Putin’s Disturbing Responses are Strategic

Vladimir Putin

People reveal much about what they are thinking and who they are in their communication by not only what they communicate clearly and directly about but also what they say that they believe is cloaked in disguise.

Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke sharply, predictably and disturbingly on a range of topics in a recent interview, which Harriet Morris of the Associated Press reported. A geopolitical expert talks in depth about those subjects today to Communication Intelligence magazine and Putin’s shocking answers to them.

“There will be peace when we will achieve our goals,” he said about the war with-and-in Ukraine. This pointed announcement that peace for the people will only be allowed when Putin believes he has accomplished what he wants for himself and Russia is honest, yet daring political speech on international stage.

“Putin’s background as an experienced intelligence officer in the Soviet Union at a time when the USSR’s greatest intelligence asset consisted of information warfare practices and the use of communications towards that, end colors his every statement,” says Irina Tsukerman, an Ukrainian-born, Russian-speaking geopolitical analyst, national security lawyer based in New York and the president at Scarab Rising. “Far from impulsive and haphazard, (his words) have been calculated precisely, due to the understanding of their impact on the potential audiences.”

His statement wasn’t just for the media in attendance.

“Putin’s strategic communications messaging is meant to be understood differently by three potential target audiences: domestic circles, disaffected foreigners and foreign critics,” Tsukerman says.

She goes on to explain the specifics.

“The domestic audiences in Russia have been incrementally indoctrinated into supporting Russia’s geopolitical goals as articulated by the Kremlin and the security services. The vast majority of politically-active Russians, particularly in large urban areas, while they may be critical of some aspects of the Kremlin policies and their internal impact, overall fully buy into the vilification of Ukraine and NATO and firmly believe that NATO provoked a defensive war and that Ukraine is filled with Nazis and has been oppressing ethnic Russians, however that term may be defined,” Tsukerman states.

“So they are likely to take that comment at face value as if Putin was speaking from a good faith credible leadership position,” she points out.

His communication is intended, she adds, to conduct necessary and desired impression management.

“Simultaneously, Putin has been propagating similar messaging directly and indirectly to Western audiences, targeting fringe and extreme groups and eventually taking advantage of the polarization in European and US societies to mainstream the increasing perception that at best, Russia and Ukraine are equally at fault for the war, or at worst, NATO’s interventionist policies are contributing to the war impact,” Tsukerman says.

The manipulation efforts don’t end there she asserts.

“Even those of those audiences who do not particularly care for Putin or for Russia’s policies, are increasingly pushed into expressing agreement with the idea that to stop the war in Ukraine, US and Europe should abstain from arming Ukraine or that Ukraine is a corrupt, malicious actor and even if it is taken over by Russia, or forced to cede territory, at the very least then Russia will cease to be a threat to the rest of the world and the destabilization in the region will come to an end,” Tsukerman offers.

This strategy can create false beliefs that get supported.

“Such audiences also believe that a compromise solution that appeases Putin will result in cutting economic and human losses and will allow Kremlin to reintegrate into the economic normalcy with the rest of the world, restoring relations to the pre-2014 initial takeover of Crimea,” Tsukerman says, going on to forecast, “Finally, the critics of Putin’s communications style will note the bad faith argument that Russia will only be satisfied from taking further bellicose actions if its demands are satisfied in the exact way they are stated.”

“They will note that this statement — ‘There will be peace when we will achieve our goals’ — does not actually allow for a possibility of compromise, nor has Putin walked back any of his claims about ‘denazification’ or ‘liberation,’ she analyzes.

“They understand that nearly 2 years into the war, Putin’s intentions are exactly the same as at the outset. But this cynical maximalism is not altogether naive: Ukraine is running out of Western aid and has already been forced to cut some military operations.

“Meanwhile Russian troops have entrenched themselves in occupied areas and Russia, with the help of various third parties, has been rebuilding its military arsenal, circumventing or successfully fighting sanctions and is expected to recover from some of the worst of its losses by sometime in 2024.”

Putin also benefits from appearing honest to those who focus on the surface of reality.

“While Putin’s intentions may be the opposite of peaceful or conciliatory, he is not in fact outright lying to his supporters,” Tsukerman says.

