Just swinging by to say that the article about Fiona Hill's impressions of Putin should be viewed as the most reliable source available to us.
I've read a LOT of books about Putin. He's absurdly hard to get a read on and his intentions are almost always opaque. One of the reasons a certain posters unqualified statements about what Putin wants, thinks, or would agree to are so ludicrous is because people who make watching Russia their entire profession struggle to understand the man.
All that said, Fiona Hill's book on Putin is the best one. And it's not even close. It starts all the way back with his parents experiences before he was born, how that affected their parental decisions, and how he responded to specific professional stresses in East Germany and in the St. Petersburg mayor's office. She builds a psychological profile based upon how different events changed him. It's the most complete picture of the guy I've ever seen, and its' been the most predictive of his behavior since he wrote it.
If she says he would use a nuke: you can't ignore that. That's a valid assessment by an expert.
I disaagree of course, with Fiona Hill. She's a political hack with a pre-determined anti-Putin "cause". Like I said, in other threads, Putin has been critical of the UN and our (the West, as in NATO, EU, US/UK for repeatedly pushing NATO to his doorstep, contrary to many diplamatic assurances, in Putin's view, negotiated terms for various agreements. I have cited a recent book by a historian on that subject.
Kicky questions my assessment that I know his politics, views, and such on this subject. I said I doubted anyone could see daylight between Kicky and Fiona Hill. Now, was I right about that/
I know I have read and looked for whatever valid points Putin may have from some sources, which are noted in balanced reviews as one of three or more possible viewpoints on it all, and that source characterized what I have been saying as Putin's point of view.
Far from being opaque, he has openly and publicly campained for an agreement to honor the statements our top diplomats made when Russia was deciding to withdraw its forces from East Germany, that NATO military would not move "One incher close" to Moscow.
Beyond looking for some kind of rationality in Putin, I basically equate him with Obama and Hillary except these leaders of ours are clearly still communist ideologues with Cloward-Piven notions of reducing superpower USA to a rough equivalency with China, maybe India and even Brazil. J. William Fulbright's advice on essentially adopting a Confucian value system in one respect.
One of my Chinese friends explained to me this way. If you go to Chinese restaurant and notice an old slow poke janitor doing menial chores, that's probably the owner. The Boss. It is very important not to be the target. This would be the least of reasons, among many, to make the case that neither Mao nor Xi are genuine Confucian believers. They are Western in many respects. More like the emperor sort of figures. But it might still be important to look for the puppet master running the show.
I think that was Oscar Wilde's point about British diplomacy circa 1890 in his comedy "The Importance of Being Earnest"
I actually prefer Brit and US legal tradition following from the Magna Carta and the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I would expand the notions of inalienable human rights and the necessity of limiting government power.
I am in no sense a supporter of Putin or Biden. neither Putin, Xi, or any of our Honchos are genuine supporters of those American "Exceptional" traditions.
I know I am not one of Kicky's favs or literally anyone else's here. In fact, it is precisely these values that annoy so many in here.
