Finnish Intelligence Officer Explains the Russian Mindset (Long and scholarly)

Russia has always befuddled Western analysts, a fact best summed up by Winston Churchill who said the multicontinental colossus is “a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” More recently, “experts” wondered why Putin was pushing forces to Ukraine’s border, then why he launched such a massive attack, and now why on earth he’s reducing cities to rubble and pushing civilians into mass graves.

Studying Russian history and culture over the past few years has given me inklings into the “Russian mind” but I’ve only scratched the surface. Thankfully, Martti J. Kari has far more insight. Kari is a former Finnish intelligence colonel and currently teaches cybersecurity at the University of Jyväskylä. (Oh, how I love Finnish names.)

In today’s “I support the current thing” social-media hot-take factory, attempting to understand one’s adversaries is equated to sympathizing with them. They won’t learn much from Professor Kari because they’re unteachable. But if you know your military history, you can be assured that Finns are not sentimental about the Bear on their border. (Full disclosure: As a Finnish American, I share this skepticism.)

I ran across a lecture Kari gave in 2018 which is the best analysis I’ve found on Russia’s attitude toward geopolitics. Unfortunately, it is in Finnish, and the English version is performed by a text-to-talk robot, making it tough going. So I’ve gathered the best bits from his hour-long talk into a readable format. It is quite long but well worth the read.

As we wonder how best to end the nightmare in Ukraine and prevent Putin from moving further west, understanding his mindset is the first step. Please note that I have slightly edited the transcript for clarity and brevity. All content belongs to Kari and any translation errors belong to me and Google. (Visit his video links and give him several likes!) Take it away, Martti…

Russian strategic culture: Why Russia does things the way it does By Martti J. Kari, former intelligence Colonel in the Finnish Defence Forces

My background is that I have served in military intelligence for most of my career. I am an officer and an intelligence colonel who retired last fall. I started here in January at the university as a teacher. I teach intelligence. As I have spent most of my career in intelligence, Russia and the Soviet Union have always been my point of interest.

As a young lieutenant, I was sent to what was then Leningrad to study the Russian language. Even then I started to wonder why the Russians were doing things differently than we do? Why do they see the world differently than we see it? Since then, I have worked with the Russians and with the Soviets until my retirement. I’ve been to the Soviet Union and to Russia a lot during my career and have been in a lot of contact with them.

When I started writing my Ph.D. here at the university, I discovered the theory of strategic culture. That theory opened up how to rationalize and think about why Russians do things differently than we do. This strategic culture is a way (to analyze). It was created in the United States during the ’70s when the Americans lost the Vietnam War. They began to wonder how a superpower like the United States could lose to Vietnam, which Americans considered a very underdeveloped country. They realized that not everything is a plus and a minus, that is, a zero-sum game. There are other factors behind it that affect the people and how the people operate together.

The Americans developed a theory of strategic culture capable of explaining a country. In this case, how does Russian leadership see a crisis? How does it see the use of force in a crisis? How does it see the role of a crisis and the use of force in foreign policy? How does it see the enemy? How does it see a threat? And then how does it envision the possible strategic options by which it might respond to a threat? This theory of strategic culture explains it.

The theory of strategic culture is based on trying to outline what factors influence the decision-making of the state leadership. It then looks at how things are reflected in government decision-making and how they are reflected in practical action. This is a pretty good way to explain the actions of a state, in this case, Russia. On why Russia has acted as it has. This will help us understand.

When I say understand, I do not mean that we have to approve of what Russia is doing. But it helps us understand why Russia does things differently. It may even give us the instruments to predict what may happen next. Churchill said that “Russia is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma.” It is true. This is well said. Let us now set out to dispel this riddle through the theory of strategic culture.