Irina Tsukerman

Putin made an effort to shame his declared enemy over their work ethic and productivity, saying that “Ukraine today produces nearly nothing, they are trying to preserve something but they don’t produce practically anything themselves and bring everything in for free. But the freebies may end at some point and apparently it’s coming to an end little by little.”

He didn’t stop there, as he went after Ukraine’s war efforts, especially the leadership of President Volodymyr Zelensky.

“The enemy has declared a big counteroffensive, but he hasn’t achieved anything anywhere,” Putin added.

The Russia leader insults an entire country, not just its government and for further humiliation, mocks its military and its president.

“Putin is once again addressing multiple audiences here,” Tsukerman says as a reminder, “but the main point of the message is to establish the foundation for the understanding that Ukraine’s sovereignty is not backed by any independently established means and is negotiable and the underlying message goes that Russia is far more valuable because even under sanctions it produces the various metals that the whole world, including the West needs — and to address the growing resentment among the isolationist factions in the West who believe that supporting Ukraine is a burden that costs the taxpayers without resulting in anything of value to their interests.”

This pushes the mission forward, at a cost, but not to Putin, at least not yet.

“It delegitimizes Ukraine’s status as an independent nation and plays into false perceptions and stereotypes that Ukrainians are basically Russians and could be sacrificed because Russia’s claims to them and the advantages of economic relations with Russia outweigh having to first defend Ukraine and pour resources into it, before any possibility of reaping economic benefit may occur,” Tsukerman says.

There is opportunity present and Putin knows it.

“Putin is making a calculated mercantile, utilitarian argument here, perfectly aware that among libertarians and Realists in particular, such a concept is likely to hold sway,” Tsukerman details.

Countries don’t understand clearly what has happened and is happening.

“It is based on most Westerners’ ignorance of regional history and relations and the fact that the most ardently involved in politics, will likely not bother to research whether or not Ukraine is currently producing anything, but will assume that due to the high deficit from the war and the impact of combat, it is indeed a financial burden without any immediately visible benefits,” she laments.

Ukraine’s communication leadership has made a critical error, for which it is dearly paying.

“Putin is also riffing Ukraine’s flawed PR strategy which has banked heavily on Zelensky’s personal influence and involvement in the PR efforts, which makes him an easy target and unnecessarily personalizes the conflict, with many people failing to make distinction between the head of state and the millions of Ukrainians who are impacted by this strategy,” Tsukerman says.

The strategy has been a short-sighted clear liability that has led to a disconnect.

“This in many ways undermines Ukraine’s case because it is easy to character assassinate one person and leader and his immediate circles or to place burden on them and then diffuse the sympathy for the entire nation,” Tsukerman says analyzing the outcome from the holes in the strategy and implementation.

“In more general terms,” she continues, “Putin is discrediting Ukraine’s gains during counteroffensive and on the unrealistic expectations by the media and the political circles who envisioned far more dramatic and far faster changes in the situation on the ground as a result of the counteroffensive.

Communication Intelligence asked Tsukerman about personality and communication similarities between Putin and former United States President Donald Trump.

“Unlike Trump who insults for the sake of drawing attention and shock value, Putin is bringing in pragmatic arguments tied to existing broader narratives which arise from legitimate concerns about the course of the war,: she replies. “It is important to dismiss or to underestimate why a growing cross-section of the Western public finds such comments effective.”

Putin said that he wanted to reach a deal with Washington to free U.S. journalist Evan Gershkovich and U.S. businessman Paul Whelan, both held in Russia on espionage-related charges, Morris reported.

“We’re not refusing to return them,” Putin interestingly said, but added that an agreement that satisfies Moscow was “not easy.”

He could be reverting to semantics or of course, be outright lying.

“Putin is mirroring the political hostage-taking strategy of Iran, which has done the very same in far more instances, with non-Iranians and dual nationals, including journalists, human rights defenders, or even scientists,” Tsukerman says.

He has enjoyed success from this practice and noted how it has worked in the past for other countries’ extremists.

“Learning from Iran’s success in that regard and from Russia’s own previous instances of exchanging a U.S. basketball player (Brittney Griner) for a notorious arms dealer and criminal Viktor Bout, Putin is legitimizing the use of obviously illegal practices towards the meeting of his personal and stated Russia’s geopolitical objectives,” Tsukerman says.

She talks about Putin’s objective.

