight like that as a young officer. He got into a street fight over—I don’t remember—the tram ticket or something like that, a bus ticket. And he points out that he was risking his career. If as a KGB officer it had been discovered that he got into a street brawl, that would have probably killed his chances for a foreign posting. He has so much trouble controlling his temper, that he will risk everything that he’s worked for in life for an opportunity to vengefully lash out. MICHAEL KIRK - That’s at least the story he wants to tell. MASHA GESSEN - That’s the story he wants to tell, and he’s certainly acted in accordance with that. MICHAEL KIRK - Exactly right.… I mean, he’s basically creating an image all the way along about himself, which is very interesting. We passed by when he’s at the FSB [Federal Security Service] a story that I don’t want to spend very much time on, because we just can't, and it’s unknown, which is the apartment bombings. Unknown whether he had a hand in it. … regardless of whether he did it or not, he certainly took advantage of this sad occasion of the bombing of those apartments. Tell me how he took advantage of it. MASHA GESSEN - Within three weeks of his appointment as prime minister, a series of terrorist attacks starts happening in Russia. First there are small sort of incidents, and then there are several large apartment bombings in the south of Russia and then in Moscow. Especially the ones in Moscow are just shocking to the country. The country at the time I think felt very much—it so happens that I was there during those bombings, and then I was here in New York on 9/11, and I think the mood was largely similar—because the spectacle of all of it, right, the fact that these bombs went off in the wee hours of the morning, so everybody’s home asleep in their beds. And these large apartment blocks just folded in on themselves, burying these people alive or dead, but burying everybody in the building. The fact that these were just standard apartment blocks, so so many people in Russia, watching that on television, could imagine themselves so easily in their beds, because those beds were just like their beds, and those buildings were just like their buildings, and those families were just like their families, right? These were clearly explosions designed for the maximum number of casualties. That’s why you would have a bomb go off at like 5:00 in the morning, right, when no one has gotten up yet, but everyone has already come home who’s going to come home, and everyone has gone to bed. All of Russia, I think, identified with the people who died. Everybody was afraid. Everybody was in shock. People started watching out for strangers, anybody who might be planting explosives in their buildings. And then suddenly Putin emerges, this prime minister that most people don’t even remember his name because there have been so many prime ministers in the last couple years, and this one is the least charismatic of all the ones that have come along. Suddenly he comes on television. He says: “We’re going to hunt down the terrorists, and we’re going to wipe them out in the outhouse. If we find them in the outhouse, we’re going to wipe them out in the outhouse.” It’s an amazing moment in all sorts of ways. One is that he claims this power that legally he doesn’t actually have. The military didn’t report to the prime minister, and the military still reports—all the uniform services report to the president in Russia, not to the prime minister. It would have been Yeltsin’s job to sort of say: “I'm going to save you. I'm going to have my Army or my police.” And Yeltsin is nowhere to be seen. Putin is given the front spot. And he’s also doing something that Yeltsin wouldn’t have done. He’s not saying, “We’re going to find those responsible and bring them to justice.” He has already called them terrorists, and he is going to say: “We’re basically going to extrajudicially execute them. We’re going to wipe them out in the outhouse. Forget the process. Forget this idea of bringing them to justice. It’s war.” It’s hugely resonant with this really scared and battered population, so Putin’s popularity skyrockets at the same time that he gets name recognitions, like it’s the same curve. And all of a sudden, he’s the most popular politician in Russia because he is seen as spearheading the war on terrorism. MICHAEL KIRK - Fabulous. So on that midnight or that night to Christmas/New Year’s Eve, when Yeltsin appoints him, Yeltsin apologizes. And Putin comes on at midnight. Ordinarily, the prime minister or the president speaks at midnight, but he comes on at midnight as the new president. What does he promise? What does he say? MASHA GESSEN - Well, he very much saw himself, I think at that point, as still a bureaucrat, and that became evident later in the year 2000. But there was Yeltsin, who I think had fully accepted responsibility for the country, and fully felt like he had failed. So he gave this absolutely heartbreaking speech in the middle of the afternoon that was just—he apologized. He said that he wished that he had done a better job by the Russian people, and he said, “I'm tired, and I'm leaving.” It was impossible not to cry watching. It was impossible not to cry watching it years later when I was watching it again for research. Then at midnight, when normally the president would speak, the new president, the acting president came and said that he was going to do his job. You would think that that might be disappointing to a lot of people, that after that sort of—I mean, with Yeltsin, even when he was ill and despondent, it’s impossible to overstate how charismatic he was, and how, as we would say in Russian, the scale of his personality was just outsize. So after he exits the stage, and this little thing comes along and says nothing, but that wasn’t disappointing for people. It was actually an invitation, as it turned out, to project their expectations, so there was a sort of surge of optimism that now things were going to get fixed by this nobody. MICHAEL KIRK - As you watched him in that first year or two, did you see manifestations of what was to come? Was it obvious fairly early, the authoritarian the Russian people have loved from Peter the Great to Catherine the Great to Josef Stalin, a certain kind of person, and I'm going to be that person? MASHA GESSEN - It was—I think partly because I had reported from St. Petersburg for a couple of years just before he became prime minister, and I knew what a different place it was politically than the rest of Russia, I think I recognized things in him that took other people a long time to recognize. Another thing was that I came from a dissident family, and I had been an émigré, and I had come back. So I had this sort of, I don’t know, somewhat different optics, especially because I had been brought up to be suspicious and afraid of anybody who had any connection to the KGB. One of the things that struck me as very important was what he did the day he became acting president. He signed a bunch of decrees. His first decree was giving Yeltsin immunity from prosecution, which was part of the deal, and probably anybody in that position would have done it. But among his first 10 decrees was a decree reinstating primary military education in high schools, and this was something that was, to me, highly symbolic. When I went to school in the Soviet Union, everybody—all the high school students had to learn elementary military trades. I mean, first of all, we had military games, survival games, from the time—I mean, games. We called them games. They weren’t games. They were training sessions, right? But from the time you're very little, there are bomb raids, and you learn to recognize chemical burns, and you are drilled on how to respond to chemical burns. The thing is, you know, these