The Age of the Strongman: Understanding Putin, with Catherine Belton (Part Two)
34:08 Share

When you think about super successful businesses that are selling through the roof, like Heinz or Mattel, you think about a great product, a cool brand and brilliant marketing. But there's a secret. The business behind the business making selling simple for them and buying simple for their customers. For millions of businesses, that business is Shopify.

Yeah, sure thing.

Hey, you saw that car yet? Yeah sold it to Carvana Oh, I thought you were selling to that guy the guy who wanted to pay me in foreign currency No interest over 36 months Yeah, no

Welcome to Intelligence Squared, where great minds meet. I'm producer Mia Cirenti.

For this episode, we're rejoining for part two of our live event, Understanding Putin, with Gideon Rachman, Katherine Belton and Arkady Ostrovsky. They joined us recently at Smith Square Hall in Westminster for the first event in our new Age of the Strongman series, in which Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator for the FT, Gideon Rachman, speaks to leading experts about the political leaders defining our times.

To kick off the series, Gideon spoke to Catherine and Arkady about the archetypal strongman leader, Vladimir Putin. If you haven't heard part one, do just jump back an episode and get up to speed. Now it's time to rejoin the conversation with host Gideon Rackman.

I'd be interested to talk about this relationship with Trump because, you know, maybe paradoxically Putin has had the last laugh having believed that the West was working to undermine Russia from within. Do you think that he, well, how do you understand the relationship with Trump? Is it a direct one or just the fact that these two guys, they're both strongman leaders with a similar temperament and a similar outlook on the world? What's your sense, Sir Cardi?

As Catherine said, we don't know whether Putin has some compromising material on Trump. So let's put this to one side. I think there is the most obvious thing, which is there is affinity. In many ways, Russia and America always had affinity on many levels. No two countries are more alike in some ways and dislike. How do you mean?

Well, in terms of the sort of emergence as not based on the ethnic, you know, emerging not from an ethnic idea, but from super idea, the idea of superpower, the idea of exceptionalism, you know, the space,

Territorial expansion. Territorial expansion. You know, the relationship between Russia and America is one of the most interesting things. I mean, Russia's love and fascination with America for a long time, including in Stalin times, who, you know, considered America to be the sort of, the socialism to be the combination of Lenin's principles and American pragmatism. And, of course, Ford comes to the Soviet Union and a lot of Americans come to Russia

The Soviet Union after 1929 only to get arrested then but come to build the another version of another the scale of it But that's a completely separate we're going on the tandem I think the the Trump there is affinity there because both man hate the idea of liberal Europe both despise decadence and

They found something that happened that couldn't have happened even in the Cold War time. However, similar or dissimilar, the actual actors in America and the Soviet Union were. They were separated by ideological barriers. Even, you know, McCarthy couldn't be... He might have looked like the Soviet, but...

But there was always had to be confrontation. He defined himself against communism. And suddenly you don't have ideology, but you have this nativism. You have the traditional value. It's about LGBT. It's about decadence. It's about liberalism. So I think there is a sort of much more common... And is it also about self-enrichment? Because that's one of the things that's often said about Putin. I mean...

Yes, and there is enrichment. Now, I would not exaggerate, actually, the degree to which that's where kind of affinity stops. Because yes, one is a KGB guy who doesn't mind starting wars and killing over a million people. Just think about it. In three years' time, the biggest war in Europe.

The other actually hates wars, apparently, and wants to stop them. I think Putin sees Trump as an asset, as a useful, as a kind of a fellow traveler, as a useful idiot. I think it's very interesting how Putin is coordinating the way he plays Trump, evidently, with Xi Jinping.

I think the number of conversations that Putin and Xi had, including on the day of Trump's inauguration, reaffirming that basically aligning their views over Trump. So I think there is affinity there. He's glad Trump is there, but it's not like he's ever going to be

his best friend, I don't think. Yeah. And Catherine, how do you see the Trump-Putin relationship? Because it's obviously going to be crucial. It's quite likely that they're going to meet quite soon. If I were the Americans, I would be a bit worried about that because I think that Putin probably has a much clearer idea of what he wants out of that meeting than Trump does. Or maybe I'm wrong.