Before we start with that, we must remember that we do not have one Russia. We kind of have many layers of Russia. Different historical layers still influence the thinking of the Russians about how the Russians work today. If we start from that very first movement, that is, Slavic Russia. Language and entity and Russianness were born there. Also the belief that all Slavic people, as it were, are one was created there. And the Russian people, the largest of the Slavic peoples, have the duty of keeping them all in check and protecting them.

When we go further in history. With the fall of Constantinople, the traditions of Eastern Rome were transferred to Moscow. Moscow uses the term “Third and Eternal Rome” for itself. The Russians are, as it were, followers of the Eastern Roman tradition. Religion, conservatism, and the relationship to authority came from there. It means that one does not challenge authority. Authority is obtained from God. He who leads us has received authority from God to lead us. He is infallible. Authority will not be challenged under any circumstances. This idea comes from Byzantine Russia.

The third era that influenced Russian thought in a great manner is Mongol Russia. In the 1200s, the Mongols conquered Russia. They held Russia for years. That time was cruel. There are a lot of words in Russian, related to torture, taxation, and corruption that come from the Mongol language. Dominance under personal authority was rooted in the administrative culture of the Mongols. That is, there is only one khan that leads. It is he who leads, no one else. Others are passive followers. That one guy leads and takes responsibility and the initiative. When the belief of divine legitimacy to lead is attached to this, the leader will appear fairly tough in their worldview.

The corruption and cruelty also come from the Mongol era. During Mongol rule, the only ways to survive were lying, corruption, and violence. This still lives very deep in Russia’s strategic culture. When Mongol rule ended, the Mongols did not just pack their bags and disappear from Russia. Instead, they mixed with the locals. So the traditions also stayed with the people. In particular, to the leading caste. The Mongols who had previously ruled the country merged into the ruling layers, which is still visible today. When looking at genetic inheritance, they are pretty dark; dark eyes, for example. There are not many blondes in Russia.

Then came this era of turmoil. Although it was a short period of time, it had great importance to the Russians. Because then both external and internal enemies roared. The Poles who conquered Moscow and Russia did not have a strong leader. Romanov was then elected Tsar and the Russians realized that a strong leader was better than chaos.

In addition to all this, the authority comes from God and the autocrat is indeed a leader. It was stated there that only sovereignty will save Russia. It has been several hundred years in their genetic inheritance that autocracy is the only right solution. That is, autocracy is better than chaos and mayhem.

Then we came to European Russia. Peter the Great founded the city of St. Petersburg in the early 18th century on the Finnish swamp of the Neva estuary. After that, the Russians began to clash whether they were in the West or in the East. The Westernizers (Západniki) favored the West and the Slavophiles favored the East. This struggle is still going on.

Russia began to rise into a great power. As Russia modernized, they also started to mystify themselves. That is, Russia itself began to mystify itself through authors for example. They kind of built a smokescreen between us and them, consciously mystifying Russia.

Then came the great power of the Soviet Union and the Cold War. The power politics and the sphere of influence of Russia come from the Cold War era. World War II taught them that it is better to fight not in their own territory but on the territories of others. The Soviet Union lost more than 27 million people during World War II.

Authoritarian rule has followed Russian rule since the Mongol era. It hasn’t changed since then. The name of the leader has changed but authoritarian rule itself has always remained the same. Russia sees itself as the heir to the Soviet Union, as it is in some respects.

There are 11 time zones in Russia. These huge distances also affect Russia. From the Polish border to Moscow, through to the Urals, is a plateau that is easy to attack with both horses and tanks. That is what has been done. Napoleon attacked, the Germans attacked, and so on. That idea is also in the genetic inheritance of the Russians, that someone is always attacking. “We will be conquered.” They have no shelter, no mountains, no rivers. There are no lakes between the east and the capital. Geographically, Russia has always been easy to conquer, which also influences their thinking.

Belief in Russianness is important. Russianness consists of three things: it is orthodoxy, autocracy, and narodnost. There is no Finnish translation for narodnost, but it means the people or things related to the ordinary people. Let’s open that point more.

