Some of the comments illustrate the bias discussed in this post. That Putin is an absolute ruler who does not need to care about what anyone else thinks and that he is a mobster motivated by money. Neither assumption strikes me as realistic. I suppose another way of expressing this very helpful post is that we err when we confuse moral judgments on someone's actions with their practical motivations.
"[T]here seems to be more pressure on media outlets to play to the passions of readers."
This strikes me as a major understatement. I think it's now become the de facto role of the media to play to (and arouse) the passions of readers. Editorializing (including in headlines) has become so commonplace in major outlets (both in the US and elsewhere) that one can only suspect that reporters and editors are expected to use it. It doesn't bode well for the outcome of this conflict and other looming confrontations.
nowhere does this assertion ring more true than this scene. Does Wright think Putin was actually pressured by these advisors to back into this war as a last resort? https://youtu.be/MsfUiTJv2lE?t=89
I support Wright's ultimate goal: To avoid a nuclear war. I just don't feel he's being honest about it. It is so slap-you-in-the-face obvious that Putin is nothing more than brutal mob boss. (A war dissenter was literally thrown out of hospital window last week)
I would prefer more honesty less mental gymnastics. Just say "As sickening as it is to let this deranged bully have his way, the risk of world ending nuclear war is too great"
I apologize for the tone of my above post, it was after midnight. My point is that if attribution bias exist, then it is clearly possible to err on the other side (attributing actions to situations when it ought to be attributed to character).
I don't know what else Putin would have to do to reveal his character. Last week's murder was not unique. His thugs routinely throw people out of windows. I can almost hear wright saying "actually the root word of defenestration is defense, and Putin feels he must come up with a defense against a malevolent and aggressive NATO"
We should be glad Putin is in control of Russia, it’s government and armed forces. He is familiar with the West and wants desperately to avoid a conflict that will make a return to peace and cooperation with the West impossible. Everyone who is in line to succeed him is far less knowledgeable about the West and the world in general. All are far more bellicose in their attitudes. Any regime change in Russia is more likely to feature a revanchist hardcore nationalist, not a Russian Jeffersonian democrat (as if those kinds of people exist in Russia)
Helpful as it always is to get primers on cognitive bias (no sarcasm meant here), I'm not sure how well it applies in this case.
Others have brought up similar pushback below; I wanted to put it in terms of the specific dynamic between Putin and the Kremlin narrative, with attention to his agency in shaping the overall narrative over decades:
Given Russia's "personalized" political system, Putin has been in a position of unrivaled power over Russian politics and discourse for decades (not complete power, but more significant than anything we can imagine any individual having in the US, for instance), including over how the Kremlin sets the discourse.
So if Putin had far more influence on Russian perceptions than any other individual in the country for twenty years, he could have led the country in many different directions--especially in terms of its mood and outlook toward other countries from the former Soviet Union. Instead, he has worked to create the conditions (and foster the narrative environment) for empowering its hawkish, pro-war nationalist faction. The fact that this faction may be pressuring him now at this moment in time doesn't contradict the idea that this faction's size & outlook & presence has itself already been significantly shaped by the Kremlin narrative over decades (a narrative which, again, Putin has had more agency to shape and direct than anyone else). Given the amount of power Putin has wielded for so long over the narrative, it makes less sense to make an argument for purely circumstances informing his decisions. It seems, actually, that Troianovski got the balance of "circumstance" and "disposition" right in his piece, given the circularity of pressure from the pro-war nationalists Putin helped empower.
This was a disappointing analysis as it simply reiterated most of Bob's previously expressed cognitive biases about Putin. Let me try to help. Putin was not subject to any political pressure to go to war with Ukraine. This has been a longtime personal obsession of Putin's not the result of external pressure. The media Bob quotes favoring stronger military action by Russia is not political pressure on Putin, it is just media that Putin orchestrates or from people trying to curry favor with him.. The only political pressure he gets is against the war. He creates the pro war posts. Bob forgets that Putin is an absolute dictator who has ruthlessly eliminated all opponents from power. He has far more complete power in Russia than Xi Jinping does in China. Russia has a much smaller population and there is political activism in only a few big cities. It has been crushed everywhere else. So Bob's focus on "political pressure" on Putin to intensify the Ukraine conflict is completely misplaced.
I think Bob may have been over zealous to call out bias there. I interpret the quote from Troianovski to imply “some” hawks or “those hawks who”, not all hawks. And which hawks is he referring to? Well he explains - those who have bought into blah blah blah.