“He is trying to extract as many concessions from the West as possible and is striving to be seen as a strong leader who will not bow to foreign pressure, after smearing the two Americans to the domestic public and making these demands appear nothing more than normal prisoner exchanges that take place between intelligence agencies around the world on a regular basis,” Tsukerman says.

That is a false picture however.

“Of course, the major distinction here is that Putin is pushing a bad faith deal of civilians taken on trumped-up charges and demanding political concessions and a return of high-value professional operatives such as known spies, criminals or other subversive elements who have served the Kremlin’s purposes,” she says about the difference.

He doesn’t mind the smug flexing of his and Russia’s power and its ability to get more of what it wants.

“Putin equivocates deliberately, essentially publicly acknowledging that he has shred all moral qualms and distinctions and will cynically use any method that will allow him to achieve his goal and that deception and equivocation is merely part of the ‘game,’” Tsukerman says.

One reason for this unethical, psychologically-affected leadership practice, she says, is how Putin judges the United States and its government.

“Putin likely looks down on the West and sees its refusal to engage in the same tactics as a weakness he can exploit, because he has no red lines,” Tsukerman suggests.

He continues to attempt to use the U.S. as a puppet and as with Ukraine, shame the government’s leaders.

“He is shifting the moral burden on the West and playing on the emotions of families of the 2 hostages in using language that makes it seem like it’s the US that is not being reasonable in failing to meet negotiating terms,” Tsukerman says.

To the trained mind and eye, Putin’s approach is obvious misconduct.

“This is clear manipulation of the public perception, it is transparent, but it will work with people emotionally affected by this horror,” Tsukerman knows. “Putin is trying to turn them into his own unwitting agents in the U.S., to try to force the US government to be more accommodating to his demands.”

“He deplored the death of thousands of civilians in Gaza amid the Israeli-Hamas war, citing U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, who called it a ‘graveyard for children,’” Morris wrote. “He urged greater humanitarian aid, adding that Russia proposed setting up a field hospital in Gaza near the border with Egypt but Israel responded it would be unsafe.”

Putin speaks of his dismay for the murders of children and additionally talks of humanitarianism yet has directed the beatings, rapes and murder of Ukrainians and destruction of property and animals.

This apparent low self awareness and contradiction is clear.

“Putin is once again multitasking: first, he is speaking to the ‘Global South’ and Middle Eastern countries which have been more open to Russia’s posture on Ukraine due to its successful positioning of itself as anti-colonialist, in some cases due to longstanding Soviet ties and in other more recent case, because unlike France, Russia has had no history of colonialism in West Africa,” Tsukerman says.

“And Middle Eastern states might be generally neutral or disinterested vis-a-vis Ukraine issue but feel strongly about Gaza and Palestinians, and regardless of Russia’s actions in Ukraine, will welcome Russia’s commentary because it speaks to exactly the kind of tone they want to hear, as well as to the popular statements within their circles.”

Dividing your enemies is long-practiced in warfare.

“Putin is also aiming to further divide NATO and the West over the issues since many European countries have been heavily involved in Palestinian advocacy and are now stuck with having to choose with whether to confront Russia over the security concerns and human rights violations in Ukraine or whether to accept its position on Gaza independently of its accessions elsewhere simply because it meets the sentiments of many internal political factions,” Tsukerman says.

She goes deeper to explain that what isn’t been seen — or widely —acknowledged, yet is important to realize, is Russia’s hypocrisy.

“The way to reconcile these seemingly divergent positions is to acknowledge is that, far from expressing empathy for Palestinian civilians, Russia has also been part of the problem in that conflict, enabling known terrorist organizations and treating Palestinian civilians as mere pawns for its geopolitical ambitions while propping up the regimes that have both engaged in active human rights violations against their own constituents, and who, by attacking Israel, invited the conflict in the first place,” Tsukerman asserts.

This should be clearly known yet isn’t and Tsukerman explains why.

“Unfortunately, however, many, particularly younger people in the West, who have not followed these events closely and do not know about Russia’s role of spreading of disinformation in the Middle East and contributing to local bad practices, may likely welcome its position as genuinely pro-Palestinian and humanitarian,” she says.

“Many young people may see Russia as less hypocritical and more virtuous than the West, or are completely disillusioned in Western foreign policy and are manipulated and misled.”

As problematic and dangerous as this is political game plan is, there are additional flammable realities.