Yeah, I guess we'll have to see. I mean, like I said at the beginning, we don't know yet what Trump has agreed with Zelensky, if they do agree a position on what the negotiating tactics are going to be with Russia.

Is it possible that Trump could actually prove us all wrong and threaten Putin with more sanctions if he doesn't play ball on the terms for the end of the war? I guess we still have to see. But what we do know is as Al-Qaeda...

He mentioned is that Putin is very skilled at manipulating Trump. We've heard him flatter him and say, well, you know, the 2020 election, it was stolen from you. And, you know, tell him how brave he was when he survived his assassination attempt.

And we see almost a takeover now of the US media and political life of Russian propaganda and Russian narratives on the wall that just a year ago, or even in April last year, I was writing then about how Russian propaganda was beginning to infiltrate Congress.

And you had the head of the Republican House Intelligence Committee, Mike McCaul, talking about how there was a minority of the Republicans who seemed to be infected with Russian propaganda who were parroting these lines.

And now we see the entire Republican Party almost just bow before this. And it's absolutely incredible to see. And I also think that many of the Russian officials and MPs

sort of most hardcore members of Putin's circle, the most kind of imperialistic of them, such as Konstantin Malefey, the orthodox billionaire, or even Alexander Dugin, the arch propagandist of all of them. They can't even believe their eyes that sort of people like Tulsi Gabbard got appointed head of national intelligence. I mean, and you have Musk now tweeting and

almost every day about how the US should be leaving NATO. You know, it's absolutely incredible. And I just think we have our work cut out to really properly understand how this takeover happened. And yeah, I mean, there's still a chance. We heard Lindsey Graham today say that, you know, once we have the position with Ukraine on,

If Putin doesn't agree, then we have to hit him with hellish sanctions. You know, the real test for Trump is still ahead. We will see, the entire world will see, is he really Putin's puppet?

Or does he actually have a real position on actually ending the war? Can he force Putin into something he doesn't want to do? Yeah, Akali, just before I go to the floor, you want to make a point. And also I have a last question, which is one of the things you hear, I mean, I think Mark Rutter, the Secretary General of NATO, gave a big speech about this recently, saying repeatedly, Putin's ambitions do not end with Ukraine, that Putin is a threat to the rest of Europe. What do you think of that? Oh, I think...

That's very true. I think Putin's ambitions are not in Ukraine. I don't think Putin thinks he is fighting with Ukraine. I think Ukraine is the place where he's fighting with the West. It's a war in Ukraine against the West. It's not a war against Ukraine as Putin sees it because he doesn't recognize Ukraine as a separate entity. I mean, to this day, there is no department in the foreign ministry, in the Russian foreign ministry,

There is nobody in charge of Ukraine because it's not part of the foreign ministry. It has to be done from the Kremlin. It's part of the, as far as Putin is concerned, he is fighting over the territory that is not foreign.

That's the whole premise of the war. It's not a sovereign country. But he's fighting with the West, and that fight, yeah, absolutely, I agree, it will continue in whatever form, and how the fight will go will depend ultimately not on Putin but on Europe and on the West, because while we're talking about all those grand designs of unraveling the biggest, the most powerful, and the richest military alliance in history called NATO, and confronting...

economies of Europe, which is 12 times the size of Russian economy, with a population which is four times the size, more than four times the size of Russia. There is this fear, there is this paralyzing fear whether Europe can actually do it. And let's not forget that today Russia occupies 19.2% of Ukrainian territory, and

In November 2022, it occupied the whole of 19.6% of Ukrainian territory. It hasn't moved. It hasn't moved. It's the same amount of territory, actually slightly less, at the cost of 800,000 dead and wounded, just on the Russian side. So, yes, the intent is there, the capability, we could discuss that.