But first, the autocracy. They have always been an autocracy since Mongolian times. Either it has been a Khan, or it has been a Tsar. Or it has been a communist party usually personified by Stalin or Khrushchev or someone. Or now, by the president. Russia has a strong autocracy. They also want autocracy because they are used to it. A good leader keeps confusion away. They think this way and are used to it.

Conservatives have held power in Russia for years. There were a few radical reformers. Peter the Great, his reforms were mostly successful. The reforms of these other gentlemen were mostly not successful. Someone can, of course, consider Lenin’s accomplishments as a success, or Gorbachev’s. But the Russians themselves see that Gorbachev disintegrated the Soviet Union. Nor was Yeltsin a super reformer. In other words, the Conservatives have always held power.

The Russians believe in a just Tsar. Once the Tsar has taken authority from God, he cannot make mistakes. The Tsar is infallible. He has princes who gradually become infallible near the Tsar. Some prince becomes a Tsar in due course. The infallible Tsar who is always right. The mistakes are happening here with the boyars.

Between the people and the infallible Tsar, there are boyars. Boyars, which at different times are from a slightly different social class. Boyars as an institution were born as early as the 10th century. Their position in the hierarchy came after the princes. We have a Tsar who is infallible, princes who grow into a tsar, and some of whom become infallible when they become Tsars.

Then there are the people. In between the prince and the people are the boyars, who usually make the right decisions for the wise Tsar, but sometimes they are wrong. If an error occurs somewhere, it is the boyars who have made that error. The Tsar, the President, or the Secretary-General of the Central Committee is always infallible. The fault is found in the boyars.

After a period of turmoil, the boyars completely lost their power over the Tsar and their property as well. That was during an era of turmoil, and ownership changed. Previously, boyars had ownership, but it turned into tenure. That is, the Tsar took everything away and gave tenure to boyars. “You get to control this state, or you get to control these slaves. You get to control this merchant ship,” and so on. But tenure can be taken away if you misbehave. If the Tsar is not satisfied, the possession will be taken away from you. That is, ownership became tenure.

During the Soviet era, tenure continued instead of ownership. That is, in the Soviet Union when you reached a certain position of power, you had tenure. You got to visit a dacha and Yalta and you had a servant who was looking out for you. However, you did not own these, but you had possession, a tenure of these.

Another point is that, when you reach a certain position, you are entitled to a certain amount of corruption. That is, a certain degree of power gives you the right to a certain degree of corruption, too. At a lower rank, you didn’t get to steal that much. The higher you get, the more you get to steal.

It had rules and those rules had to be followed. They weren’t written rules, of course, but everyone knew these rules of the game. This same system is currently in Russia. The nomenklatura tells who is on what scale compared to everyone else and how much corruption he is allowed to take. These business oligarchs also belong to this group.

The rules are as follows: you must not steal from the wrong guy, and you’re not allowed to steal more than your position allows you to.

Last summer, Putin was on live television and took some of the boyars with him. These were the governors of different regions in Russia. A man called Putin and said, for example, “In our area, this road network is in poor condition.” Putin turned to the governor of the area and asked, “why are the roads are in poor condition? Fix them.” The governor replied, “Yes, Mr. President.” The caller said, “Thank you, Mr. President, for taking care of this.” So, the boyar procedure still works, even on live television.

If you reach a certain position, then you will get a certain share of corruption. Neither too much nor from the wrong guy. One person who stole too much is Mikhail Khodorkovsky. After spending years in prison, he now lives in Switzerland. Alexey Ulyukayev stole from the wrong person, Igor Sechin, who is close to Putin and probably the second most influential person in Russia. Ulyukayev spent years in prison. If you follow the rules, everything will go well; if you don’t follow the rules, you suffer. This is how it works.

Then there is religion. Religion is important because it unites people together. At Putin’s inauguration, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia stood in the most prominent position. Kirill also belongs to the boyars and his job is to foster faith in people. His message is, “Even though it goes a little bad now, when we get to heaven, it will go really well there.” That is his job in the system.

