Killer kleptocracy, genius, spy: the many myths about Vladimir Putin

As you can see, Vladimir Putin everywhere. He sends soldiers to Ukraine and Syria, his troublemakers operating in the Baltic States and Finland, he put his hand to the election literally everywhere, from the Czech Republic and France to the United States. He’s also in the media. Not a day goes by without some new great articles such as “Putin’s Revenge”, “the Secret source of Putin’s anger” or “10 reasons why Vladimir Putin is a terrible man.”

Such omnipresence Putin recently erected on the peak of popularity of palynology. This intellectual industry engaged in the production of reviews and analytical materials about Putin, his motives and actions based on the necessarily biased, incomplete, and sometimes blatantly false information, there are more than 10 years. She included a higher gear in 2014 following the Russian invasion of Crimea. But in recent months, when the news took the allegations of Russian interference in the election of a President Donald trump, palynology has surpassed itself. Never before such huge number of people with very poor knowledge did not speak with great indignation on the subject of Russia and its President. We can say that messages about sexual pleasures trump in the room of the Moscow hotel spawned the Golden age of palynologie.

And what tells us this is palinology? Turns out she made seven clear hypotheses about Putin. None of them is completely wrong, but at the same time neither is completely true (except the theory No. 7). Taken together, they talk about ourselves much more than about Putin. They paint a portrait of intellectuals (our own portrait) on the verge of a nervous breakdown. But let’s consider them in order.

Theory No. 1: Putin is a genius

Here everything is simple. While the world plays checkers, Putin plays chess. He robbed the Ukrainians of Crimea virtually without firing a shot. He returned to Yalta where he liked to rest the Russian tsars and the Czechs. And punished him for it just some minor sanctions. He started intervention in Syria on the side of the Assad regime after the United States, Turkey and the Saudis for several years supported the rebels, and promptly turned the tide of the war. He played a significant role in weakening the unity of the EU; it is financed by eurosceptic right-wing (and if it is practical, and eurosceptic left-wing); it is obviously aimed at the collapse of the postwar international order, decided to replace it with a bilateral relationship based on mutual interests, in which Russia should mainly serve as a senior partner.

Finally, he intervened in the American elections, the election for the most powerful post in the world, and managed to hold the White house his man. And what are the consequences? From U.S. expelled several diplomats. This is an extremely small price for a possible lifting of us sanctions, a resumption of economic ties and joint development of oil fields in the Russian Arctic and for the actual recognition of the Crimea part of Russia.

Domestically, Putin has managed to suppress or co-opt almost the entire opposition. Liberals squabbling among themselves in social networks and emigrate. The extreme right, who hate Putin for refusing to create a fully fascist regime, for example, to seize Kiev, he keeps on a short leash. And left-wing social Democrats, hobbled with a mind left, but in fact authoritarian and the mass Communist party of the Russian Federation, so little, that Putin does not even notice (although his eyes, Oh, how many).

In the first two presidential terms Putin was incredibly lucky, since the world began a rapid growth of prices for raw materials. He could have missed your luck, but tenaciously managed to catch her, treated her carefully and prudently, and as a result, Russia has become rich. Today pale in comparison rival to Putin in his immediate environment may just be the Prime Minister, small and plump Dmitry Medvedev, who distinguished himself mainly to the fact that he loves to play on my iPad. The only politician in Russia who managed to create a significant threat to Putin, Moscow is a talented populist with a changing political beliefs and love to network communication Alexei Navalny. But the Kremlin does not allow him to breathe freely, presenting numerous criminal charges and subjecting house arrest.

Putin as an evil genius is, of course, the main speculative judgment of the West about the Russian President. Talking about this and its many critics and few fans. Those who are more prejudice to the political, intellectual and military capabilities, Putin (President Obama, for example) are considered naive and soft, Amateurs of checkers, but not chess. Meanwhile, the majority of Russian observers, watching Putin, I am surprised this reverent fear of the West before its irresistible strategic talent. The world chess champion and not particularly great opposition politician Garry Kasparov, for example, believes all these statements are insulting to chess.