But it's ultimately, it's whether the West can, you know, whether Europe, I mean, I'm still saying the West, there is, I mean, the whole discovery of this war, that the West as a collective identity, as a military political entity is disappearing before our eyes. I think it's gone, actually. That world is over.

And I think we need, I think that hasn't sunk in yet. And I think on Trump and Putin, I think there is a transaction which is almost kind of when you talk about this grand historic kind of things, I think there is a validation. It's very personal. I think Putin, I think Trump...

seeks Putin's validation by a strong man. - A strong man leader, yeah. - Fiona Hill's famous, you know, Fiona who was advising, who was a national security advisor in the first Trump administration, who said on the way to Helsinki, the only thing that Trump asked her was, "Do you think I will like Putin?" By which she understood, "Will Putin like me?"

It's this extraordinary thing. That's why I think he likes Macron. Macron is Napoleon. Keir Starmer brings the letter from the king, so you have royalty, so that's okay. And Putin is the guy in the imperial Kremlin palace. I think it's literally that. Yeah, which raises the question of how he'll deal with Xi Jinping, but that's for another night. So let's get some questions from the audience. I think, just here. Thank you. This is probably a very naive question. If Putin died in the morning...

Are there other strong men or women in the Kremlin who will take over and go forward with this particular policy? I think not an online question. Good question. Who wants to take it? Catherine, what happens if he drops dead?

Yeah, probably there might be some skirmishes over who would take over, but probably the most immediate person to step into his shoes would be somebody like Nikolai Patrushev, who Putin has always closely followed. He was the head of the FSP.

during Putin's first two terms in power, and then became head of the Security Council, where he occupied a very powerful role indeed. And he was kind of one of the driving ideologists behind Putin's wars, so he could continue to carry the flag in some ways. But we don't know yet. Perhaps there's a new generation, as well as Mikhail Mishustin, who's a tech

who would be more likely to be ready to restore relations with the West and perhaps not be quite so aggressive. But probably Al-Qadi can answer, if not better. Al-Qadi, just to sort of layer a question onto that. I mean, one of the things that...

Think is characteristic of strongman regimes is that the question of succession is one they can never ever solve And I was very struck last time. I was allowed to be in Moscow. I think It was 2019 and even then they were talking about What happens when Putin goes and I kept saying well, why are you worrying about it now? he's not due to step down for several years and it seemed evident that I

because everything centered on him. And once he went, it was like Jenga. You pulled something out and the whole thing could collapse. So if Putin goes, is there a risk of regime collapse? I think there is a risk of regime collapse. I mean, if you look at... I think you're absolutely right. I mean, succession has been always the central...

theme of Russian history and actually Russia has very few periods of peaceful succession be it in before the Bolshevik Revolution or after you know Russia is a country of constant palace coups of killings the Bolsheviks obviously, you know found some sort of way of dealing with it but also quite late in the period and

I mean Stalin was executing a lot of people who could be his successors. When Stalin died, it was, you know, they've come to this pact that they will at least not kill each other for a while, but they overthrew Khrushchev.

who succeeded him. In the late Soviet period they came to some understanding through burial procedures actually. Whoever was in charge of a funeral was to become the next general secretary, which is what happened to Gorbachev, of course, on a funeral race. But I think with Putin, yes, I think the question of there is no obvious another strong man and history goes, if history is any guide, but it's a very limited guide,

is that whoever will come after Putin will have to establish his legitimacy through canceling or sort of pushing back against Putin.

That's what happened with Gorbachev. That's what happened with Khrushchev, with Stalin. That's what happened with Brezhnev related to Khrushchev. Even within the same regime here, there isn't even an ideology. So I think the chances of it continuing in the same direction are actually not huge. I think the chances of it sort of playing back, because it's the only way that you can establish legitimacy, is through rejecting legitimacy.

your predecessor. It's not a historic film and history, as I said, is a limited guide, but the film which I just love and think of is the death of Stalin. It's what happens. I mean, I think it's a fantastic film exactly because it got to the nature of the problem. It's exactly how this is going, I think, going to go. Okay, there are lots of interesting questions on the iPad, but in the audience, yeah, the woman just in the front row, yeah.