classrooms that are—where the walls are covered with posters on how to recognize different kinds of chemical weapons, the effects of different kinds of chemical weapons and how to respond to them. And then in ninth and 10th grade, so in high school, which is just two years, you learn to administer first aid in a military situation and to take apart and clean a Kalashnikov and put it back together again. Anybody my age or older will be able to tell you how long it used to take them to take apart and clean and put back together a Kalashnikov. A good amount of time is around nine or eight seconds. That was eliminated when the Soviet Union fell apart. And we forget now how much the 1990s, even though Russia never really sort of fully entered a post-imperial era, but still, it became a demilitarized country. All of a sudden, there was much less emphasis on how every boy was a future soldier, which is the way I was brought up. You would just see very many fewer people in uniform in the streets. When I was growing up, when I used to go meet my mother at the subway station when she was coming home, I would—to entertain myself, I would count the number of people in uniform coming off the trains as I waited for her. Roughly every 10th person would be wearing a military uniform. All of a sudden, that was no longer the case. And of course children stopped learning how to take apart and put back together a Kalashnikov in school. One of the first things that Putin did, on the day that he became acting president, was set in motion the process of bringing that back. And I was convinced that—go ahead. MICHAEL KIRK - Sorry. MASHA GESSEN - No, I was convinced that he was signaling his intention to remilitarize Russian society, which is exactly what he did. MICHAEL KIRK - What does it do to a society to grow up with that eight-second Kalashnikov rebuild and then have it reintroduced? What's the signal that that sends to people? MASHA GESSEN - Well, different people receive the same signal differently. It frightened me. I didn’t want to live in a militarized society again, and I thought the militarized Russia would be a dangerous country for the rest of the world. Countries don’t militarize in order to be peaceful. For a lot of people, though, it was a signal that they were going back to something that was familiar and comfortable, both on a private level, which is that you would do the same—their children would be doing the same things that they did as children, right, but much more importantly on a public level, so that they would have a chance to identify with a great country again. He would make Russia great again. For so many people in the 1990s, the instability and discomfort that they experienced became concentrated in this idea of no longer belonging to a great power. So a lot of Putin’s early signals were that he would bring back that wonderful feeling of being part of a great power again. MICHAEL KIRK - In a way, it’s right. He’s merging probably how he felt, having missed glasnost and perestroika, not participating in whatever was great about it, but he comes home, he’s shipwrecked, whatever happens to him, it’s a different world than he probably anticipated finishing his life in. That sort of ethos that he shared with the people was what he decided to employ as his method. In the end of his first year, George W. Bush becomes president of the United States. One of the things we’ve noticed in tracing the arc of this gigantic narrative is how often an American president arrives to a Russian president with hope that all is going to get better, from Gorbachev on; democracy will flower now, and thank God. MASHA GESSEN - Well, I want to say one more thing about what happened with George W. Bush becoming president in ’99, or in 2000, is that Putin had just become president in a very orderly manner. He was handpicked by the previous president. An election was scheduled. He won it handily. Everything went according to plan in his popularity. His margin of victory was pretty good. It was, I think, 53 percent in his first election. And his popularity was sky-high. Then America goes and has this ridiculous election that isn't settled for two months or two and a half months, and that just goes to show you how a democracy is such an imperfect system, and probably an outdated and failed system. I'm convinced that that’s the first time that Putin really watched an American presidential election closely. He’d never thought of himself as somebody who existed on that level. Now he’s waiting to see who his counterpart is going to be, and he can't even know who his counterpart is going to be for two and a half months, because democracy is such a mess. MICHAEL KIRK - When they meet, the way the stories go, and especially—I've just talked to a lot of American diplomats and ambassadors who were there at that first meeting. This is the “I looked in his eyes and saw his soul” meeting. Some people tell the story that here is a KGB guy who’s the president of Russia, who’s studied Bush, knows he’s an evangelical, knows that he has a penchant and a weakness for a religious story, dredges up a religious story out of his own past, the crucifix-in-the-ashes story, and somehow they connect. Tell me what you know about that version of the story. MASHA GESSEN - Actually, I have nothing to add to that version of the story. What I would say is that early on he was a charmer, early on in his term as president. That’s no longer the case. But everyone I've talked to [who] had a meeting with him in the first year or two of his becoming acting president and then president came away transformed, at least for the first few minutes. Well, actually, with one exception: one of the journalists who worked on that official biography. But everyone else felt that he sort of, he turned on the recruiter charm, and he was well-briefed, and he always used a little personal anecdote to connect with you on the grounds that he figured would be good for connecting. A few years down the road, he stopped paying attention. He would start mixing people’s names up or the facts of people’s biographies. By the time I met him in 2012, he wasn’t even briefed. He knew almost nothing about me, like he hadn’t bothered. But early on, he was a real recruiter. And I think he certainly worked his charm on George W. Bush, which apparently wasn’t very difficult. MICHAEL KIRK - There's a lot of hope, of course, that they’ll do all kinds of things. A lot of people have said—we’ll ask them: “What did Putin want from Bush? What did Russia want from Bush? But more importantly, what did Putin want from Bush and America?” What do you think that was? MASHA GESSEN - Well, Putin wanted the return of a bipolar world. That was his agenda from the very beginning. He wanted to be treated with respect. He wanted people back home to see that he was being treated with respect. This was also coming very soon after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, right, which, for the Russian political establishment and for a lot of Russian people, was a really difficult pill to swallow. ... The U.S. and its allies decided to bomb Serbia and Kosovo to resolve the Kosovo crisis without consulting with Russia. And to make matters worse, they started bombing, or the U.S. started bombing when Yevgeny Primakov, the then-prime minister, was in the air, on his way to the United States to meet with Vice President Gore. So they didn’t even make a show of informing Russia before starting bombing, never mind consulting Russia, and that was really insulting for the entire Russian establishment and a lot of Russian people. One of the things that Putin wanted to project was that that kind of thing was never going to happen again. MICHAEL KIRK - Then America pulls out of the ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] Treaty, not really