In any case, these claims about the genius of Putin cause a lot of issues. Really capture a favorite in the past, but have lost their former popularity of the resort place, where the Russians did not drive, was worth it to get into international isolation, be subjected to increasingly onerous sanctions and to earn the eternal hatred of the Ukrainian people? Yes, there were concerns that formed after Maidan Ukrainian government may cancel the lease of a major Russian naval base in Sevastopol. But the real genius would be able to eliminate this threat by some other ways, without resorting to capture the entire Peninsula, isn’t it?

As for Syria, Putin today is definitely bathed in glory, raising the Assad regime. But who wants to work with him to celebrate this victory? Definitely not Sunnis, whom al-Assad ruthlessly and massively destroys. Some of those who survived, will soon return to their homes in the Caucasus and Central Asia, harboring a deep hatred of the Russian bear. As for the collapse of the EU is what Putin wants most of all, is it advantageous to Russia? “Hungarian Putin” Viktor Orban yet is friendly to Moscow, but Putin the Polish party “Law and justice” is a staunch Russophobes. As noted by one perceptive commentator, if Putin will be able to bring to power in neighboring Germany, a nationalist leader of the right wing, this German Putin may well decide that it would be nice to war with Russian Putin. German Putin quite often did in the past.

And even our own American Putin, Donald trump might be for Russia is not so much manna from heaven as it may seem at first glance. First, the obvious Roman trump with the Russian President in the US has caused a storm of Russophobia, such as was not since the beginning of 1980-ies. Second, trump is a fool. And the genius was wrong to contact the fool.

The genius of Putin in the country also raises serious suspicions. In 2011, he made the fateful decision to return to the presidency after four years of Medvedev’s Board. About this decision in a derogatory manner, declared Medvedev himself, and very soon in Moscow launched a powerful protest, which she had not seen since the early 1990-ies. Putin skillfully waited for the protests. He did not allow that mistake, which two years later made Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, first reacted to the events of overreacting, and then underestimated the situation. Putin waited until the protests ran out of gas and then began to remove the leaders of the protest movement one by one. Someone discredited, making the surreptitious video, someone filed fake charges of committing crimes. At the same time, Moscow experienced a sort of urban Renaissance. There were new parks, bike paths and so much more, to appease the indignant breakout, as called creative class. But in fact Putin has not reacted to criticism from the opposition, who claimed that his political power is corrupt, unresponsive and short-sighted. Instead, he invaded the Ukraine and started stirring up nationalist sentiments, reinforcing the worst aspects of his power.

If Putin after 2008, he resigned and became the Grand old man of Russian politics, he would be all over the country began to erect monuments. When Russia emerged from the chaos of the 1990s, and the country has experienced relative stability and prosperity. But today, when oil prices fell, the ruble collapsed, instead of European cheese appeared ridiculous counter-sanctions, and the opposition is demoralized, it’s hard to imagine that the Putin era has ended without violence. And violence begets violence. If it is genius, some strange properties.

Theory No. 2: Putin is a jerk

For the first time the majority of Russians saw Putin in 1999, before the new year holidays. Clearly unwell Boris Yeltsin, who until the end of the period was still six months, in his traditional new year address announced the resignation of the President and about the transfer of authority to newly appointed, younger and more energetic Prime Minister.

Then came Putin. The effect was stunning. Yeltsin seemed confused and unhealthy. His speech became so slurred that it was difficult to understand. He was sitting unnaturally straight, as if on legs. But this? This pygmy? Putin was tiny in comparison with Yeltsin. He was younger and healthier, nevertheless, seemed no more beautiful death. Putin spoke a few minutes. On the one hand, he has pledged to strengthen Russian democracy, but on the other gave a warning to those who intend to threaten Russia. The performance seemed somehow ridiculous. Many then thought that Putin is unlikely to linger long in this high office. Despite all its faults, Yeltsin, at least, was something. High, with stentorian voice, a former member of the Soviet Politburo. And Putin? People suddenly found out that he was only a Colonel in the KGB. He worked abroad, although what is abroad — provincial East-German Dresden? Putin was a small, squeaky voice, and thinning hair. He was a nonentity even among nonentities who left after constant cleansing of the Yeltsin government.

