Describe The Relationship Between Putin And Thomas Hobbes

Throughout its long history, Russia has been trapped in a continuous cycle of authoritarian regimes; only interrupted briefly with periods of tumultuous democratic transitions that were plagued by poor bureaucracy and weak institutions. Therefore, time and time again, Russia has turned towards authoritarianism. In the late 1900’s to early 2000’s, Russia again saw the fall of democracy coincide with the rise of a competitive authoritarian regime. This rise of competitive authoritarianism in Russia in the late 1900’s to early 2000’s was largely the result of the resource curse which granted Putin’s Administration false economic performance legitimacy. This in turn reinvigorated past strongman ideals, while at the same time solidified negative

When evaluating the political leaders in modern times there is one leader that wields his power the most like Niccolo Machiavelli’s Prince, from his book The Prince, that leader is President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation. Although, Putin does not hold the title of Prince, he has held influential positions throughout the years, i.e. Prime Minister and Acting President, that hold power similar to the Prince. Every position that Putin has held in Russia he has acted as if he were a Prince. Putin has held such all-consuming control and influence over Russia that some would say that Putin is “the state”, a position that Machiavelli strongly suggest that all Princes should have. Although, there are infinite examples showing Putin acting similar to Machiavelli’s Prince throughout the years, the current interaction between Syria and Russia exemplifies Putin’s similarity to Machiavelli’s Prince. In the interaction between Russia and Syria, Putin mostly resembles the trait of the Prince that Machiavelli describe in chapters 14, 18, and 21

Thomas Hobbes and john Locke were both enlightment philosophers who use the state of nature as a formula in political philosophy. Both Locke and Hobbes had tried to influence by their sociopolitical background, “to expose the man as he was before the advent of the social life” (). Locke and Hobbes addressed man’s relation to the society around him; however, they came to different conclusions regarding the nature of human government.

To modify Winston Churchill’s quote on Russia Putin “…is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” We can unwrap this mystery by analyzing Putin’s foreign policy through the eyes Morgenthau which will be the basis of this paper. By understanding the mystery we can say that Putin is following a Realist perspective and not the liberalist perspective especially with the Crimean Conflict.

“There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.” -Vladimir Lenin. Because of the changes in Russia’s government and economy over the years, authoritarianism has changed drastically, but the common theme of strong government and limited freedom for citizens has stayed the same.

Former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev presided over the disintegration of a country based on an uncompromising ideological dogma, the unlikely inheritor of Marxist/Leninist communist philosophy. The Soviet Union’s unwieldy economic superstructure left it vulnerable to Ronald Reagan’s aggressive economic/military policy, an approach based on the belief that a military build-up would force the Soviets to spend to keep pace, an effective strategy because it pushed the Soviet economy over the edge into ruin. The subsequent implosion ended communist domination in Eastern Europe and opened the way for democratic elements that radically altered the political landscape in Moscow. When the Soviet Union officially came to an end in 1993, it briefly recalled the end of tsarist rule in 1917, with the potential for the kind of chaos and violence that turned the Russian Revolution into a bloodbath. President Boris Yeltsin used the military to disband parliament but his call for new elections moved the country toward a more open, democratic form of government. Lacking any real background in representative government, Russia ultimately proved incapable of fulfilling the promise of democratic government and descended into a form of anarchy riddled by increasingly strong criminal elements. In recent years, the rise of Boris Putin, a new strongman in Moscow, helped restore a sense of order and allowed the resurgence of communist elements. The government that now holds power, and which

When it comes to critiquing Jeffrey Goldberg’s article, the four constellations of issues approach will be used. The first constellation comprises of humanitarian disasters and respect for sovereignty. Many Americans like Samantha Powers believe in the doctrine known as “responsibility to protect” (Page 4). Thus to people like her, sovereignty should not be considered “inviolate” provided that a country is “slaughtering its own citizens” (Page 4). President Obama does not agree with Samantha Powers (unless there is a direct security threat) and Russia vehemently disagrees with that doctrine. Analyzing Putin’s 2007 Munich Security Conference speech, he believes in respecting other nation’s right to self-govern the way they see fit (Page 2). For instance, Putin says “What will happen with Kosovo and Serbia? Only Kosovars and Serbs can know. Let’s not tell them how they should live their lives. There is no need to play God and resolve all of these peoples’ problems” (Page 18). This basically means that even in the face of “atrocities” or other humanitarian disasters; respect for sovereignty is still top priority for Putin and Russia. In contrast, the doctrine “responsibility to protect” usually lead to intervention in the face of atrocities committed by various individuals in different countries.

Russia has a great history with many different kinds of rulers, some good as well as bad. All of Russia’s leaders have had an impact on Russia today for the better or for the worse. The people who ruled Russia during wartime have had a great effect on its economy in addition to the conditions of its citizens.