consulting. In fact, he begged Bush not to do it. They invade, or we invade Iraq, taking down an authoritarian figure who stands astride a big—somewhat in the sphere of influence of Russia. Russia joins with France and Germany and says: “Please don’t do this. Are you guys going to do this? Are you really going to do this?” And they do it with a certain level of impunity, at least. It seems that the word you used early to describe what he was hoping for, which is respect, was hardly in the air between George W. Bush and the United States of America, and Vladimir Putin and Russia. MASHA GESSEN - And what's even worse, I think from Putin’s point of view, is the expansion of NATO. It doesn’t ever sort of—in his worldview, it is not a question of these countries asking to be part of NATO. It is merely a question of the United States deciding that NATO should expand to the Russian border. He’s also convinced that the Soviet Union got assurances from the United States that NATO would not be expanded. ... The quote that Putin likes to bring up was a quote by the then-NATO commander given during the negotiations about the reunification of Germany. The promise was that there would be no NATO troops stationed on what had been East German territory. That’s the quote. And that was a matter of negotiations. This was, first of all, this was a negotiation with the Soviet Union, and then—and the Soviet Union was pushing for a solution where somehow Germany would be united. But East Germany still wouldn’t be a part of NATO. And the compromise solution was that there would be no troops on what had been East German territory. That has nothing to do with NATO expansion as such, and it also certainly has nothing to do with Russia. I mean, this was being negotiated with the Soviet Union. This was before the demise of the Warsaw Pact. But in 2007, at the security conference in Munich, Putin shocks world leaders by giving a very, very strongly worded speech about how Russia was not going to take it anymore. MICHAEL KIRK - Can you take me there? What has angered him, or what has happened in his world that he can go to Munich and so forcefully declare? It’s not declaring war, but it’s certainly declaring verbal war on, in an unspoken way, the United States of America. MASHA GESSEN - This is the end of his second term, and he has really been transformed. He has already taken over the media in Russia. He’s already canceled gubernatorial elections. He’s canceled elections to the upper house of the Russian parliament. He’s solidified power. He is ruling very much like a dictator. The process of dismantling what democratic mechanisms had existed in Russia was completed in his first term, and this is the end of his second term. Also, Russia has been living for seven years through a period of unprecedented prosperity, because oil prices just keep climbing. Money is just flowing into Russia. Putin has enriched himself. Everyone around him has enriched himself. At the same time, he has emasculated the men who used to be known as the oligarchs. They’ve ceded their political power to him, and a lot of their financial power, in exchange for safety and security of those assets that they're allowed to keep. He’s really the patriarch of this country. In Russia itself, people perceive him as enjoying the respect of the West, but he doesn’t feel any respect, because the United States has invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq without consulting with Russia, and in fact ignoring Russia’s wishes. The United States has pulled out of the ABM Treaty. And worst of all, NATO has expanded. He’s been saving all of this resentment up because there he is—he feels like he has transformed his country. He’s made it great again, and he still doesn’t get any recognition of that when he meets with world leaders. He is still treated very much like a junior partner by everybody. And so he comes to the security conference in Munich and says, basically: “I don’t have to mince words, do I? I can say what's on my mind.” And then he just lashes out, and he lists all these resentments, especially the NATO expansion, referring to a nonexistent agreement, a nonexistent promise that NATO would never expand. It’s a total change of tone that comes as a complete surprise to his Western counterparts. MICHAEL KIRK - Then one of the other things we do is we’re tracking the development of military power, including hybrid power and including cyber and information war and hard power. Things begin to happen. Estonia is two months later. Then Georgia 1, or Georgia 2, Ukraine—all of it begins to happen, and all of it feels like a rehearsal for something, or a perfecting of the military might. Help me understand what he’s doing in terms of military power and where that fits into this sense I'm getting from you, that he’s looking for not only making Russia great again, but making people believe Russia is great again. MASHA GESSEN - So he starts increasing military spending. First it’s not extraordinary. Now it’s quite extraordinary, the amount of money that Russia has been spending on the military. But he’s certainly interested in military reform. A lot of people believe that he has militarized the Russian power establishment. There are some counterarguments against that, but I mean, he loves his generals, and he loves talking about how he’s bringing the military back. He’s also investing money in ways of waging hybrid warfare, and an excuse to test some of that presents itself. Really, it’s just—it’s even hard to call it—it’s a pretext. In the spring of 2007, Estonia moves a monument to a Russian soldier, right? When the Soviet Union occupied Eastern and Central Europe in 1945, it erected monuments to the liberation of those countries, in the centers of every capital of those occupied countries. Now, some countries have chosen to look the other way, like Austria, which still has a giant monument to its liberation by the Soviet soldiers in central Vienna. But for some countries, it was much more problematic. And for Estonia, which had been not only under Soviet occupation for half a century, but really based its post-Soviet identity on the idea of occupation, right, to have that monument in the center of town was really problematic. It also became a focal point for both Estonian nationalists who would deface the monument and [for] pro-Russian gatherings. Estonia has a huge ethnic Russian and Russian-speaking population of non-citizens. So this was—it was a problem in town. They decided to solve this problem by moving the monument to a military cemetery. The monument included 12 graves, so they moved the monument to a military cemetery, and Russia really could have reacted in any number of ways, but Russia reacted with outrage. Now, another thing that Putin had been doing is he had been creating these youth movements sort of semi-vigilante, military in style if not—though not armed, basically para-armies of young people to support the Kremlin. So they are unleashed on the Estonian Embassy in Moscow. The Estonian Embassy is essentially occupied for three days, and these so-called activists demand that the Estonian ambassador go home. The ambassador finally went home officially on vacation, but they said, “OK, our job is done,” and left. But at the same time—and Estonia is the most technologically advanced country in the world. Its entire government is electronic. It’s the first country to offer e-citizenship. Everything is on a chip. You get stopped for a traffic violation or you go see a doctor, you use the same ID card with a chip in it. And all of a sudden, the entire Estonian system of government goes down because of pretty primitive but enormous DDoS attack, [Distributed] Denial of Service attack launched on Estonia. At the time, Russia denies that it’s involved. Two years later, the leader of one of