In a world where most people believe in the genius of the Russian President, the theory of Putin as a nonentity deserves attention. Putin really is kind of a hack. One of my favorite observations about him made people who knew him in the 1990-ies in St. Petersburg. This man became a whistleblower when, soon after the arrival of Putin to the presidency headed by a medical company (very successful) have proposed to transfer part of the profits to Fund the construction of a huge “Putin’s Palace” on the black sea coast. He told very interesting things about the President, because they knew him before. His observations he shared with the British journalist Ben Judah (Ben Judah):

He was just an ordinary man… he was a regular voice… not low, not high. He was a regular character… normal intelligence, not particularly high intelligence. You can walk out your door to find in Russia, thousands and thousands of people like Putin.

Well, he’s not quite right. Putin was not quite an ordinary man, at least in several respects (for example, he was champion of Leningrad in judo). But in these words there is a deep insight. The charm of Putin is that he is not particularly given. During his first interview as President he carefully emphasized how he is an ordinary man, as he had a hard time financially in the 1990-ies, how often he had bad luck. He knew the same jokes, listened to the same music, watched the same movies as all other people of his generation. It was a Testament to the power of Soviet culture, its egalitarianism and its drawbacks. It was so convincing that when Putin recalled the lines from dissident song or episode from a movie of the 60’s or 70’s years, almost all understand what he is talking. He was like everyone else. Unremarkable only child from an unremarkable working class family in Leningrad. There is an impression that the Soviet Union out of his huge mass of extracted typical instance with its typical aggressiveness, typical ignorance and typical nostalgia for the past.

Stories about the first years of Putin’s presidency confirm that he was not a colossus. He was impressed by the power of the American Empire and was in awe of George Bush. He also knew how limited his power within the country. Russian politics in the Yeltsin era was ruled by a small group of tycoons, titans of the oil and banking sector with their own private armies. Led by their undersized and weedy retired Colonel like Putin and the burly former generals from the interior Ministry and the KGB. Moreover, some of the oligarchs was the smartest strategists who survived the dashing 90’s and emerged from them victorious. Putin, meanwhile, somehow climbed the corporate ladder, being a corrupt Deputy from the short-lived mayor. At the initial stage, it has become popular due to its rigidity in relation to the Chechens and oligarchs. He managed to raze Chechnya to the ground. But will he be able to win decisive battles with the oligarchs? Putin about this had no idea.

In 2003 came one of the main turning points in his rule. Putin took several months to get up the nerve to arrest the richest man in Russia Mikhail Khodorkovsky. But he did it and got the result. People took to the streets and defended the fallen oligarch. From the forests was not a secret army. Putin got away with it, then come and much more. He will Mature and grow to the position. Today we see how low Putin during the official ceremonies held in the spacious halls of the Kremlin, and understand that he is not elevated to this splendor. But time has done its job. Trump will become the fourth American President, who met with Putin. Your posts have left numerous UK premieres, two of the French President and one Chancellor of Germany (which Putin later took on a job that does not become a reason for pride of the German people). And Putin is. It takes on a special dignity just because he knows how to survive. However, this is a dubious advantage.

Theory No. 3: Putin had a stroke

This classical theory from the early palynologie gained popularity in 2005, when the Atlantic published an article under the title “Autocrat by chance”. The author refers to the work of “researcher behavior” from the US naval Academy in Newport (ri) named Brenda L. Connors (Brenda L. Connors). After examining the record of Putin’s gait, she came to the conclusion that he was serious, perhaps congenital neurological malformation. It is not excluded that Putin suffered a stroke in the womb, which he can not fully use the right side of his body, and therefore the left hand when walking swings more than the right. Connors told the Atlantic that it is possible, in its infancy, Putin was not able to crawl. He still moves as if the whole body “from head to tail, like fish or reptiles”.

This hypothesis is unlikely to help predict whether the attack, for example, Putin in Belarus. Nevertheless, it is very Intrusive. So it seems that a fish-like Putin moving around the world people are able to use both sides of your body, and very upset, without having such as them.

Theory number 4: Putin is a KGB agent

After his famous first meeting with Putin and President-elect George Bush said at a press conference that looked the Russian in the eye and saw his soul. Bush advisors were stunned. “I just froze,” — wrote in his memoirs, national security adviser Condoleezza rice. Secretary of state Colin Powell took the President aside. “You may read it in his eyes — he said ominously — but I look him in the eye and still see there three letters — K, G, and B. Remember, he is fluent in German.” Vice President dick Cheney had a similar impression. “Whenever I see Putin, he said, — I think about one thing: KGB, KGB, KGB.”