Thank you. Can I ask the panel to contemplate a scenario where Europe puts boots on the ground in Ukraine, peacekeeping or otherwise? And does that scenario mean China then comes into the fray on behalf of Russia? In which case, how does that affect Trump's sentiment, given where he is with regards to China, and given the fact that that would then be a technological and cyber warfare, which would have a big impact to the economy, which, despite the price of eggs, is what...

Trump apparently cares about. I'll have a very brief crack at that simply because the last place I was at before here was the Chinese embassy and they were visiting Chinese officials. I think it highly unlikely that they would ever get involved in a direct fight with the West in Ukraine. I mean, maybe over Taiwan.

but their role in the war is very important. And whether we get peacekeepers if there's no peace to keep, I think is another big question. But Arkady, I mean...

What do you think? Because, and Catherine, I'll also come to you on this in a sec. I think a lot of people in this audience here will have quite mixed feelings about the idea of putting British troops into Ukraine in such a volatile situation. But on the other hand, there is some support for it. What do you think? Well, on the first thing, I agree with you. I think the idea that Chinese...

will go into Ukraine or fight. I don't think that that's likely at all. And you're right, Russia is incredibly dependent on China. So in a way it's economically dependent and technologically dependent, more dependent than it had ever been in its entire history.

In terms of the peacekeeping troops, look, I think this is getting slightly out of proportion. I mean, I don't think that there is any country in Europe that is really, if you ask the public, are you prepared to fight the Russian army?

To fight the Russians will say yeah, let's do that. So the idea of a British, you know, I know the British have been absolutely the British forces has been have been absolutely Completely key in keeping Ukraine going not because Britain has a big army Because British Army is 72,000 I think and somebody said to me more ceremonial canon cannons than than howitzers but in

in terms of mobilizing America and giving courage and all that has been very important. But the tripwire force is a very dangerous idea. I mean, it's a symbolic idea, but tripwire force is very good when it's connected to something. But a tripwire by itself, which is not connected to America, and that's the only country that can actually stomach it, is, I think, is not hugely meaningful. But what's more, I think there is a misconception here. I think...

Ukraine doesn't need British troops to fight for it. Ukraine has the largest army after Russia in Europe. It's the most combat-ready army. Putin has failed to destroy Ukrainian forces. The Russian army failed to achieve any strategic objective.

Kyiv has not been evacuated. The general chiefs of staff had not been destroyed. The command and control in Ukraine has survived. Ukraine has enormous army, extremely well armed. It's not about peacekeepers trying to keep Russia away. It's about arming and funding Ukrainian army to be able to be

the only viable security guarantee. At the end of the day, other than nuclear umbrella, other than membership of NATO, which is not on the cards, the only viable, I'm convinced of that, the only viable security guarantee in Ukraine is called Ukrainian Armed Forces. Well-funded, integrated with the European security system, not even NATO.

That's what will keep Ukraine secure. Okay. Rather than go to Catherine on that one, because there's a lot of questions piling up, there's a mic at the back and I gather a question. So why don't we take one from there? Hi. Yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to ask, is it not like a victory for Russian propaganda, Kremlin propaganda, that we call Putin a strong man at all, when...

he is so weak that he cannot enforce any of his red lines. He cannot destroy the Ukrainian army and actually is now more isolated internationally than he has been in 10 years. Catherine, so is it wrong to call him a strong man? Is he actually a weak man?

Well, unfortunately, he's not very isolated at the moment. Donald Trump is busy tearing down that isolation. And as we've seen, he hasn't been very isolated from China or India or any of the other countries of the global south because his propaganda has been so effective there in sort of, you know, promoting these anti-Western narratives. So, yeah.