those youth movements says, “Yeah, it was an army of volunteer hackers who unleashed that war.” But it really shows Estonia who’s boss, because Estonia may be the most technologically advanced country in the world, and it may have built a great democracy, but it’s just 1.2 million people, and you unleash 1.2 million hackers on them, and they can't stand up to it. MICHAEL KIRK - How much of this and the Orange and Rose Revolution responses by Russia are manifestations of Putin’s temper? MASHA GESSEN - I think it’s both his temper and his perception of the world as essentially hostile. He personally perceives the world as essentially hostile, not just hostile to Russia, but hostile to him, hostile to people he loves, just a really dangerous place. So every time something happens, it’s probably a sign of danger, and the revolutions in both Georgia and Ukraine were signs of danger. In fact, in 2004 Ukraine had an election. The election was very clearly rigged. People started protesting in the streets, and eventually the Supreme Court, the Ukrainian Supreme Court, ruled that—invalidated the results of the election and called for a third runoff election to set things right. Now, there were a couple of things that, for Putin, I think, were indications of danger. One is— there's an obvious one—which is that an independent judiciary is really dangerous for a leader who relies on the rigged elections. But again, people in the streets is a really frightening sight to Putin. People in the streets can make all sorts of things happen, so instead of sort of watching it and thinking, oh, we don’t have an independent judiciary, so people can come out in the streets and then go right back home, because they can't set in motion any mechanisms, because he’d long since reversed judicial reform in Russia, which didn’t get very far in the first place, instead he sees people in the streets wreaking havoc. But he’s also convinced that people don’t just come out into the streets. They have to be driven by somebody. There has to be a puppet master. Somebody’s funding them, and it’s probably the United States. That’s actually when he started creating these youth armies. There's a wonderful Australian scholar named Robert Horvath who calls it “Putin’s preventive counterrevolution.” He launched a counterrevolution in his own country without waiting for a revolution to happen, but he was terrified of a revolution like the one in Ukraine or the one in Georgia. The one in Ukraine is known as the Orange Revolution, and the one in Georgia is known as the Rose Revolution. Nothing like that would ever happen in Russia, because there was already an army of young people in place to basically to fight the protesters in the streets if they should come out into the streets. MICHAEL KIRK - By the time Obama comes in—we’re talking about the reset—[Dmitry] Medvedev is in. Is it an obvious fiction—was it an obvious fiction to you what it was going to be, or is it an irrelevant fiction? He [Putin] is still the most powerful guy in the country no matter what? I know to Obama and Hillary, it seems like they—and we’ve talked to lots of people who are around them—they really had high hopes that it was a true reset moment. MASHA GESSEN - … I think at this point I can probably say it. I was able to observe a little bit of that policymaking, and part of it was this idea, this cynical and I think overconfident idea that if the United States empowered Medvedev, then he would become the actual president. I think that there were certainly intelligent people in the State Department at the time who knew perfectly well that it was a fiction, and the basic understanding in the State Department was that yes, it’s a fiction, but maybe we can make it real. MICHAEL KIRK - So what did you witness? What did you see? What can you talk about? MASHA GESSEN - I witnessed some of those, sort of the policymaking, and the idea—I mean, everybody on the team, on the Russia team, I think in the State Department, did realize that Medvedev was a fiction; he was a placeholder. But there was a hope that sometimes these things take on a life of their own. They really do. I don’t think it’s—it’s not a crazy idea. In fact, Putin was very much that kind of phenomenon as well, right? He was sort of a fake accidental president, and then he was a real one. I think that what they underestimated hugely was just how entrenched the clan system that Putin had put in place was by 2008 when he put Medvedev in that chair as a placeholder. I think that’s best described as a mafia state, which is a term invented by a Hungarian scholar named Bálint Magyar, who actually makes a very strong argument that it’s important to understand that it’s not crony capitalism or a kleptocracy; it’s a mafia state. It’s administered by a patriarch, and power is distributed by the patriarch, just as money is distributed by the patriarch. Putin was still the patriarch. It doesn’t matter what title he had. I think they also didn’t realize, and I didn’t realize this until probably a couple of years into the so-called Medvedev administration, that Medvedev just had absolutely no resources. He had a couple of people working for him, a press secretary and an assistant, and like one other guy. Everything was concentrated around Putin. At the same time, Medvedev had—legally, he had the right to fire Putin. The president can fire the prime minister. MICHAEL KIRK - But he’s not going to do that. MASHA GESSEN - Well, one could hope that he would do that. Then it’s very hard to sort of to discuss a counterfactual. Like if the United States had not gone for the reset, would it have worked any better? I don’t know. I think that the fact that the reset came after the war in Georgia, and the war in Georgia was technically fought under the Medvedev administration, and to sort of come to Russia and say, “We’re willing to write it off, you know, write off the annexation of a third—of a neighboring country,” it’s deeply immoral. It also so happens that it was completely ineffective. So the U.S. sacrificed some of its key foreign policy principles for nothing. MICHAEL KIRK - It seems like it all falls apart, really falls apart starting with the Arab Spring, from [Egypt’s Hosni] Mubarak to [Libya’s Muammar al-]Qaddafi and the vote Medvedev makes. But when do you think it—what was the tipping point in that sort of false presidential moment? What happens? MASHA GESSEN - The false presidential moment? MICHAEL KIRK - Well, it makes Putin reassert himself actually and say, “I'm going back in.” MASHA GESSEN - Oh, I think he was always planning to go back. MICHAEL KIRK - No matter what? MASHA GESSEN - Yeah, I don’t think that he ever considered the possibility of not running for election again. If he did, it was more of a possibility of changing the constitution to make it basically a parliamentary republic. MICHAEL KIRK - And then he’d have it anyway. MASHA GESSEN - And then he’d have all the power legally. There was no way he was going to stay in a legally less powerful position for more than four years. The fact that the first thing that Medvedev did when he came into office was change the constitution to extend the presidency to six years indicates that, from the very beginning, the plan was for Putin to then come back in for six years. Then it was, you know, it was done right away, and it wasn’t being done for Medvedev’s benefit. MICHAEL KIRK - When the people hit the streets in the midst of the announcement that he’s coming back, and Hillary says, the statement she says around the election, the unfairness of the election, and Putin reacts so negatively, negatively enough that, whether it’s a pretext or not, he seems to remember it, a lot of people are saying it’s a motivation for the attack in 2016. How do you read what was happening with the people on the street? Here we