Since then, nothing has changed. Whenever Putin is trying to be with someone helpful, it is only due to the fact that he was a KGB agent and wants to manipulate other people. But if Putin behaves ugly, for example, when he introduced fearful dogs Angela Merkel and his black lab, Connie, is also due to the fact that he was a KGB agent and wants to gain the psychological upper hand.

The fact that Putin has amassed a large part of professional experience in the KGB, no doubt, because he worked there since graduation in 1974 until at least August 1991. Moreover, the KGB is not just a Department, it is also an educational institution. At the Higher school of the KGB in Moscow, where he studied under Putin, the young agents have received education at University level. The authorities believed that this is important because employees need to understand the world where they have to conduct subversive and recruiting work. It is likely that Putin maintained contacts with former colleagues in the KGB and, after 1991, working in the city hall of St. Petersburg. It is also true that Putin took many former colleagues with him, and set them to the highest positions in government.

However, this hypothesis about the KGB seems unconvincing. When people like rice, Powell and Cheney talking about the past nagabushnam Putin, they mean that it applies to politics as a competition in manipulation. People are either his agents, which he manages, or his enemies, which he tries to relax. It’s a cruel world, but isn’t that what many politicians? Perhaps a little on the light tyrants, dividing people into those who they can control and who can’t? Isn’t that acted, say, dick Cheney? Of course, to do so is unacceptable. But there is nothing unique in this, since not only the KGB operates in a similar way.

But the label KGB finds in the West and other applications. It’s such a synecdoche, representing the entire Soviet Union. And Putin as a Soviet revanchist with a hammer in one hand and a hammer in the other was one of the main images in the Western press. What does it all mean? Of course, hardly anyone thinks that Putin speaks for the historical Alliance of the working class (hammer) and peasants (sickle), or that he really is a Communist who wants to spend the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. Rather, we’re talking about the Soviet Union as an aggressive imperialist power, occupying half of Eastern Europe. It is also true that the countries on Russia’s periphery do not seem to be Putin’s sovereign and has its own rights. In this respect, it is fair to call him an imperialist. But it is unfair (compared to the Soviet Union) to believe that Putin’s imperialism by nature is the Soviet. Imperialism is not a Soviet invention. The Russian Empire, the territory which the Soviets managed to keep in one piece became an Empire, conquered the indigenous peoples of the North after a series of brutal and long wars in the Caucasus, and cutting off part of Poland. Putin is a Russian imperialist, period.

But of course, there is a certain moral background that we call someone a man of the KGB, because the KGB had killed, persecuted and imprisoned dissidents, and became one of the inventors of what is today called stuffing information. But the idea that any man from the KGB is the embodiment of evil, as absurd as the opinion of the KGB of himself as incorruptible and “professional” the office of the late Soviet period.

KGB was a huge organization — in the 1980-ies there were hundreds of thousands of people. When in 1990-ies he began to disclose the information, we learned that KGB agents were the most different. There was, for example, Philip Bobkov, who at one time persecuted Soviet dissidents, but after the collapse of the Soviet Union began working on a media oligarch Vladimir Gusinsky and began to write meaningful comments on the activities of the KGB. Someone from the KGB officers went into the private sector, becoming experts in surveillance and contract killers. Someone left the FSB, and using his official position, began to promote organized crime, killing innocent civilians and amassing personal fortunes. Some former KGB agents fought bravely in Chechnya, and some had committed war crimes there. Was the KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko, who moved to the FSB and there received orders from their corrupt leaders to kill the oligarch Boris Berezovsky. To kill him, he did not, and instead betrayed these plans public. After some time he fled the country, fearing for his life, he settled in London and began to collaborate with Western intelligence agencies, publishing numerous articles with sharp criticism of Putin. A few years later Litvinenko was poisoned in London a large dose of polonium-210, and made it another former KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi.

Theory No. 5: Putin is a murderer

Now I live in new York, but was born in Russia and sometimes they write about this country. So people often share with me their opinions about Putin. Remember, once in March 2006, I was introduced to one well-known female photographer from France. Learning that I was from Russia, she said, “PU-duck?” In French it sounded a little offensive and not a man. “PU-duck is a cold-blooded killer,” she said.

