Of Sharon Tennison

Source: Comedonchisciotte
While the situation in Ukraine is worsening, A mountain of disinformation is being poured on Russia and Putin. Journalists and pundits must scour the thesaurus to come up with elaborate new epithets to describe them both. Every time I give a presentation in America, the first question that is menacingly asked to me during Qs&A is always: “What about Putin?”. Time to share my thoughts on this:
Putin obviously has his flaws and is not free from mistakes. Based on my previous experience with him, and those of trusted people, including US officials who worked closely with him over a period of years, Putin is most likely a righteous man, reliable and exceptionally creative.
He is obviously a long-term thinker and planner, and has proven to be an excellent analyst and strategist. He is a leader who can confidently achieve his goals despite the mountains of false accusations hurled at him since he became Russia's second president.
I saw his demonization grow, since it started in the early years 2000 – I wrote down my thoughts and concerns, hoping to then include them in a book (published in 2011). The book explains my observations in more depth than this article.
Like others who have had direct experience with this little-known man, I tried in vain to avoid being labeled a “Putin apologist”. If you are neutral about him, you are still considered "soft" by experts and average citizens who get their information on CNN, Fox e MSNBC.
I don't claim to be an expert, only a program developer in the USSR and Russia in the last 30 years. But during this period, I have had direct contact with Russians of all races and time zones far more than any Western reporter and, to be honest, Washington official.
I have been in that country long enough to think deeply about its history and culture, to study its psychology and to understand the marked differences between American and Russian mentalities, that so complicate our political relations with their leaders.
As with any person in a family, in an association or in a municipality, it takes understanding and compromise to create good relationships when underlying conditions are different. Washington, notoriously, However, it has no interest in understanding these differences and meeting Russia halfway.
As well as my personal experience with Putin, I have had discussions with numerous American officials and businessmen who have worked with him for years – I think it is safe to say that no one would describe him as “brutal.”, “criminal” or other defamatory adjectives and nouns that are repeatedly used in Western media.
Like many of us who worked in St. Petersburg in the 90s, I met Putin years before he dreamed of becoming president of Russia. Since the slander started, I became obsessed with understanding the character. I think I've read all the major speeches he's given (including the full texts of his annual telephone “rallies” with Russian citizens).
I tried to understand if he has gotten worse since he has been president, or if he is just a character who has ended up in a role that is not his - and is doing his best to deal with Washington in extremely difficult circumstances.
If the latter is the case, and I think it is, should get high marks for his performance in the last few 14 years. It is no coincidence that Forbes declared him the most powerful leader in the 2013, succeeding Obama. The following is my personal experience with Putin.
It was '92
Two years earlier there had been the implosion of communism. I was in St. Petersburg.
For years I had created programs to open relations between the two countries, with the hope of passing on their deep-rooted sense of superiority to the Soviets. A new program popped into my head. As I expected it might require a signature from Marienskii Town Hall, I made an appointment.
Together with my friend Volodya Shestakov, I showed up at the side entrance of the Marienskii Palace. We found ourselves in a small, faded brown office, in front of a rather anonymous man and also in a brown suit.
He asked me why I was there. After reviewing my proposal, he started asking intelligent questions. After each of my answers, did the next one.
I realized that this interviewer was different from other Soviet bureaucrats. These always ended up having friendly conversations with foreigners, hoping to obtain bribes in exchange for the Americans' demands. The Chamber of Commerce upheld the principle that we would never, ever give bribes.
This bureaucrat was open, curious and impersonal in attitude. After more than an hour of careful questions and answers, he calmly explained that he had been trying to determine whether the proposal was legal, then he said that unfortunately it wasn't at the moment. He said a few good words about it. That's all. He gently led us to the door.
On Pavement, I said to my colleague: “Volodya, this is the first time we have to deal with a Soviet bureaucrat who doesn't ask us for a trip to America or something precious!”
I remember seeing his business card in the sunlight – it said Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.
1994
The Consul General of the United States, Jack Gosnell, he made an urgent phone call to me. 14 members of Congress and the new American ambassador to Russia, Thomas Pickering, they would arrive in St. Petersburg three days later. He needed urgent help.
I rushed to the consulate and learned that Jack wanted me to brief the arriving delegation and ambassador..
I was stunned but he insisted. They came from Moscow and were furious at the way American funds were being wasted there. Jack wanted them to hear the “good news” about ICC programs, which showed excellent results. In 24 The next few hours Jack and I even organized “home” meetings for the arriving dignitaries in a dozen small apartments of Russian entrepreneurs (State Department employees in St. Petersburg were shocked because it had never been done before – but Jack's will prevailed).