are again, people on the street, Putin; it’s becoming a familiar pattern. But how do you read that, Hillary’s statement and the effect it had on Putin? What did that look like from Putin’s perspective? MASHA GESSEN - Well, so from Putin’s perspective, I mean by 2011-2012, he has completely lost the ability to distinguish himself from his regime, his regime from the country—from the state, and the state from the country. When he sees people coming out into the streets to protest him and his regime, he sees them protesting Russia itself. I think that’s a sincere view of the world. He knows what's best for Russia. They want to destroy Russia. If they want to destroy Russia, then obviously they're not Russians. So they must be—their puppet master—and he’s always been convinced that there are puppet masters behind any protest—but their puppet master has to be whoever is opposed to Russia. Well, obviously, what’s the only thing that’s powerful enough to oppose Russia and to incite these protests? It has to be the U.S. State Department, because it would be insulting to think that it was anything else, anything less than that. And Hillary is the secretary of state, so obviously it’s her fault, personally. MICHAEL KIRK - Let’s address Sochi, Crimea, Ukraine, all in a kind of moment, if you can. What does Sochi mean? It’s been going on since late November, early December [2014], down in Ukraine. I don’t really need to know the details since I know about [Ukrainian President Viktor] Yanukovych and all the rest. But it’s to Putin this glorious moment. This other thing is happening. He hates it for all the reasons you’ve just articulated, and he’s got a kind of plan, I guess, to go after Crimea and then down into Ukraine, using his new hybrid forces, I suppose. MASHA GESSEN - I think that by 2014, really military buildup has become his number one priority, and there are a few reasons for this. One is that he loves the military. He sees it as Russia’s ultimate greatness. But the other thing is that he has to become a mobilizational leader. The bargain that he had with the population, which is basically exchanging sort of a sense of overwhelming prosperity that he was giving them for unlimited power that they were giving him, that’s not working anymore, because the Russian economy is becoming stagnant. Oil prices haven't started dropping yet, but because of corruption and because of the overreliance on extractive economy, the economic growth has basically slowed to a crawl by 2013, by the end of 2013. He still has to throw this big party, which he’s been planning for many years. He went to Guatemala City personally to lobby for the Olympics. Not only that, he gave a speech in English, which he’d never done before. I think it was—or was it French? Anyway, it was a language that he doesn’t usually use. So he has been planning for this great moment. And the Olympics—remember, the last Olympics in Russia were the Moscow Olympics in 1980, which were supposed to also be a symbol of greatness, and turned into something entirely different because the United States boycotted the Moscow Olympics over the invasion of Afghanistan. So it’s also partly taking revenge for that humiliation of 1980. All of that is on one pile. And then in the fall of 2013, it turns out that a lot of Western countries aren’t sending their luminaries, the first—I think it was the president of Germany [Joachim Gauck] who said he wasn’t coming, then Belgium, then someone else. Then finally Obama announces his delegation, which doesn’t include an elected official. The highest placed official that it includes is a deputy assistant secretary of state, which is just an insult. And, to add more insult, there are two openly gay former Olympians in the delegation. This is about a year and a half into Putin’s anti-gay campaign, because the way that he ended up dealing with the protesters was by queer-baiting them and by sort of focusing Russia’s ire on the LGBT population. There are no good photo ops in Sochi. It’s basically, instead of a party, it’s a disaster. At the last minute, Putin tried to clean up his act by releasing [Mikhail] Khodorkovsy, the former oligarch, who had been a political prisoner for 10 years; releasing the members of Pussy Riot, who had been in jail for nearly two years; releasing the 30—I think [thirty] two members of Greenpeace who were in a ship that Russia had hijacked in neutral waters, in international waters in September, a ship flying the Dutch flag. So they release all of those people. But it’s too late to save Sochi. That adds more resentment to his feelings around Sochi. Meanwhile, Ukraine, which is not just Russia’s closest neighbor but very much sort of the country that Russia identifies with, and really, really identifies with, right—I mean, Russians of all kinds look at Ukraine to understand their own country, and Putin is no exception. In Ukraine, there have been these protests going on for now several months, and it’s because Ukrainians want a closer association with Western Europe rather than [with] Russia. He interprets those protests as anti-Russian. But they’ve thrown the country into absolute turmoil. Now, so all of that is in place. And his military buildup is in place. I don’t think it’s a matter of having plans for the Crimea in place. It’s a matter of having plans for everything in place. It’s like Chekhov’s gun hanging on the wall, except that they have a plan for invading every country on the wall, right? That’s what a lot of the investment of the military has been, is making plans for how are we going to fight this war and this other war? How are we going to re-annex parts of Finland, and how are we going to re-annex the Baltic states and Moldova and Ukraine? So here is the moment to take Crimea. And it’s clear, from the way that the Crimean operation was carried out, that it was indeed a well-planned operation. It was carried out on the spur of the moment when he saw the opportunity, but the plans for the operation had long since been designed. It was just a matter of implementation. Then there are a lot of people around him who want to go further, who want to go into Ukraine, and he has nothing to lose by going into Ukraine—not that he actually thinks about his losses. He’s a brilliant opportunist and not a planner. Actually, Sochi is a perfect example of how little he plans. Usually, the Olympics aren’t very often held in dictatorships, and dictatorships usually clean up their act a year or two before the Olympics, and then do things like arrest all the political dissidents and reinstate the death penalty like China did the day after the Olympics ends. But not Russia. Russia didn’t clean up its act because Putin is not a planner, right? Putin realized that he had to do something six weeks before the actual Olympics and released everybody, but it was too late. It’s not like he’s looking ahead to what's going to happen if he invades Ukraine. He invades Ukraine because he can, and because it’s good for mobilization, and it’s worked really well for him. If you look at his popularity curve, it goes up vertically again, just like it did in September-October 1999, when he promised to hunt down the terrorists. It goes up vertically again, just as the economic expectations curve goes down. You never actually see that in a normal country. You never see a leader whose popularity is up and holding while people’s subjective economic well-being is down, drops down precipitously and holds. Sociologists will tell you that those lines have to meet. In fact, they have to cross in opposite direction. But that doesn’t happen in Russia. And I think the reason it doesn’t happen in Russia is because ultimately, Russia has reverted to this state of mobilization identification with the state. He has delivered what he promised, which is to bring back to people the