This point of view I have heard before from some Russian opposition, but in new York came across this for the first time. Because it was a woman, a photographer and a Frenchwoman, her opinion surprised me first of all from an aesthetic point of view. Putin is a murderer, because he’s not smiling, his cold, expressionless face and expressionless eyes. A few months later in London, poisoned Litvinenko, and in the center of Moscow shot and killed journalist Anna Politkovskaya when she was returning home from shopping. Opinion about Putin as a killer is widespread.

I have no desire to challenge this view. Putin launched a brutal and bloody war against Chechnya, Georgia and Ukraine, and I agree with the recently published conclusions of the British investigators that he “probably” approved the murder of Litvinenko. But for aggressive war and the murder of the former operations officer and defector not expelled from the international community.

No, there is another sense in which Putin is considered a murderer, and it was widely discussed in the United States during the strange exaltation of Donald trump. When the Republicans held primary elections, a conservative TV host Joe Scarborough (Joe Scarborough), known for its proximity with trump, began to press him, asking about his sympathy for Putin, who, according to Scarborough, “killing of journalists and political opponents.” A few days later, former White house adviser George Stephanopoulos (George Stephanopoulos) in the better-known Sunday program about politics again challenged Trump. Trump said, “as far As I know, nobody has proved that he killed someone”. Stephanopoulos, in response, said confidently: “There are many allegations that he was behind the assassination of Anna Politkovskaya”. Trump retorted as he could. But obviously the problem remains. Giving in early February interview before the super bowl, trump faced liar from Fox bill O’reilly (Bill O’reilly). “Putin is a killer,” said O’reilly that trump gave sensational (but true) answer: “the world is full of killers. We have a lot of killers. What do you think? Our country is so innocent?”

“I don’t know of any state leader who is a murderer,” said O’reilly. He did not mean that he does not know heads of state, was ordered to carry out the invasion of Iraq, which gave the nod to the application of dozens of drone strikes or ordered to conduct a special operation such as the one which killed Osama bin Laden. No, he meant that he did not know the leaders who kill ordinary people.

The trouble is that accusation is not that it is false, and that it is sloppy, like everything else in palynologie. When people accuse Putin of murder “of journalists and political opponents,” they mean dead in 2006, Politkovskaya, and the leader of the opposition and former Deputy Prime Minister Boris Nemtsov, who was murdered in 2015. The allegation that Putin was behind the murder of Anna Politkovskaya and Boris Nemtsov, do exist, however, well versed in these Affairs, people do not believe in them. They believe that Politkovskaya and Nemtsov was killed close a brutal dictator of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov. In Nemtsov there are lots of credible evidence of involvement in the murder of close to Kadyrov people. In the Politkovskaya case the evidence is largely indirect (as for Politkovskaya, that is a lot of evidence and other attacks on it, say, attempts of poisoning, very similar to the order of the authorities), but it’s still the most likely scenario.

Nevertheless, the involvement of Kadyrov does not absolve Putin of responsibility, as Kadyrov works for Putin. Press widely wrote about the fact that Putin was confused and enraged by the murder of Nemtsov, and a few weeks did not respond to calls Kadyrov. On the other hand, it has been almost two years and Kadyrov continue to lead Chechnya. To this post he was appointed by Putin. Therefore, even if Putin gave no direct orders about the murders (again, the majority of journalists and analysts believe that Putin didn’t do it), he still continues to work with those who did, and support them.

In the theory of “Putin the killer” we find ourselves in some kind of conceptual “dead zone” of palynology. It seems that Russia is not failed state (where the government has no power), and at the same time, not a totalitarian state (where the government owns all the power), but something in the middle. Putin does not give orders to murder, and yet murders happen. Putin ordered to join the Crimea, but, as you can guess, he did not give the order to invade Eastern Ukraine. This invasion seems to have been taken at your own risk a bunch of mercenaries who are financed by Russian businessman with good connections. The real Russian troops arrived later. But if Putin manages not to everyone, if there are some powerful forces acting in circumvention of the orders of Putin, what’s the point of palynologie? Palynology is silent on this subject.