He's pretty strong at the moment. And unfortunately, I think that's our arrogance often in overlooking this because he has been able to run rings around many Western leaders. And we've often said that, oh, Putin, he's a tactician, he's not a strategist. But actually, compared to the short-sightedness of some of our leaders, he's doing pretty well. So it really is a challenge now for the EU to prove that the West...

actually still does exist, even if Trump goes off and forms some kind of alliance with Putin. The EU, as Arkady said, has it completely within its power to actually fully arm Ukraine and make sure it's strong enough to withstand any Russian aggression. I was talking to Sir Richard Barron, the former head of the UK Institute,

joint command. And, you know, he pointed out that it would only cost 0.2% of Europe's GDP to fill the shortfall left by the US were it to withdraw from supporting Ukraine. So it's entirely within our command to actually

make Putin the weak leader he actually is. But at the moment, compared to the rest of us, he's doing pretty well. But Catherine, since you're in Kiev, I mean, you know, I was there a couple of weeks ago. And although you're right, the Europeans can fill some of the money gap,

One of the concerns is that there are certain capabilities that only the Americans can provide, air defense, some of the intelligence that Trump has now withdrawn. So on the other hand, some Ukrainians said to me, this war is all about drones, and actually they're quite confident they can keep that up. What's your reading? I mean, is there a risk of, you know, Akadi was saying they have the biggest army outside of Russia in Europe, and the implication was they can hold strong drones.

How much what's your sense of the mood in Kiev now? Is there a risk of a Ukrainian collapse?

I think there's a real sense of betrayal at the moment. Obviously, we have to see what happens in the talks in Saudi Arabia tomorrow. Trump has started making gentler noises and suggesting, in fact, that some of the intelligence sharing is being switched back on. Yes, we have been incredibly dependent on the U.S. technology, particularly

particularly for the satellite technology. I think, yes, Ukraine is going to suffer if eventually, if the US keeps withholding supports, especially in terms of air defence, because although Europe is in a position to move in, it's not able to immediately thwart

fill a shortfall in Patriot missiles, for instance. So, you know, it's going to be really tough. But we have not been thinking strategically. We're too comfortable in the West. One Russian propagandist who is deeply embedded with the Republican Party was laughed quite recently and almost sneered that it was as if the entire West had been sitting comfortably in a warm bath room.

And hadn't noticed what was going on. And I'm afraid we have a very strong wake up call now. And there was one senior Ukrainian official I was speaking to on Friday, and he is worried that the West doesn't exist. He actually said that. He said, what have we been fighting for?

For the West, the West doesn't exist. Now we're just fighting for our own survival. He said he didn't have confidence in Europe that it was going to be able to step in. He said the European leaders are very good at making loud statements.

but not actually acting on them. So, you know, it's up to us now. Yeah. On this whole, there's incidentally a big audience watching online as well and there's some questions coming in on the iPad. And one of them which relates, I think, to this question of

Putin's strength weaknesses competence incompetence shall try since you work for the economist I'll ask about it you are card It says is Putin actually quite a good economist He's managed to keep the Russian economy going for these three years of war and sanctions No, I don't think he is a good economist, but he does have competent economists around him I don't think I think the only thing he understands about economy is that no big debt, you know is bad and

He remembers '98 financial crisis, the default. He just knows that this is something that's better managed by more competent people rather than his own security man. - Well, that in itself is quite important when you compare it to Trump. - No, I agree with that. On the economy, no, I think they have managed it well. But I think finally after three years, the strains are showing.

The growth Russia had in three years, over the past three years of war, has been a result of this massive military spending.

It's a huge stimulus to the economy, and it's exactly that. But actually, rather than... I think the way to think about it, it's not the economic growth, or sort of GDP growth in a sense that it's creating... You know, the economy is expanding. I think the right way to think about it is kind of a redistribution of...

and labor resources within the economy into the military industrial complex because you put all the money and you suck people and Russia's biggest problem is the labor shortage. Russia has the lowest unemployment rate, I think 2.4%.