feeling of identifying with something great. MICHAEL KIRK - And when they're hammered with sanctions, does that diminish him in some way? Does it diminish him with his people? MASHA GESSEN - Well, did something really interesting with the sanctions. The U.S. and the European Union and Australia and I think a couple other countries introduced sanctions, which were designed to—they were based on a ridiculous premise that comes from a basic misunderstanding of the way that Russia works, that if they squeezed him economically a little bit, his popularity would suffer, people would protest, and then he would have to change his behavior. First of all, Putin had been power, by that point, for 15 years. He had never shown an ability to change course. He had never shown that he reacts to pressure with anything but aggression. But also, there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how his dialog with his people was working. By this time, he had cracked down in the wake of the protests, so Russia was two years into a full-fledged political crackdown. It’s not like he was worried about feedback, and it’s not like protests were a real option. But they also clearly weren’t looking at how much more popular he had become because of the invasion. So sanctions—I'm not opposed to sanctions. I just think that sanctions should be based on moral considerations and values, not on the idea that they could squeeze him into changing his behavior. But after sanctions went into effect, Putin did something extraordinary, which is he made the sanctions worse. He introduced countersanctions, banned the import of food products from all the countries that had joined the sanctions, with the exception of Switzerland. That actually was a huge blow to the Russian economy, but especially to sort of individual economy, because at the time, nearly all Russian food was imported, partly because it’s an extractive economy. The ruble had been very strong for many years. There was no reason for Russians to make their own food. They were importing it. The saner rationale for those countersanctions was to jumpstart Russian food production, but of course, that’s not how it works, right? Prices went through the roof. People really felt the squeeze. But that actually made the sense of being at war stronger. Even though people suffered, Putin’s popularity didn’t suffer, and it still hasn’t suffered. The reason that he hates the sanctions is not because they put the squeeze on the Russian economy. He is concerned about a different set of sanctions. He’s concerned about personal sanctions against that—that really make things difficult for him and his friends who are banned from entry to this country, who are banned from having assets in this country, and who are essentially banned from doing any business involving U.S. currency, which really hampers their style. MICHAEL KIRK - So let’s take ourselves to the summer of 2016. Why does Vladimir Putin, really in 2015 and in the spring of 2016, initiate, unleash the hounds if that’s what he did, decide to go in to, invade the presidential election in the United States of America in 2016? MASHA GESSEN - A couple of things. One is that Russia has actually made a habit of being a disruptive force in Western elections for a few years now. It didn’t begin with the American presidential election. A better way to ask the question might be, why wouldn’t Russia try to meddle in American elections when it’s made a habit of meddling in democratic elections? Now, the reasons for meddling in elections are obvious, and I would actually begin with psychological reasons rather than strategic reasons. The psychological reason is that Putin is really and truly convinced, and the people around him are really and truly convinced, that democracy is an unsound way of running things. It is messy. It is, as he saw with Bush and Gore, doesn’t run very well, and it also probably isn't as honest as everybody says, right? In fact, when you ask a Russian official or a Russian patriot about rigged Russian elections, they will always say, “You think your elections are so honest?” That’s a sense of relief. It’s not, you know, this bit of—it’s not hypocritical “What about-ism?” It’s sincere “What about-ism?” They're really arguments that democratic elections are rigged. Well, if their democratic elections are rigged, why wouldn’t you want a part of the rigging if you have an interest in the outcome? Of course Russia has an interest in the outcome of American elections. It also has an even deeper interest in proving that democracy is as rotten as they say it is. To prove that democracy is as rotten as they say it is, it is good to help it along in becoming more rotten. The other thing is that I think in this country, we’ve come to imagine the Russian system of meddling as a well-oiled machine or a well-commanded army. That’s not what it is at all. There are a lot of technically savvy and not so savvy people who want to get federal grants, and the Kremlin throws a lot of money at organizations that will sell a good pitch of being able to meddle in something or wreak some sort of havoc somewhere, where havoc ought to be wreaked, right? It’s not so much that Putin sends out an army of hackers; it’s that there are groups of hackers who want to take the initiative of doing something really awesome, which is, of course, how we get two different groups hacking the Democratic National Committee at roughly the same time, without apparently being aware of each other. MICHAEL KIRK - Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear. MASHA GESSEN - Right, Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear. The whole thing is self-perpetuating and messy in different sorts of ways. But of course there's also the element of his personal hatred for Hillary Clinton, and it’s not just hate her. I think it’s like Hillary Clinton was impossible as a U.S. president. To imagine that he would have to deal with her as a senior partner, a woman—I mean, he already has to deal with [German Chancellor Angela] Merkel. The lengths that he has gone to to assert his masculine dominance over Merkel is amazing. He literally sicced dogs on her. He has made indecent jokes in front of her, just to try to discomfort her. He hates dealing with a strong woman, and one as president of the United States would be just awful. I don’t think he ever believed that he was going to be able to help get Trump into office. I think in that sense, the people who prepared his briefs read all the same sources as we do. They were just as convinced that Hillary Clinton was going to win the American election as The New York Times was convinced that she was going to win the American election. MICHAEL KIRK - So in 2008 and other times, it was obviously espionage, and everybody steals everything from everybody. It’s when it’s activated through WikiLeaks and others that it changes into pure politics? MASHA GESSEN - Well, that’s where it gets really—I mean, we don’t know, right? I think that Julian Assange has his own megalomaniacal views of his role in the world. He’s certainly alone against the entire world. Who made the decision to release the products of the leaks at that particular time? I think there's actually every indication it was Assange. How long had he been sitting on that material? Did he get it on the eve of the leak, or months and months before? We actually don’t know. MICHAEL KIRK - One question in passing. Nobody’s actually reached out and tried to stop Putin along this long narrative we’ve been discussing, that we know of. When Ukraine happens, we don’t fire back cyber stuff or close a bank. ... With the lethal arming of Ukrainian rebels or Ukrainian soldiers, one might have said, “Well, we’ve stepped up to him and stood up to him,” but maybe not. And, as you have articulated, it might have pissed