Only later, In the 2000, I learned about his three-year experience with Putin in the 1990s, when the latter ran the city for Mayor Sobchak. I'll come back to it.
31 December 1999
Without warning, at the turn of the year, Yeltsin announced to the world that from the next day forward he would leave his office and Russia in the hands of an unknown Vladimir Putin.
Hearing the news, I thought he was definitely not the Putin I remembered – he could never lead Russia. However, in an article in the NYT the following day there was a photo.
Yes, it was the same one I had met years before! I was shocked and dismayed, I said to my friends: “This is a disaster for Russia, I spent some time with this guy, he is too introverted and intelligent – ​​he will never be able to relate to the Russian masses”.
I complained further: “For Russia to rise again, two things have to happen: 1) the young and arrogant oligarchs must be forcefully removed from the Kremlin; 2) a way must be found to remove the regional leaders (governors) from their fiefdoms in all 89 regions".
It was clear to me that the man in the brown suit would never have had the instinct or courage to face these two challenges.
February 2000
Almost immediately, Instead, Putin began to turn on the oligarchs. In February he was asked a question about it; he clarified with a question and an answer:
“How to deal with oligarchs? How we behave with all other entrepreneurs".
This was the first sign that the tycoons would no longer have an easy life. This also made Western capitalists nervous.
After all, these oligarchs were untouchable businessmen — good capitalists, it doesn't matter that they obtained their businesses illegally and put the profits in offshore banks.
Four months later, Putin called a meeting with them and made his proposal:
They could have kept their businesses without having to nationalize them… IF they had paid taxes on their income and if they had stayed out of politics.
This was the first of his “elegant solutions” to the almost impossible challenges facing the new Russia. But the deal also put him in the crosshairs of American media and officials, who later began to support the oligarchs, especially Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
The latter, before being arrested, was about to sell a major part of Russia's largest oil company, the Yukos Oil, ad Exxon Mobil. Unfortunately, for US media and government structures, Khodorkovsky became a martyr (and it still is today).
March 2000
I arrived in St. Petersburg. A Russian friend (a psychologist) he joined us. My first question was, “Lena, what do you think of your new president?”. She laughed and replied, “Ah, Volodya! I went to school with him!”.
He began to describe Putin as a quiet young man, poor, Martial arts enthusiast, who on the pitch took sides against the bullies. She remembered him as a patriotic young man, who prematurely applied for the KGB after graduating from secondary school (they sent him away and told him to get an education).
He went to law school, He later reapplied and was accepted. I must have grimaced at this point because Lena said:
“Sharon, in those days we all admired the KGB and believed that those who worked there were patriots. We thought it was natural for Volodya to choose this career”.
My next question was:
“What do you think he will do with Yeltsin's criminals in the Kremlin?”.
Putting herself in her role as a psychologist, he thought about it and answered:
“I think he'll watch them for a while and then make some moves to let them know he's keeping an eye on them. They should not answer, he will address them personally; In the end, if they don't change their behavior, some will be in prison within a couple of years”.
I congratulated her via email when her predictions began to come true.
For all the years 2000
Many St. Petersburg CCI alumni were interviewed to determine how the PEP business training program was working and how we could make the U.S. experience more valuable to their new small businesses. Many believed that the program had been very important. Everyone was finally asked:
"At that time, what do you think of the new president?”
No one responded negatively, even though at that time entrepreneurs hated Russian bureaucrats. Many responded similarly: “Putin registered my business a few years ago”.
Next question:
“How much did it cost you, Therefore?”
To a person, they replied: “Putin didn't make us pay anything”. One said:
“We went to his desk because others who provided records to Marienskii were taking bribes.”.
Late 2000
In Putin's first year as president, American officials seemed suspicious to me that it would be antithetical to their interests — his every move was questioned by the media. I couldn't understand why,as I noted these events in my computer and in my newsletters.
Anno 2001
Jack Gosnell (the former Consul General mentioned above) explained his relationship with Putin when the latter was deputy mayor of St. Petersburg. The two had worked closely to create joint ventures and other ways of promoting relations between the two countries. Jack reported that Putin was always honest, courteous and helpful.
When Putin's wife, Ludmila, had a serious car accident, Jack took the liberty (before informing Putin) to organize hospitalization and air travel for you to receive medical care in Finland. When Jack told Putin, reported that the latter was overwhelmed by the generous offer, but ended up saying that he could not accept this favor, that Ludmila was supposed to recover in a Russian hospital.
And so it was – even though medical care in Russia was terrible in the 1990s.
A senior officer of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, who I was friends with over the years 2000, worked with Putin on a number of joint ventures in the 1990s. He reported that he had never had any dubious business transactions with him, who respected him and thought he was getting an undeserved reputation from the American media.