The most terrible crime, which accused Putin, that explosions of apartment houses in Moscow in 1999. In September of that year, when President Boris Yeltsin was sick, presidential elections were in the offing, and the little-known Putin moved from the head of the chair of the FSB in the armchair of the head of the Yeltsin government in Moscow blew up two large apartment houses, killing nearly 300 people. A few days later there was another explosion of an apartment house, this time in the southern city of Volgodonsk. Several days passed and a very strange incident, when police in the city of Ryazan detained several people, sanousi something similar to the explosives in the basement of a house. It turned out that these people were from the FSB. They quickly removed what had brought, and then declared that it was a drill, testing of the population and the police on guard.

The government immediately blamed the bombings on Chechen terrorists, using it as justification for the invasion of Chechnya. However, a persistent minority has consistently insisted that the responsibility for the bombings borne by the state. (Litvinenko was one of the first vocally supported this theory.) Soviet biologist and dissident Sergei Kovalev has created a public Commission to verify these claims. In 2003, killed two members of the Committee: Sergei Yushenkov and Yuri Shchekochikhin. Yushenkov was shot dead near his home, and Shchekochikhin was poisoned.

The question of the involvement of the Russian state to the bombings of apartment buildings remains unanswered. The most authoritative report analyzing the available evidence and clues was a few days ago, John Dunlop (John Dunlop) of the Hoover institution (Hoover Institute). He argues that fully cracked the case, however, claims to have compelling evidence that blow up houses ordered Yeltsin’s inner circle, and the operation was conducted by the FSB.

However, Putin refuses to answers and avoiding us. If the bombings were a Palace conspiracy, a conspiracy concocted this not Putin’s court, and Yeltsin. And political killings, which has become a feature of Putin’s rule, was characteristic of the Yeltsin regime, too. Again, this does not absolve Putin of responsibility. However, this indicates that the period of violence was more lengthy and complex that the various factions in government and outside it was using murder and terror as a political weapon, and that it was not the machinations of one evil man. If Putin, as President, unable to stop the violence, then perhaps the President should be someone else. And if Putin, as President, involved in this violence, the President must be a different person.

But we should be sensible about it. Palynology freak out his inaccuracy and uncertainty, and this inaccuracy and uncertainty causes great harm. When George Stephanopoulos speaks on national television and announces that Putin ordered to kill Politkovskaya, it becomes much harder to accuse Putin that he really did. This is obvious and doubtless.

Theory No. 6: Putin kleptocracy

Until about 2009 the complaints of liberal critics of Putin in Russia, supported and promoted by Western journalists and statesmen, concerned primarily that it violates human rights. Putin was the censor of the Russian media, the butcher of Chechnya, heavy on the rise, a retrograde at the time of our glorious invasion of Iraq, murderer of Litvinenko and the invader of Georgia. It took the efforts of the fighter against corruption Alexei Navalny to fundamentally change the discussion about Putin, by removing it from human rights violations to something else: to steal money from the Russians. Lawyer and activist anti-corruption movement, Navalny came to the conclusion that in modern Russia, human rights — the theme of losing and money — winning. (Remember how he called Putin’s party “United Russia” “party of crooks and thieves.”) According to this theory, which was soon picked up by Western palynology, Putin is not a scary monster, but something simpler — a common thief that you can find justice.

The advantage of these charges is that they are undoubtedly true. Or many old friends Putin is the real genius of the business because after he came to power, they became billionaires. It’s one thing when Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky and Abramovich out of brutal fights of the 1990s with billions in their pockets. They would in any case not become owners of those billions, if not for their closeness to Yeltsin regime; but at the same time, they had to survive in a daring early years of Russian capitalism. They were actually kind of geniuses. And the genius of Putin’s cronies-the billionaires only in the fact that they just became friends with the future President of Russia.

If Putin loves his friends (it seems that it is), and if his friends love to line their pockets (and it clearly does), it follows that if it hurts to hit the Putin cronies in their wallets, the Russian President will be forced to abandon the most outrageous adventures in foreign policy, especially in Ukraine. This was the logic of the “point” of the sanctions imposed in 2014, the United States and the EU against Putin’s entourage.

Today we rarely hear about the Putin kleptocracy. This is probably due to the fact that sanctions have not changed his behavior on the world stage. Naturally, neither of Putin’s friends or to Putin, these sanctions could not please. Friends, because today they can’t ride their favorite resorts in Spain; Putin because of the sanctions he was in isolation and outside the framework of international order. And it is shameful and annoying.