him off, and off we go again further and further along. We get here, we know it. [Then-Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper knows it. Eventually the FBI knows it. Certainly Obama knows it. And there were certainly arguments: “We’ve got to push back here. We’ve got to let him know.” From what you know about Putin, and what you’ve been talking about this afternoon, how would Putin have reacted if there would have been pushback? MASHA GESSEN - Again, it’s very hard to argue a counterfactual, and I don’t think that Putin’s reaction should be the consideration. I think we have known for a very, very long time that Putin is dead set on a particular course, and he’s going to pursue it. When he gets very strong pushback, he steps back, and then he comes back again in the exact same direction, doing the exact same thing. The question should not be, what does Putin do? Obviously it’s responsible to consider it, but it’s not terribly complicated to predict what he is going to do. The question should be, what are our values, and what do we do in accordance with our values in this situation? The sanctions, I think, are a very good example, right? The sanctions, as a strategic move, are a failure, and a predictable failure. The sanctions, as an expression of American values, wouldn’t have been a failure if they had been framed and implemented that way, right? It is wrong to do business with a dictator. It is wrong to do business with a head of state or with a state that carries out the first forcible annexation of land in Europe since World War II. In accordance with those considerations, what does the United States do? It probably introduces similar sanctions. Doesn’t do it step by step the way it was done, because it is not gradually more and more wrong to do business with that kind of state. It is instantly wrong to do business with that kind of state. So you introduce sanctions all at once, and perhaps in somewhat different areas, or perhaps not. But you don’t do it step by step, because the step-by-step process was intended to show Putin that we mean business, and he has to stop. Like hell he’s going to stop, right? That’s not the kind of pushback that will make him stop. You know, again, there's also basic misunderstanding that he thinks that making life worse for his people—I mean, we think that making life worse for Russians is going to make Putin stop. He has been making life worse for Russians for years, and it certainly hasn’t made him stop. MICHAEL KIRK - So what do you think Trump—what do you think Putin thinks of Trump? MASHA GESSEN - Oh, he very clearly sees Trump as a buffoon. Trump is, in some ways, the expression of everything that Putin disdains. He disdains lack of control. One thing that he also has cultivated as part of his image is his never betraying emotions. That’s not true. He actually betrays emotions quite a lot, but his idea of himself is somebody who has a flat affect and purposefully never shows any emotions and is always calculated in everything he does and says. Also not true, but that’s how he thinks of himself. Trump is the exact opposite of that. I mean, I think that that kind of lack of control over his words and actions and emotions and reactions makes Putin look down on him. And I think, at this point, Putin feels also a little bit betrayed, because along with much of the media establishment, and certainly much of Russian media, he has bought the idea that he elected Trump. He loves that idea. He took a couple of victory laps after the election. And now Trump hasn’t delivered. In a way, Russia is worse off with Trump in office than it was with Obama in office. MICHAEL KIRK - Because? MASHA GESSEN - Sanctions remain in place. There's no sign that they will ever be removed. Trump is less predictable. Obama was always—you could basically easily predict that he was going to go for the least engagement possible in any given situation. It’s not true of Trump. Trump liked firing 59 Tomahawk missiles at Syria. Trump loved dropping the mother of all bombs in Afghanistan. It looks really good on television. As Trump gets pushed into a corner, what is he going to do to make himself to look good on television again? Putin understands that kind of thinking very, very well. As we speak, things are getting pretty rocky in Syria between Russia and the U.S. I was just in Moscow recently, and Russian television is talking about how Trump hasn’t sort of made good on his promises. Russian television is also spending a lot of time on Syria, on how Russia is waging a heroic war against ISIS and Syria, and American-backed terrorist forces are pushing back. That’s the narrative. America is backing terrorist forces in Syria, and Russia is waging war against them. It’s hard to get Russians mobilized behind the Syrian effort. It hasn’t been nearly as popular as Ukraine. But it’s important to Putin personally. And he will not step back from it. MIKE WISER - So one of the questions is by 2016 election, there's a lot of talk of Russian botnets, propaganda, influence on social media. How does that happen? Going back to 2011 and 2012, the Russian government, what does Putin see when, at that point, it’s Facebook and social media seem to be driving protests, change and the Arab Spring? Is there a moment where they're reconsidering tactics, are realizing the power and the danger of social media after 2012? MASHA GESSEN - I wouldn’t overemphasize it. I was just talking recently to Adrian Chen, who did that wonderful story on the Russian troll factory, and he said, “If I had known that the intelligence agencies were going to use my article so prominently in their report, I would have emphasized how incompetent they are.” It’s not all that we imagine it to be. They did catch onto social media. They caught onto social media late, and not every agency has even figured out that social media exists. When the political crackdown began, they didn’t employ social media at all in their investigations. They would go through people’s printed out photographs and handwritten notes to try to figure out context. They never went online to try to figure out how to crack down on people’s actual networks. So it’s—they have a lot of money to throw around. They are interested in increasing their electronic influence around the world. This is true. And there are some companies that are enterprising in sort of absorbing that money and doing stuff for that money, and they have no scruples about what they do. But to imagine it as a concerted effort and as sort of an all-out war on Western democracy through high-tech means gives them a little bit too much credit. MIKE WISER - But does he change his approach even inside Russia after those protests? How does Putin change once he sees all those people in the street? MASHA GESSEN - Oh, well, no, what changed when he saw people in the streets was actually much more conventional. They started arresting people. They changed the laws. They changed the laws to enable them to prosecute anybody for perceived violations of public assembly laws. So it used to be that—I mean, the laws were very restrictive in the first place, right? You had to get a permit to hold a demonstration, and on that permit you had to indicate how many people were coming to the demonstration, and if the number of people who came to the demonstration exceeded the number of people on the permit, then you went to jail for 15 days. But that still only hit the organizers of these protests, right? So that’s what happened, for example, after the first protest, the first large protest. People had a permit for 300 people because that’s how many people used to show up, and 10,000 people showed up. So the people whose names were on the permit application went to jail for 15 days for all those people who showed up. What they did, when Putin cracked