A Quote by Masha Gessen

I think Putin's popularity was genuine when he first came to power. He was seen as a welcome relief from the Yeltsin era. — © Masha Gessen
I think Putin's popularity was genuine when he first came to power. He was seen as a welcome relief from the Yeltsin era.
A real dictator usually isn't interested in money or women, just pure power. But Putin - I don't know about women, but it looks like he definitely likes money quite a bit. He's painted himself into a corner; he has committed so many sins and crimes, he has no choice but to hold on to power. No matter how he leaves, his policies will definitely be condemned as bad and wrong, and everything will be blamed on him, just as he now blames Yeltsin. It could be done by someone who, at this moment, is professing boundless love for Putin.
Russia is so feudal in its system of patronage and reward that it is virtually impossible for a leader to hand over power without controlling his successor or at least receiving an exemption from prosecution - something Mr. Putin granted his predecessor, Boris Yeltsin, in 1999.
If Putin and those around him had been smart enough to go in a different direction... The country was ready. The conditions were extremely favorable - with oil prices as high as they were, it was possible to do anything. It was possible to solidify democracy. After the Yeltsin years people began to think that democracy is a disaster, that democracy equals misery. Putin got a lucky break - and he used it the KGB way. He turned out to be a wily KGB man, not a wise statesman.
President Yeltsin's instincts were decent: he encouraged the marketplace, the press flourished, and everything started to open - even the KGB archives. Yeltsin reburied Nicholas II. Free from Soviet anti-semitism, he surrounded himself with Jewish capitalists and advisers who returned to public life for the first time since the 1920s.
From Gorbachev to Yeltsin, the pendulum swung one way; now, Putin has pushed it very far in the opposite direction, and the backlash is inevitable. So I think the year 2042 could be quite interesting. Specifically, I think today's reactionary policy will end in total failure and the need for a new perestroika; there will be a "time of troubles," which may well end in the disintegration of Russia.
Since I came out of the closet, I've gotten to just really be myself and feel authentic and honest and genuine. It's just been a huge relief for me competitively.
Every time I talk to somebody about Putin, it's like, 'But isn't he vastly popular?' Is that really the most important question? I mean, we can unpack his popularity. I think it's manufactured. I think it's manufactured through totalitarian mechanisms.
I first got to know Charles in the late seventies when I wrote an article and then a book about him and I think at the time he came across as quite appealing, it was probably the height of his popularity.
It’s irrelevant to me what young Singaporeans think of me. What they think of me after I’m dead and gone in one generation will be determined by researchers who do PhDs on me, right? So there will be a lot of revisionism. As people revised Stalin, Brezhnev and one day now Yeltsin, and later on Putin. I’ve lived long enough to know that you may be idealised in life and reviled after you’re dead.
I have a certain admiration for Vladimir Putin because he doesn't allow decisions to be forced upon him by other countries. I think he focuses first and foremost on what is good for Russia and the Russians. As such, I have the same respect for Putin that I do for Ms. Merkel.
I had a chance to talk with President [Vladimir] Putin and he clearly said to me very directly, "I will think about that. I will think about this challenge of how we win." Look, this is not easy for Putin. Everybody says, "Oh, Putin's made a big move." Well, Putin is [in Syria] now; and if he wants to fight ISIL alone, that's a challenge, folks.
Hillary Clinton is seen as a joke. If Putin wanted anybody to win the 2016 election, it would have been Hillary Clinton, because with Hillary Putin is closer to where he wants to get than ever. It would be like a continuation of Obama, who was totally deferential to Putin.
I'm not going into personal details of meetings I have with anybody, be it John Howard or President Bush or President Putin or President Yeltsin, in years gone by, whoever it may be, I'm not going into that.
Barack Obama took over after Vladimir Putin's first aggression, in Georgia. In 2009, he did the reset policy because they had these stupid ideas about former president Dmitry Medvedev. They thought he would be the leader, not Putin. Everyone played this game with Medvedev as their bet, Berlin, Paris, London, the idea of smoothly transferring to something more acceptable. It was always a charade, a Putin project to solidify his power and come back after four years of nominal occupation of the office by Medvedev.
Putin is going to be considering the United States his number one enemy no matter who our president is - and no matter who's elected, that isn't going to change. I think Putin is loving the media saying he's got all this power, 'cause they're a Third World country outside of their military.
Putin's survival depends on land grabs of foreign territories. He needs new annexations. The annexation of Crimea has gained him much applause at home. But that will not last forever. The Western sanctions are beginning to take hold and the people are suffering. In order to maintain his popularity, Putin has to commit further international crimes. Otherwise he will be dead politically.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!