All the private companies in the civilian sector are complaining, well, where do we get the people? And so when you transfer money and people into the military industrial complex that builds tanks, which can't be consumed, you starve the civilian sector. You have sanctions which hinder your import products.

you get inflation. I mean, Russia is running a double-digit inflation by now. It's effectively galloping. Inflation has got interest rates of 21%. And interest rate rises are not actually taming, really,

Inflation that fast because the government continues to spend on military industrial complex. So the economy is straining I mean I think you know what happens to the oil price I mean Russia has been able to conduct this war because it gets on average four hundred four hundred fifty billion dollars from the sales of From the revenues of oil and gas sales and the war costs about 120 150 a year. So that's kind of a simple math so no, I mean there is economic strain whether it's critical or

I don't think it's critical yet. The changes that are occurring in the Russian economy, the longer you go on, the more embedded they become. And at some point, it will come either to hard lending and just galloping inflation, or they will have to cut military spending.

So it's not infinite. Russia is fighting its own money as opposed to Ukraine is connected to much bigger economic pool. And by the way, I completely agree with Catherine that it's that sense of betrayal that is building up.

in Ukraine is very, very real for good reasons. The only thing where I would disagree with Catherine is the EU question because I think it's not the EU. I think we are beginning to see possibly the beginning of something very interesting, very dear probably to your heart, Gideon, which is I think a new European structure because Britain is not at the EU. Britain is absolutely crumbling.

crucial to Ukraine and to defense. And I think what we've seen after this ugly scene in the White House between Trump and Zelensky is Macron calls this meeting of the big countries, right? Of France, Germany, and the U.K.,

And I think Poland, Germany, France, and without the UK, I don't think it could work. I think we are possibly seeing the beginning of some new, not instead of the EU, but a parallel structure to the EU emerging. Okay. I can just see a hand somewhere in the middle there. Maybe you can bring the mic over to you then. Hello.

Patriarch Kirill, if that's how you pronounce his name, speaks in Moscow of this being a moral crusade. Is there a moral aspect to what Putin's been doing? Okay, and the gentleman in the front row.

I had a question with respect to the credible threat that Europe can effectively project to Russia. Part of it is the ability to build its own military supply chain, which up to now has been fully dependent on the U.S. How credibly can Europe build at speed a credible supply chain? You talk about missiles for air defenses, but radar, microchips, and so on. Is there enough willingness to

at the European level to go through the pain of diverting resources and hiring the right skill and have a right strategy that gets killed to be able to be a credible defence force. I might have a quote on that one, but before we do that, anybody want to talk about the role of Archbishop Kirill and this idea of this being a sanctified war? Catherine, the Russian Orthodox Church and morality of the war?

Well, I'm afraid you have to have a very twisted view of the world to see yourself in a moral crusade against Ukraine when you're killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. But unfortunately, the Russian propaganda has this warped mindset in which they believe

that Ukraine was always part of Russia and in fact Kiev Rus was the initial birthplace of the Russian Empire. So if you were to follow that logic, then Russia should belong to Ukraine, but never mind about that.

You know, I think, you know, Kirill clearly believes that Ukraine should be part of the Russian Orthodox Church. They have this claim supposedly on Ukraine because Ukraine has dared to assert its own independence and say it doesn't want to be part of the Russian Orthodox Church, which used its ministries and its churches as

to propagate Russian propaganda and try and infiltrate Ukrainian society to make it part of the Russian world. And because Ukraine dared to rebel against that and created its own Ukrainian Orthodox Church, now Patriarch Kirill feels mightily offended and views the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as heretic.

and it shouldn't exist. So that's the only moral aspect to it and it's a very warped one at that. Thanks for listening to Intelligence Squared. This episode was produced by myself, Mia Sorrenti, and it was edited by Mark Roberts. For tickets and more information on the events we have coming up in the Age of the Strongman series, click the link in the episode description.

Hello, I'm Tim Guinness, Chairman and Founder of Guinness Global Investors.

Thank you.