down, is they changed those laws to be able to prosecute anybody who participated in the protests for violations. That is a basic instrument of state terror. You have to create the mechanism of random prosecutions, because by definition, you can't apply a law like that uniformly. If 50,000 people come to a protest, you can't arrest 50,000 people. You can only arrest some of them. You certainly can't send 50,000 people without reinstating the Gulag. You can't send 50,000 people to prison colonies, put them through the courts, etc., etc., so you have to pick out a few to make the threat credible to the many. But they can't be the leaders, right? They have to be ordinary people. So they did that. And they prosecuted—at this point, the number of people who have been prosecuted in connection with the 2012 protests is over 30, and most of them have gone to jail for three or four years. These are just ordinary people, right, going to jail for peaceful protests. They're picked out at random, and they're picked out at random times. It can be two years after the protest. They say, “We found videotape of you beating up an officer,” and then that person is picked up. So that’s one thing they did. Another thing they did is the “foreign agents law,” which creates unbearable burdens for functioning of any NGO [nongovernmental organization] that receives foreign funding. Basically they’ve decimated civil society through doing this, and they’ve prosecuted a lot of people from various organizations for failing to register as foreign agents. They’ve paralyzed the work of many organizations, basically, with these prosecutions. Let me just finish. The third thing they did is the anti-gay campaign. The anti-gay campaign is, it’s much more of a sort of standard scapegoating campaign. But queer is a perfect stand-in for everything that Putin perceives the protesters to be. They're foreign; they're other; they are something that didn’t exist in the Soviet Union. We've only had queers since the Soviet Union collapsed. They're a stand-in for everything Western and everything imported. And it gets traction with sort of this desire to return to an imaginary past with the traditional values, whatever they were. That’s also unleashed a lot of violence on people who are perceived to be gay. So that channels a lot of the violent impulses in the population. MIKE WISER - So what does Putin want now? He started wanting respect from Bush. But where are we at this point? What's his approach to the West? MASHA GESSEN - Oh, he still wants the same thing. He still wants a bipolar world. The Syria story is actually a perfect example of how this unfolded. You know, Putin’s happiest moment came in September 2013, when he hijacked Syria. If you recall, Obama said there was a red line, and then he couldn’t get congressional support for intervention in Syria. Then he decided not to do it without congressional support, and he basically was losing face. Putin stepped in and allowed him to save face and said that he was going to negotiate a chemical disarmament with [Bashar al-]Assad. He wrote an op-ed in The New York Times, which the Times published, that was just perfect Soviet use of American rhetoric against the United States, calling out the U.S. for its willingness to violate international law. I mean, this is the man who annexed huge chunks of neighboring countries. So that was—he was on top of the world then. And then, a year later, suddenly he is an international pariah. Nobody comes to his party. He’s under sanctions. I mean, Ukraine, he could have anticipated that there would be a strong reaction. But the anti-gay campaign, he certainly never anticipated that there would be an international outrage over it. So he comes back to the U.S. for the 70th anniversary of the United Nations, Sept. 20, 2015, with a proposal. He spoke at the General Assembly of the United Nations, and he basically articulated his proposal. His proposal was that a new international coalition, an anti-ISIS coalition modeled after the anti-Hitler coalition should be formed. What he means is, because the Soviet Union was part of the anti-Hitler coalition, the Soviet Union got to be a superpower and got to have Eastern Europe. He wants the same thing. He wants to enter into this coalition with the United States and get to be a superpower again, and also take parts of the world that he wants, which is not necessarily former Soviet territories, but certainly what he’s already taken and some more. Obama didn’t even meet with him. He was completely snubbed. He went back to Moscow humiliated, untended to. Russia started bombing Syria a week later, and has been ever since. The war, Russia’s participation in the war in Syria, is basically an attempt to blackmail the United States into giving Russia its superpower status back. JIM GILMORE - I think you missed the back in September of 2004, Beslan and what it represented, and why it was important to understand about what was going on there. MASHA GESSEN - Beslan was, if you could imagine, an even more shocking terrorist attack than the explosions that killed people in their sleep. That was Beslan, the siege of a school in the south of Russia, where nearly 1,000 people were taken hostage. Then more than 300 people died, most of them children. As we learned, thanks to an independent investigation carried out over the next couple years, the deaths of those children were really the FSB’s doing, the federal troops’ fault. They shelled the school at point-blank range. They fired at it from tanks. A lot of the children who burned alive because of a fire that raged, because the school was shelled at point blank range. I think that they were trying to do everything to maximize the number of casualties, to maximize the shock effect. It’s also possible that they were just so inhumane that they would just do it without even having that goal in mind. But Putin used Beslan as a pretext for canceling gubernatorial elections. He framed it as an antiterrorism measure. It was a cynical move, because clearly his very detailed decree in canceling gubernatorial elections had been prepared before Beslan happened. But at the same time, it also expresses, I think, his basic belief that anything democratic is always messy, and the way to respond to extreme violence and to extreme disorder is to create more dictatorial powers. MICHAEL KIRK - So now my last question, which is, are we at war? Is he at war with us? MASHA GESSEN - He is. Putin has portrayed and the Kremlin-controlled Russian media have portrayed both the wars in Ukraine and the wars here as proxy wars against the United States. Russia does not perceive itself as being at war with Ukraine. It perceives itself as being at war with the United States by proxy of Ukraine. And it certainly doesn’t perceive itself as being at war with ISIS, even though it says that it’s firing at ISIS fighters. It perceives itself as being at war with forces that are backed by the United States in Syria. They're quite open about it, on television. It would be beneath Russia’s station to go to war with Syria or to go to war with Ukraine. Only the United States is big enough to go to war against, and only the United States is grand enough to mobilize people enough to have the kind of popularity that Putin has come to depend upon. …
Info
Channel: FRONTLINE PBS | Official
Views: 357,076
Rating: 4.2650824 out of 5
Keywords: podesta, albats, baker, pbs, kirk, journalism, interviews, ioffe, yeltsin, gessen, putin files, putin, obama, frontline, transparency, investigation, nuland, russia, bush, hoffman, wgbh. documentary, brenna, glasser, clapper, lizza, kara-murza
Id: Kk9igTqTx9s
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 118min 36sec (7116 seconds)
Published: Wed Oct 25 2017
Reddit Comments
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.