Q: Describe your favorite dog? A: Dogs who like to cuddle. Not all dogs, I have qualified as only those who like to cuddle.
Q: Who will spur backlash on Putin? A:
“hawks who have bought into the Kremlin narrative that Russia is fighting ‘Nazis’ for its very survival.” Not all hawks, the hawks who have bought into the blah blah blah. Only those hawks will spur backlash.
Maybe I’m wrong, but if that’s what Troianovski meant then Bob may have taken a little ride there. An enjoyable read either way.
Good point. I've heard Bob talk in a number of podcasts about the war and this aspect - Putin using war to suppress internal dissent about his and his cronies corruption has been, to my recollection, conspicuous by its absence. Instead, Bob seems to accept Putin's reasons for going to war as his actual reasons.
I’ve been expecting a more in-depth analysis from you on Ukraine’s recent advances (did I miss it?) especially since the ISW has been all over every article I’ve read on this. They’re beating you to the punch Bob
I've never done much play-by-play analysis of the war in the newsletter. I do most of that on the Friday podcast--either the public podcast or in the Parrot Room. I'm sure I'll have something to say this Friday.
Why does someone as smart as Robert Wright believe anything Putin and his cronies say is anything but a pretext for the world's leading gangster and richest man? Putin started this war to distract the Russian people from the results of his and his cronies stealing - what, 2 trillion dollars or so? - from them. And, yes, Western bankers, brokers, real estate moguls, art dealers, yacht makers, etc., took Putin and his cronies money without batting an eye. Robert Wright's incredulous belief that Putin can be taken at his word for starting the war in Ukraine means he is as much part of the "blob" as everyone else.
"Robert Wright's incredulous belief that Putin can be taken at his word"
I think you didn't read the article--if you had, you wouldn't have misrepresented it so severely. The article discusses mainly the cognitive bias (attribution error in this case) of the media (taking a recent NYT piece as an example). Nowhere is there a suggestion that Putin can/should be taken at his word.
Elegant analysis.
Thanks!
Some of the comments illustrate the bias discussed in this post. That Putin is an absolute ruler who does not need to care about what anyone else thinks and that he is a mobster motivated by money. Neither assumption strikes me as realistic. I suppose another way of expressing this very helpful post is that we err when we confuse moral judgments on someone's actions with their practical motivations.
"[T]here seems to be more pressure on media outlets to play to the passions of readers."
This strikes me as a major understatement. I think it's now become the de facto role of the media to play to (and arouse) the passions of readers. Editorializing (including in headlines) has become so commonplace in major outlets (both in the US and elsewhere) that one can only suspect that reporters and editors are expected to use it. It doesn't bode well for the outcome of this conflict and other looming confrontations.
If we are talking about cognitive bias - note how quickly Wright embraces the idea that there is great pressure on Putin to ramp up the war.
According to Peter Pomerantsev, everything around Putin (supporters and opposition) is orchestrated. https://www.thisamericanlife.org/614/the-other-mr-president/act-three-14
nowhere does this assertion ring more true than this scene. Does Wright think Putin was actually pressured by these advisors to back into this war as a last resort? https://youtu.be/MsfUiTJv2lE?t=89
I support Wright's ultimate goal: To avoid a nuclear war. I just don't feel he's being honest about it. It is so slap-you-in-the-face obvious that Putin is nothing more than brutal mob boss. (A war dissenter was literally thrown out of hospital window last week)
I would prefer more honesty less mental gymnastics. Just say "As sickening as it is to let this deranged bully have his way, the risk of world ending nuclear war is too great"
I apologize for the tone of my above post, it was after midnight. My point is that if attribution bias exist, then it is clearly possible to err on the other side (attributing actions to situations when it ought to be attributed to character).
I don't know what else Putin would have to do to reveal his character. Last week's murder was not unique. His thugs routinely throw people out of windows. I can almost hear wright saying "actually the root word of defenestration is defense, and Putin feels he must come up with a defense against a malevolent and aggressive NATO"
Now I apologize for that tone. I should just stay offline.
We should be glad Putin is in control of Russia, it’s government and armed forces. He is familiar with the West and wants desperately to avoid a conflict that will make a return to peace and cooperation with the West impossible. Everyone who is in line to succeed him is far less knowledgeable about the West and the world in general. All are far more bellicose in their attitudes. Any regime change in Russia is more likely to feature a revanchist hardcore nationalist, not a Russian Jeffersonian democrat (as if those kinds of people exist in Russia)
Helpful as it always is to get primers on cognitive bias (no sarcasm meant here), I'm not sure how well it applies in this case.