But that did not stop Putin to stymie and undermine the Minsk agreements to stop the fighting in Eastern Ukraine. This did not prevent them from exercising their violent intervention in the civil war in Syria. If Putin’s friends begged him to see reason, then he’s obviously not listen to them. Most likely, Putin’s friends knew that they were very much received, thanks to his generosity, thanks to his incredible ascent to the pinnacle of power, and that if necessary they must support him. Kleptocrats are not those people who successfully organize a Palace coup. This should be a true believer. And if among them there’s someone truly believes, he has not yet shown his face. It seems that the true believer among them, only Putin himself.

Putin is a very modest daily existence. Yes, he has a Palace on the Black sea, built on stolen money, but he doesn’t live there. And hardly ever will live. The Palace is in a certain sense, the most encouraging thing from the number created by Putin. It is the hope for his future retirement. And now Putin is unlikely to tear apart the angry crowd, who broke into the Kremlin and disperse his personal guard.

Theory No. 7: Putin’s name is Vladimir

In a recent article published on the website of one of the authoritative American magazine, the readers were warned: the end of the Communist regime “does not mean that Russia has abandoned its primary objectives to destabilize Europe.” Putin called “a former KGB agent, who not coincidentally bears the name of Lenin, as Lenin”. Then the article introduced an amendment, writing that Putin is not accidentally bears the name of Vladimir and Lenin. If that was no accident, probably due to the fact that Vladimir is one of the most common Russian names. But it is impossible to deny. Putin and Lenin’s name was Vladimir.

This hypothesis — either the historic climax or the greatest decline of palynologie, depending on your point of view. But what of the man who does not know a patronymic Putin, confidently proclaims himself an expert, obviously means something. This is a sign that palynology — it is not really about Putin and has never been about Putin. A flurry of “putinomania” before and after the inauguration of the generated hope that trump itself will evaporate, and the desire to shift the blame for his victory on someone else. How could we choose this limited and self-absorbed idiot? Surely it was imposed on us from somewhere.

In this moment there are no reasons to challenge the common point of view of analysts of the intelligence that Russian agents broke into the email of the National Committee of the Democratic party, and then transferred the stolen information to Julian Assange. It is also well known that Putin hates Hillary Clinton.

Further, it is also true that trump won with a minimum margin, and that didn’t require a huge effort to change the outcome in one direction or another. But it must be remembered that the leakage of information from the mailboxes of the National Committee of the Democratic party there was practically nothing compromising.

If you compare this leak with a 40-year cycle of American de-industrialization, when it was enriched only the wealthy, with 25 years of right-wing war against the Clintons, lasting eight years, the attacks of the tea party movement on the facts, immigration and taxes, with a timid centrist campaign and with the recent revelation of FBI Director about suspicious investigation into the use of Clinton’s private email server, in comparison with all this leakage of the National Committee of the Democratic party is hardly the main reason for the victory trump. But according to a recently published report, Hillary Clinton and her staff still blame your defeat the Russian, and at the same time and Barack Obama, who until November was not to raise the hype about the hacker attacks. In this case, the talk about Putin help not to think about where mistakes were made, and how to correct these errors.

Such prevarication is the essence of palynologie that seeks solace in the undeniable, but some very distant depravity of Putin instead of having to deal with much more immediate and unpleasant vices and errors. Palynology appeared 10 years before the 2016 election, however, what we are seeing in recent months in connection with trump is its Platonic ideal.

Here we have a man named Donald George. Trump, who made numerous violent and biased statements, proposed cruel and biased policy, which is a pathological liar, who failed almost nothing of what he tried to do, who surrounded himself with crooks and billionaires. And nevertheless, day by day people with jubilation greeted each new piece of information in an attempt to open secret/secret ties trump with Russia. Every piece of this information is swelling in the hope that he will finally deprive trump of legitimacy cast him from the White house to end the nightmare of the liberals who thought that they lost the election this hateful jerk.

If trump subjected to impeachment and jailed for conspiring with a foreign power to undermine American democracy, I will enjoy it no less than any other American. And yet in the long run to play the Russian card is not just a bad political decision, but also intellectual and moral inconsistency. This is an attempt to shift the blame for deep and enduring problems of our country to a foreign power. As noted by some commentators, is a string of scenario Putin himself.