Origins Of Putin 's Political Idea 's And Strategies

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

One country is comparable to the United States of America in terms of world power and prominence. Russia makes their name known beginning in World War 2 (WW2), later in the Korean War, Cold War, and today’s proxy war in the Syria. Russia’s culture, environment, politics, military, and economy do not just make Russia a regional powerhouse, but slowly becoming a region of influential power to surrounding countries with the end state of a global superpower. All the factors that make Russia the powerhouse that it is slowly becoming, highlights the impressive trend that supersedes the previous Soviet Union and past leaders.

Though it may sound heartless and selfish, the needs and aims of countries usually are the primary factor controlling their foreign relations. During the period of the czars, from 1547 to 1917, Russia’s need for land and modernization shaped its relationships with Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire, causing Russia’s leaders to respect and imitate Western Europe while competing with the European powers to fill the power vacuum of the failing Ottoman Empire.

Since then President Putin of Russia has gradually attempted to re-unite the Soviet Union by re-staking claims to certain of the previous member states. This post-cold war resurgence by Russia to dominate other states is another illustration of the struggle between power and freedom or

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.

The assumption of power by Joseph Stalin was arguably one of the most significant periods of Bolshevik Russia’s history. Stalin is recognised as one of the most influential men to have ever lead Russia, and he did so through the largest war the world has ever faced, World War II, and through the beginning of one of the most tense periods of modern history, the Cold War. It is easy however, to get lost in the legacy Stalin left behind, and forget about the events leading up to his total control over the communist regime of the 20th century Russia.

Lastly, is the politics which would form from a dictatorship government across nations, and the effect that had on the economy. Marks demonstrates how each Russian theme influenced world history by citing before mentioned individuals and the regions which were impacted: United States, England, Mexico, and China to name a few. This is done using studies conducted on revolutionary violence, examinations of Russian characters in Chinese fiction, and visual examples embedded in the text. Counterevidence is not his burden, however had he touched on it more some of his connections would be more concrete, for example anarchism on its own is a stretch. There is a lack of context, or it is brief when he discusses how the topics influenced the world but is understandable as he deals with complex and broad topics. In general the book is an advancement in Russian inclusivity with world history simply by existing, a great addition to a topic long neglected. While it is an interesting read, it may seem incomprehensible to those with limited historical background, it is directed to the academia

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.

Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Putin are two of the most famous and influential figures of Russian history. Joseph Stalin’s iron fist ruled Russia from the mid-1920’s until his death in 1953. Under Stalin’s totalitarian government, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics played a pivotal role in several major conflicts, including World War II and the Cold War. Stalin’s main goal seemed to be expanding Russia and spreading the influence of communism. Contrastingly, Vladimir Putin has held power from 1999 to the present day. Under his government, Russia became increasingly corrupt with more aspects of a totalitarian government. Nevertheless, the Russian economy has grown at a steady rate of about seven per cent per year and poverty in Russia was halved. His overarching goal seems to be returning Russia to its former Soviet glory. Although definite differences exist between the two leaders, both leaders aim to expand Russia’s borders and power.

It was interesting to read about the six points of totalitarianism; an official ideology, a single, disciplined party, terroristic police control, party monopoly of the mass media, party control of the armed forces, and central direction of the economy (Roskin 255). Russia shows these characteristics in a few distinct ways. The population cannot criticize Putin on his militaristic choices, as well his Syrian adventure. Russia also shows authoritarian characteristics, which consists of a dictator monopolizes politics (Roskin 255). Putin shows authoritarian characteristics as well, with most of the media supporting Putin and the citizens not being able to criticize Putin for his militaristic moods.

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

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.

The crisis in Ukraine and Crimea’s recent accession to Russia are events that clearly highlight the underlying sources of conflict in global politics. While Russia sees its actions in Crimea as a “reunification” and the respect for the right of self-determination, the West views it as a threat to European security and a violation of territorial integrity. Crimea has been a debatable topic from the time it came under the control of the Russian Empire in 1783 during the reign of Catherine the Great. The justification then was similar to the reasoning being used by Vladimir Putin today. Catherine declared that she was protecting ethnic Russians in the region from the Ottoman Empire, much as Putin is claiming to protect Russians from Ukrainian

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.