Yet the election was not like the ones that preceded it- there were large scale demonstrations on the streets of Moscow and other metropolitan areas that were against (and some in support) of Putin. These large scale protests as Elkin notes while certainly disruptive and cast a negative light on Russia globally forced Putin to reaffirm his power when he won the election in 2012. Putin was as discussed by Moskowitz and others in class able to use the media to effectively convey his agenda. But Elkin also notes that the resurgence in popularity for Putin was not simply due to a stymied media presence. Putin strategically allowed Medvedev to become the nation’s prime minister, where he was relegated to a position where he could quietly work on making the changes he set during his presidency. Putin set about “restoring” national prestige by being firm on dealings with the west. In particular, during the crisis in Syria, he averted crisis by securing a deal that allowed Syria to dispose of the chemical weapons while also preventing U.S aggression. Elkin notes how Putin would frequently play on populism and patriotism in justifying his action- a formula which combined would ensure that in the crisis to come regarding the annexation of Crimea that he would have the support of the Russian people.

In conclusion, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes both had different views on government. Locke believed that people should have rights while Hobbes believed otherwise. John Locke’s views were more effective that

Putin is former KGB and he has deep Soviet ties as well as ideology. Russia is a one party dominant state. Putin utilizes his power in order to keep his people in check and assert his dominance. The annexation of Crimea in 2014 was a great show of his power to everyone in the world. Russia occupies Crimea but they have vitrually no power, this is another example of Russia assymetrical federalism. Putin and the Kremlin have been known to take out most people who oppose them. For example Anna Politkovskaya a journalist who was suddenly killed because she was speaking out against the government. Another example is Alexey Navalny who is a political activist and he often times gets arrested right before an organized protest takes place. Vedzhie Kashka is just another example of the tyrant that Vladimir Putin

Within Goldsteins book on the political history of the party, the reasoning behond the controlling regimeis given. It is merely a ploy to remain in power for the purpose of powe. This is done by manipulsting the fears of citizens during wartime in which “…the consciousness of being at war, and therefiore ij danger, makes the handing over of pwer to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival”(Pg.192). This form of control utilizes fear and the gloryb of warfare to maintain complete control and earn the trust, loyalty and admiration of its citizenry. Likewise, Putin utilizes terrorist hysteria in order to aid thr Russian rise in power and earn respect from surrounding countries. Although just as the party hides their need for power behind the idea that they are doing ot for the people, Putin hides his ambitions behind anti-terrorist war rcrys. Even going as far as to say“It is not the matter of Russia’s ambitions but the recognition of the fact that we can no longer tolerate the current state of affairs in the world”. The constant barrage of fighting paints the former Russian superpower as an unwavering hero against the forces of terrorism. Putin’s desire for power parreles the partyes desire for power, while thie hiding of motives behind warfare are also

In Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia?, Karen Dawisha relates Russian President Vladmir Putin’s rise to power. She overarchingly claims that Putin is an authoritarian leader who has obstructed and even reverted Russia’s path of democratization, citing, amongst many factors that enabled his ascension, his “interlocking web of personal connections in which he was the linchpin” (100), money-laundering to tax havens and personal projects, and the complicity of the West. With copious research, journalistic interviews, legal documents, and even sporadic informational diagrams, it is evident why her book is so popular amongst scholars and history enthusiasts. Unfortunately however, in spite of the grand yet oftentimes substantiated claims she generates, a more subtle yet noteworthy assumption is made: that the state is a protector, as Olson proffered. She employs this theoretical underpinning from the beginning, though is not representative of Putin’s actual authoritarian regime.

In recent times, no one can take total power by force alone; you must offer something favorable to the people in order to obtain support. Unfortunately, there are some countries that follow a dictatorship system, which is a form of government that includes social and political power to ensure that the individual’s capability remains strong. Vladimir Putin is a contemporary dictator of Russia. His rebelliousness as a child has led him to his leadership. His cold-heartedness to his rivals and invasion towards countries has led to an opposition towards him. Vladimir Putin’s experience as a street thug led him to his leadership, which easily rose him to power: Not only has he committed crimes against humanity, but he has made groups of people and countries oppose him.

The present day Russian Federation involves a democratic system, given the presence of elections, an independent judiciary, and the supremacy of law. Yet, in democracy, the crux of it involves an inevitable paradox: law limits state power, but the state must have the power to enforce the law. However, finding the balance of the ability to enforce laws, and therefore maintaining order, while not infringing on civil liberties, requires a mutual understanding, a social contract, between the rulers and the ruled. This requirement has not found its place in the Russian political arena, especially since “creating a rule-of-law-based sate out of dictatorship is not easy” (Bressler 2009). In addition, the Russian psyche views authority as a source of force and violence (Yakovlev 1996), an etymological result of a continuity beginning from imperial Russia. Although the Russian Federation, the Union Soviet Socialist Republics, the Russian Empire, and the Tsardom of Russia differ significantly, a strong state remains prevalent in the core of Russian history and politics. In short, the nature of political rule in Russia involves a never ending tug of war between the seemingly undying authoritative soulless entity known as the state and the equally undying Russian people’s hunger for liberty.