“An increasing cross-section of anti-Ukraine political factions is also embracing pro-Hamas positions and so are likely to go along with Russia’s communications no matter how contradictory they are in practice, because they actually do view them as consistent based on their perception of the conflict in Ukraine,” Tsukerman warns.

She circles back to a common core point.

“Once again, Putin knows exactly what he is doing. He is not necessarily looking to convert the hard line anti-Russia elements but he speaks with people who either have a stake in the Gaza conflict or otherwise have already bought into some of Russia’s communications on other issues,” Tsukerman says.

When “Asked what he would have told himself from today’s perspective when he started his first term in 2000, Putin said he would have warned against ‘naivety and excessive trustfulness regarding our so-called partners’ in the West,” Morris reported.

This is a case, Tsukerman says, of a psychological habit and tactic of the Russian leader.

“Putin is certainly projecting his own untrustworthiness on the West in an attempt to position himself as having acted in good faith towards at one point in time,” she says. “However, everything in the historical record of his actions points to a long-standing strategy towards restoring Russia’s imperial and Soviet borders which started with Putin’s rise to power.”

In summary, “This is not a case of pot calling kettle black. Rather, Putin is using the implied ‘whataboutism’ fallacy to justify (Russia’s) own record of violating international law and to attack the West for defending its interests and allies,” Tsukerman states.

Putin “reiterated that Moscow’s goals in Ukraine — ‘de-Nazification, de-militarization and a neutral status’ of Ukraine — remain unchanged,” Morris wrote. “The claim of ‘de-Nazification’ refers to Russia’s false assertions that Ukraine’s government is heavily influenced by radical nationalist and neo-Nazi groups — an allegation derided by Kyiv and the West.”

The Nazi or neo-Nazi narrative has been reported elsewhere, prompting curiosity about the validity of it or whether it is disinformation.

“Putin’s Russia is one of the leading backers and exporters of Nazi— and far right, as well as far left movements — around the World,” Tsukerman says. “Russia has been shown to cultivate its own far right movements such as ‘Nashi,’ as well as funding far right and pan-Slavic movements, parties and groups in Europe, Ukraine and the United States.

“In reality, Ukraine has the lowest level of official antisemitism in Europe, has nearly non-existent far-right placement in its Parliament and has a Jewish President who has been vocal in opposing extremism and terrorism in other parts of the world, whereas Putin’s Russia has actively and openly backed or whitewashed terrorist organizations.”

Lies can travel fast and pick up willing believers along the way.

“Yet the myths persist to this day,”Tsukerman says, “due to information campaigns stemming from Russia. There is nothing more Russia wants to achieve than to discredit its victims as extremist, preying on historical grievances by various groups around the world.

“Meanwhile, even after the break up of the Soviet Union, Moscow continued to propagate antisemitic stereotypes through its media programs even at the time of the greatest apparent liberalism and integration — when people like Zelensky used to regularly appear on its programs — and to export extremism around the world to create the problems it would then claim it could solve.”

The behavior is long-used strategy, Tsukerman teaches.

“Russia’s history of character assassination dates back to the Soviet Union, which perfected smear campaigns as a normal part of its information warfare against the West. There is nothing new about the absurd turn these events have taken, given that disinformation has been Moscow’s best effort going back to the days even before the Soviet Union.”

Putin, ““reaffirmed his claim that much of today’s Ukraine, including the Black Sea port of Odesa and other coastal areas, historically belonged to Russia and were given away by Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin,” Morris reported.

Putin could believe that he and Russia remain the rightful owners of land and property that has not been theirs for decades and to which he and Russia are entitled.

“This is not new in Russia’s political posture, as Putin believes all methods of fulfilling his objectives are of equal legitimacy, be they disinformation, conquest, foreign policy meddling or other methods of ‘persuasion,’ Tsukerman says. “More absurdly, the worst of the Russian propagandists are even making claims to return Alaska to Russian domain despite the fact that it was legitimately purchased by the US.

“Russia’s view is that these negotiated borders are artificial and that mistakes were made in these agreements, which Russia can now restore.”

That Putin answer may not win favor but it doesn’t matter.

“While diplomacy is unlikely to return most of these areas to its domain, it is willing to use political pressure, fake news and war to achieve the desired result,” Tsukerman says as a reminder. “Putin understands that most people in the West don’t particularly care one way or another because the Black Sea is too far from their immediate concerns and most voters are not geopolitical experts who spend time analyzing broader security concerns.”

