It seems you may be giving putín more credit than it deserves. Russia has been dysfunctional for a long, long time. The omnipresent systemic corruption has never actually been addressed in a meaningful way.

Well, I might. But to apply hanlons razor at all time and put malice down to stupidity, is to underplay the power of malice in the hands of people who are sufficiently sociopathic not to care to consequence.

The alternative, is to think he's a well meaning fool. Obviously it is a continuum and between pure evil and pure genius, there's room for an argument.

I tend to think Putin has skills, and information. I think he's making socially destructive choices, in a complex situation. I don't think Hanlon's razor applies.

Further, a logic argument: if the embezzlement is systematic inside the Russian state, and has been for years, how can Putin not be aware of it, and the complicity in his direct reports in subverting the bribe flows?

I think it is much more likely he looks to this as off-book performance/KPI pay.

it is of course possible to be both evil and incompetent.. sometimes history turns on this exact happenstance.

Do you know a good case of an evil incompetent who remained in power across multiple election cycles?

Hmm dunno but if there's no such case, it's a point in favor of democracy.. Dictators aren't subject to election cycles.

Putin has subjected himself to multiple (distorted) electoral processes. he didn't have to. He decided to wear the lipgloss (on a pig) of a chimera of democratic process. He's been President and Prime Minister, and oddly, power has shifted with his alternate roles.

Mayybe. I certainly would have agreed with you a month ago. But it's a very plausible story, don't you think? If we allow ourselves to believe for a moment that Putin isn't a brilliant dictator genius playing 4d chess, and just think of him as a dictator. I bet he believes FSB intel over the western press.. there's such a strong bias to believe information that you've paid for, and to trust people in your employ.. and after all he paid them /so much/ money.

It's possible he's in a situation where he literally cannot buy honesty, and has no good substitute for it, so he just has to believe lies and make mistakes. How many lies and at what levels? I dunno.. but how would he know either? I think we take professionals being trustworthy for granted in the US, but really that property depends on incentives being aligned just right. I mean, look at the FBI's vetting process and its emphasis on financial entaglements- I think it's like that for a reason.

At least we can agree he's a dictator. I don't think he's a genius, I think his personal genius loci drives to keeping himself in power and some self aggrandizement, and this drove him to make very uninformed, poor choices.

Certainly I agree he would tend to believe his paid-for feed over the one he can tune into freely. I have been reading about Sorge, and the extent to which the centre refused to believe the edge operatives telling them about German intentions is just .. insane. So I see a strong parallel there. If you get enough of your yesmen saying "they are lying" it would be hard to say "yea.. but I think i will reflect on this lie" sometimes.