Robert Service, a leading expert in Russian History, a biographer of Lenin and Stalin, Trotsky and Tsar Nicholas II as well as a chronicler of Putin’s first 20 years, sat with Radio Free Europe/RL’s Georgian Service for ten minutes to discuss the force that is Putin.
You say that Putin can shape Russia’s history as he pleases. What about its future?
Anyone who claims to know the future is a fool. Who would have predicted in 1916 that the future of Russia was to be with the communists for the next 70 years?
It’s a future that is more fragile. Putin’s personalization of his dominance has created the possibility for different methods to be used to get him out.
What will it take to bring change to Russia? Boris Berezovsky claimed in 2007 that the authoritarian Russian regime could only be ended by force. Has time proven him right?
I had many disagreements with Berezovski. I don’t believe he was an excellent judge of possibilities. If the war is a disaster, Putin will be in serious trouble because he forced his own security council to accept the first steps toward the war just days before it occurred. This is one possibility. The other possibility is that the economic situation will continue to deteriorate. Russia is facing economic problems. Since 1991, the Russian president has agreed with the Russian people that he will guarantee a minimum level of welfare through the Duma. Putin has become autocratic and he is. But he has also taken care of that minimum level.
Putin is already in a slipping position: geo-strategically. geo-economically. geopolitically.
Putin knows that Russians are prone to rioting – just look at the pensioner protests of 2012. He knows how Russians can be pushed to the extremes. He has to keep the economy at a level that allows him to continue paying off those on whose votes and acquiescence, he relies on, even more. Because votes are not a good criterion of reality in Putin’s Russia.
When can we expect to see change in Russia at this rate? After Putin dies? Where will this change come – from within or from the outside?
Putin has not been significantly affected by the pressure that has already been applied from outside. I’ve always believed that the main pressure would have to come from within Russia.
It doesn’t seem like the dominant business elite has the guts to stand against him. In 1917, the business elite broke away from the monarchy. This was one of many factors that led to Nikolai the second’s abdication. It appears that they are still earning enough from the contracts that Putin sprays on them during wartime to keep them from being tempted to move away. It would be difficult to do so, as Putin’s Russia has a much greater level of control than Nikolai II’s Russian Empire. It will be hard for the business elites to turn against him.
Why would the security elite turn against him? This could happen if the war is a disaster and someone has to be made the scapegoat. He’s the easiest scapegoat to find, since he is the main motivator behind this special military operation.
When you say, “when the war could go badly,” shouldn’t it be “if”?
My own opinion is that we are in for a prolonged stalemate. Putin made a huge mistake by assuming that he would be able to easily take over most of Ukraine. He underestimated the Ukrainian spirit of patriotism and determination. He may have fired several FSB officials who gave him incorrect ratings about the American or Ukrainian opinions, but that’s his fault.
The Russians have been unable to rebel for more than two centuries.
He also made an enormous misjudgment regarding NATO. In his attempt to reduce the reach of NATO, he has actually increased the number of countries that are members. Geo-strategically speaking, it’s a disaster for Russia.
Back to the question about change. When you say it will come from within, who are you thinking of?
There’s no obvious choice, but there are some ruthless and clinical minds around Putin. This could lead to some surprises. Lavrentiy Bieria, who was deemed a reliable Stalinist in 1953, turned out to be one of the most radical removers of Stalin’s legacy after his death, ensuring that he did not receive the medical care he required to survive.
Even Nikolai Patrushev could take a clinical view if it doesn’t work out. It seems that he’s just as much of an imperialist as Putin. When your personal safety is threatened, you may change your mind.
So, it’s about that moment when Putin slips up?
Yes. I think he is already slipping geo-strategically. Geo-economically, geopolitically, too. It’s for this reason that he must strengthen the authoritarian bulwarks to his power, as he is doing. If he truly believed that no one would be able to move against him, then he wouldn’t act like this maniac dictator.
You wrote “The Kremlin Winter,” a study of Putin’s first twenty years in power. What is the secret of his power?
Well, we should give him credit for promoting an ideology of Russian nationalism that resonated with the majority of Russians. Although the public opinion polls are laughable because they exaggerate how popular he is, he has given Russia its pride back. He was a more respectable politician than Yeltsin when he first started. He organized patriotic events for his country and welcomed world motor racing, world football, and other events to Russia. He restored Russians’ sense of pride, which they had lost in the decade following the fall of the Soviet Union. This is something that should not be undervalued.
We must give him credit for presenting an ideology of Russian patriotism which resonated with the majority of Russians
Most Russians accept his power but prefer to turn away from the evil of the Putin regime, especially if it does not affect them personally. They also do not want their sons to be conscripted against their will into the army. I believe there are reasons to believe that Russians may decide that they can live without Putin, the autocrat. It could happen.
Do people have to take responsibility for putting dictators up with?
This is a tricky question. What could the Russians possibly have done? I think we should remember how difficult it would have been for them to rebel. This has been the fate of Russians since more than 200: it is very, very hard for them to revolt.
Putin has a good historical memory. He was trained as a security officer. He surrounded himself with people from the KGB in his early years of power in the 2000s. His ideology slowly became a very solid foundation, the way security officials think about politics. I think this has a lot to with what’s happening now.
He could have been a completely different man had the early 2000s gone differently. I doubt that the West would have handled things differently. I think this understates the KGB mentor mentality that he carried around while wooing Tony Blair and George Bush Jr. I think that it was bound to come out sooner than later.
Russians who have stood against him are removed from politics. He began doing it very subtly, over a period of years. He gave Russians the vision of a great Russia by saying “Make Russia Great Again” without actually expressing this. He has militarized his country in secret.
It is always dark when Russians muster the courage to change. Take the post-1917 revolution or the 1990s following the perestroika. How does this knowledge affect the Russian mind?
I’m sure that it does. I think that most Russians learned from their parents or grandparents how terrible the situation can be when the lid is removed from the political system. I think the Russians are infused with a fear that political upheaval will unleash demons. The Russians are conditioned to accept a certain level of stability. You can see why. It’s not that Russians are some zoological phenomenon; it’s just because they’ve gone through what they have. Russians have suffered a lot in their history.
Interview by Vazha Tavberidze
Read More @ georgiatoday.ge