That is problematic.

“The spread of isolationism also leaves Westerners, particularly in far off areas such as North America, blind to the general precedent of letting authoritarian states with hegemonic ambitions take control of strategic waterways and other locations.”

She addresses a point about Putin’s interpretation of history that is also now more often coming to light in America as well.

“His distortions of history come as no surprise. The Soviet Union was also adept in creating fake strongholds in various areas by importing ethnic nationals to those areas, or on the contrary, consolidating control by forced expulsion, population transfers and ethnic cleansing,” Tsukerman says.

“It should come as no surprise that Putin is broadening the reach of such strategy towards Odessa which indeed has had a significant Russian speaking population for many years but is one of the pivotal cities most strong associated with Ukraine historically.

“The efforts to erase history are not new to the FSB and the power brokers in Russia. They go back to the era of Stalinism, from which Putin is now drawing geopolitical inspiration,” Tsukerman says.

Putin communicated that “Russians and Ukrainians are one people, and what’s going on now is a huge tragedy, a civil war between brothers who have found themselves on the opposite sides.”

He speaks as if the war is just unfortunate and that Ukrainians are in the wrong and need to be corrected and overcome as they are morally unjust.

“Putin fully well is aware that the war has caused most Ukrainians, even ethnic Russians who had previously been open to some level of accommodation to the Kremlin, to turn on Russia entirely, and no matter the claims about brotherhood, there is no common ground between these two countries,” Tsukerman disagrees.

She continues to explain the facts and reality.

“The overwhelming popular view among Ukrainians of various backgrounds is that Russia is a war criminal and an aggressor and that anyone, including family members, who supports these actions is morally wrong, deluded and cannot be reasoned with until they wake up from Putin’s war propaganda and are deprogrammed,” Tsukerman says.

That communication, no matter how patently false it may be, will find believers and supporters.

“Putin’s comments once again are not aimed at Ukrainians who by and large do not believe this narrative — and those who had cooperated with Russia had done so largely as mercenaries, not as ideologues — so he is turning his comments to Russians, Westerners who cannot tell the difference between Russians and Ukrainians — and do not know the history, and who may be indifferent to Ukraine's sovereignty, but may be persuaded not to back Putin's verbiage through self-interest arguments — and the non-Western world which knows even less about these histories and is largely inclined to side with winners or any party that has something of value to offer,” Tsukerman says.

“It is entirely a propaganda narrative that no reasonable person who stops to think about it for more than two seconds can believe. But it is effective as a form of noise and distraction and to recruit followers among those who have grievances against Ukraine for whatever reason or who are already inclined to look for reasons not to back Ukraine for other reasons, such as general isolationism, or economic interests in Russia.”

She recognizes what else is going on with this Putin statement.

“It is also an argument appealing to false equivalencies, as if Russia did not play a morally-wrong role in initiating the hostilities by an act of aggression,” Tsukerman says. “Putin is manipulating the history to make it seem like the war is a result of mutual grievances and misunderstandings, that a military solution is not possible and that if the international community intercedes to force a compromise solution — Ukraine ceding ground — the regional situation can go back to the way it was before the war and lives and economies can be saved,” Tsukerman says of the inaccurate and dishonest communication.

Looking at the totality of Putin’s comments, there is much to remember and learn about how he perceives, reasons, believes and communicates.

“Putin is a Machiavellian character, looking to establish his legacy by dishonest means and manipulation,” Tsukerman says. “His legacy, of course, means the return to Russia’s historic borders and to increase Russia’s political presence and influence far beyond that.

“He is a systematic thinker who is well familiar with the means of wielding power effectively but he has also bought into some of his own disinformation about Russia’s grandiose ambition, which has led to detachment from awareness over Russia’s limitations, the discontent in inner circles and the unexpected level of pushback from NATO and unity among his targets: Ukrainians.”

Putin may not come across as more than a political bully and ambitious terrorist yet he is smarter and more cunning than many might assume.

“He is clearly someone who is well aware of how disinformation impacts open and relatively liberal societies and is willing to do and say anything to appeal to various groups, by using what he perceives to be their weaknesses, and blind spots resulting from naivete, ignorance or biases,” Tsukerman advises.