Others have brought up similar pushback below; I wanted to put it in terms of the specific dynamic between Putin and the Kremlin narrative, with attention to his agency in shaping the overall narrative over decades:
Given Russia's "personalized" political system, Putin has been in a position of unrivaled power over Russian politics and discourse for decades (not complete power, but more significant than anything we can imagine any individual having in the US, for instance), including over how the Kremlin sets the discourse.
So if Putin had far more influence on Russian perceptions than any other individual in the country for twenty years, he could have led the country in many different directions--especially in terms of its mood and outlook toward other countries from the former Soviet Union. Instead, he has worked to create the conditions (and foster the narrative environment) for empowering its hawkish, pro-war nationalist faction. The fact that this faction may be pressuring him now at this moment in time doesn't contradict the idea that this faction's size & outlook & presence has itself already been significantly shaped by the Kremlin narrative over decades (a narrative which, again, Putin has had more agency to shape and direct than anyone else). Given the amount of power Putin has wielded for so long over the narrative, it makes less sense to make an argument for purely circumstances informing his decisions. It seems, actually, that Troianovski got the balance of "circumstance" and "disposition" right in his piece, given the circularity of pressure from the pro-war nationalists Putin helped empower.
This was a disappointing analysis as it simply reiterated most of Bob's previously expressed cognitive biases about Putin. Let me try to help. Putin was not subject to any political pressure to go to war with Ukraine. This has been a longtime personal obsession of Putin's not the result of external pressure. The media Bob quotes favoring stronger military action by Russia is not political pressure on Putin, it is just media that Putin orchestrates or from people trying to curry favor with him.. The only political pressure he gets is against the war. He creates the pro war posts. Bob forgets that Putin is an absolute dictator who has ruthlessly eliminated all opponents from power. He has far more complete power in Russia than Xi Jinping does in China. Russia has a much smaller population and there is political activism in only a few big cities. It has been crushed everywhere else. So Bob's focus on "political pressure" on Putin to intensify the Ukraine conflict is completely misplaced.
Thanks for commenting with a shining example of the bias Bob is talking about.
I think Bob may have been over zealous to call out bias there. I interpret the quote from Troianovski to imply “some” hawks or “those hawks who”, not all hawks. And which hawks is he referring to? Well he explains - those who have bought into blah blah blah.
Q: Describe your favorite dog? A: Dogs who like to cuddle. Not all dogs, I have qualified as only those who like to cuddle.
Q: Who will spur backlash on Putin? A:
“hawks who have bought into the Kremlin narrative that Russia is fighting ‘Nazis’ for its very survival.” Not all hawks, the hawks who have bought into the blah blah blah. Only those hawks will spur backlash.
Maybe I’m wrong, but if that’s what Troianovski meant then Bob may have taken a little ride there. An enjoyable read either way.
Good point. I've heard Bob talk in a number of podcasts about the war and this aspect - Putin using war to suppress internal dissent about his and his cronies corruption has been, to my recollection, conspicuous by its absence. Instead, Bob seems to accept Putin's reasons for going to war as his actual reasons.
Interesting read.
I’ve been expecting a more in-depth analysis from you on Ukraine’s recent advances (did I miss it?) especially since the ISW has been all over every article I’ve read on this. They’re beating you to the punch Bob
I've never done much play-by-play analysis of the war in the newsletter. I do most of that on the Friday podcast--either the public podcast or in the Parrot Room. I'm sure I'll have something to say this Friday.
Why does someone as smart as Robert Wright believe anything Putin and his cronies say is anything but a pretext for the world's leading gangster and richest man? Putin started this war to distract the Russian people from the results of his and his cronies stealing - what, 2 trillion dollars or so? - from them. And, yes, Western bankers, brokers, real estate moguls, art dealers, yacht makers, etc., took Putin and his cronies money without batting an eye. Robert Wright's incredulous belief that Putin can be taken at his word for starting the war in Ukraine means he is as much part of the "blob" as everyone else.
"Robert Wright's incredulous belief that Putin can be taken at his word"
I think you didn't read the article--if you had, you wouldn't have misrepresented it so severely. The article discusses mainly the cognitive bias (attribution error in this case) of the media (taking a recent NYT piece as an example). Nowhere is there a suggestion that Putin can/should be taken at his word.