In fact, he closed the door when we started talking about Putin. I imagine his comments would not have been considered acceptable.
Also another former US official, who will remain anonymous, he said he worked closely on it, adding that there had never been any sign of corruption or pressure; nothing but respectable behavior and helpfulness.
In the 2013, I had two meetings regarding Putin with State Department officials:
to the cousin, I felt free to ask the question I previously wanted the answer to:
“When and why Putin became unacceptable to Washington officials??”
The answer came without hesitation:
“The hostilities started 'when it was announced that Putin would become the next president'”.
I asked WHY? The answer was:
“I never understood him – maybe because he was KGB”.
I suggested that Bush Sr. previously headed the CIA. The answer was:
“That wouldn't have made any difference, he was our man".
The second was a former State Department official, with whom I recently shared a radio interview about Russia. Afterwards, while we were chatting, I observed: “You may be interested to know that I have collected reports about Putin from many people, some over a period of years, and they all say they have never had negative experiences with him, and that there was ever any evidence that he had taken bribes.". He answered firmly:
“No one has ever been able to bring a corruption charge against him”.
Dal 2001 to date, I saw the American media ganging up against Putin… accusations of murders, poisonings and comparisons with Hitler.
No one has yet provided concrete evidence for these accusations. During this period, I traveled throughout Russia several times every year, and I saw the country slowly change under his watch. Taxes were lowered, inflation decreased and laws were slowly introduced. Schools and hospitals were starting to improve. Small businesses were growing, agriculture was showing improvements and shops were becoming full of food.
Alcohol-related problems decreased, smoking was banned from buildings and life expectancy began to increase. Highways were being created all over the country, new tracks and modern trains appeared even in distant places, the banking sector was becoming reliable. Russia was starting to look like a decent country — certainly not where its citizens hoped it would be in the long term, but in tangible improvement.
My travels 2013/14 in Russia:
As well as in St. Petersburg and Moscow, in September I went to the Ural Mountains, and spent some time in Yekaterinburg, Chelyabinsk and Perm. We moved between cities by car and rail – the fields and forests look healthy, small towns show off new paintings and buildings. Today's Russians resemble Americans (also because we get the same clothes from China).
Khrushchev's old concrete houses are giving way to new multi-storey residential complexes, which are lovely. Multi-storey shopping centres, Elegant hotels and excellent restaurants are now commonplace — and ordinary Russians frequent these places. Private two- and three-story houses surround these cities far from Moscow.
We visited new museums, municipal buildings and huge supermarkets. Are the routes in good condition, the highways are now new and well signposted, the service stations look like those that dot American highways. In January I went to Novosibirsk, in Siberia, where I noticed a similar new architecture. The roads were kept clear by a constantly working snow plough, modern lighting kept the city bright throughout the night, and many new traffic lights (counting down the seconds until the color changes) they were in operation.
It's amazing to see how much progress Russia has made over the last few years 14 years, ever since an unknown and inexperienced man became president and took control of a moribund country.
So why do our leaders and media belittle and demonize Putin and Russia???
Come Lady Macbeth, they protest too much?
Psychologists tell us that people (and the nations?) they project onto others what they don't want to face about themselves. Others carry our “darknesses” when we refuse to acknowledge our own. We attribute to others the same characteristics that we are terrified of giving to ourselves.
This may be why we always find fault with Putin and Russia?
It could be that we project our own and our leaders' sins onto him?
It could be that we condemn Russian corruption, pretending that corruption in our corporate world doesn't exist?
It could be that we condemn their problems with human rights and LGBT, not facing the fact that we haven't solved ours?
It could be that we accuse Russia of wanting to “reconstitute the USSR” — for what we do to remain the “hegemons” of the world?
It could be that we project nationalist behavior onto Russia because that's what we've become and we don't want to deal with it?
It could be that we accuse Russia of propagandizing war, for what we have done in the last administrations?
Some of you were close to Putin in the early years. Share your opinions, pros and cons… confidentiality will be ensured. It is important to develop a composite image of this demonized leader and obtain correct information. I'm pretty sure the 99% of those who pan him in the mainstream media have had no personal contact with him. They write articles about rumors, voices and inventions, or they read texts written by others on the teleprompter. The way things are, this is how our country gets "informed".
There is a well-known code of ethics among us: it is the truth, that's right, it creates friendship and goodwill, and will be useful for all interested?
It seems to me that if our nation's leaders committed to applying these four principles in international relations, the world would operate in a completely different way, and humans on this planet would live in better conditions than today.
Source: https://off-guardian.org
Link: https://off-guardian.org/2018/01/18/is-putin-incorruptible/