After being a member of the Communist Party and a KGB officer, Putin is now considered the number one believer. How situations change.

Here’s one story about Kirill. He was photographed with a very expensive watch on his wrist. When this became public, the Russians tried to cover it up by editing the image but forgot to edit the clock reflection off the table surface. In this way, the boyars are sometimes caught.

Then there is the third component, namely the people, narodnost. After the French Revolution, there was a lot of talk about the people, what kind of role people in the community have, and so on. In Russia, they defined a unique version of the people.

The Tsar knew better than the people themselves what was good for the people. The Tsar is infallible. When a leader has received power from God, he knows best what’s good for the people. During the Soviet era, this continued in the same way. The roofs of apartment buildings had signs saying “the party and the people are one,” although they were certainly not the same. This is still evident in Russia.

The Russians have the ability to expect and endure a tremendous amount of suffering. This is an amazing trait for them. They are able to anticipate and endure suffering. They have made suffering a virtue. When you suffer on behalf of the Soviet Union or Russia, things turn out really nice when all that is over; when you die or when you reach communism. “There are no refrigerators and no real food, but when we get to communism then there will be everything.”

Lots of us on here have been preaching this.

They are cruel, barbarous people. It stems from, like the man said, the Mongols.

And if anyone thinks the Ukrainians are different..they are mistaken. They were ruled in the Crimea area, for years after the Tartars were kicked out of Russia proper, by the Khans.

Very great article you posted!

When the last domino, Ukraine, falls, the 32 nation military behemoth, NATO, will be on Russia’s border, 300 miles from Moscow. This offensive machine, by far, is the most destructive the world has ever seen. It is composed of ex Warsaw Pact member states who were living through Russia’s brutal 70 reign of terror as recently as 30 years ago. The kingpin of this alliance openly brags that regime change is paramount in this virulently anti Russian super super alliance. If you take a minute and reflect you will understand the 2022 Russian mindset. And Putin noticed! OMG, the nerve of that guy.

A simpler and much shorter explanation is that Russia has always had an inferiority complex relative to the west.

Putin saw the pathetic and shameful retreat from Afghanistan, showing that we had no fight in us, a decaying western culture that’s getting more rotten by the day, and a Europe that foolishly made itself totally dependent on Russian energy... Can anyone ask blame him for striking while the iron is hot?

Add to that his belief that what he was facing with Ukraine and NATO was his equivalent of our Cuban missile crisis plus his belief that he had a mighty army that could overrun the Ukrainian in days - and voila you have a war.

He was right in everything except the last part - his military proved to be a joke.

This is not going to help his inferiority complex.

Thanks and key for me also was Mongols. Their influence on the Russian mentality. Look at Brezhnev and you see Mongol in him. Same Mongol look for Putin’s defense minister Sergei Shoigu who was born in the far east of Russia.. I have read that Sergei Shoigu is pushing Putin to turn Eastward and align with CCP.

Where was Sergei Shoigu?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/where-was-sergei-shoigu-russia-e2-80-99s-missing-defense-minister-resurfaces/ar-AAVx0MG?ocid=uxbndlbing

MULTI-CULTI-POOTY in his sentimental Tsarist preaching mode>>>>
Putin: ‘At such moments, I am a Lak, Dagestani, Chechen, Ingush, Russian, Tatar, Jew, Mordvin, Ossetian...’
10:39, 04.03.2022
https://m.realnoevremya.com/articles/6228-putin-at-such-moments-i-am-a-lak-dagestani-chechen-ingush

The thing is, mix this with the Mongol mentality and then add Muslim..

I think anyone would get the picture.

Fact is, I doubt many here would know who the very first Tsar of Russia was and that he was the nastiest.

I suppose when you grow up hating everything around a person tends to hate everyone around.

Like I said..the Ukrainians are no different even if they pretend to be different. It has only been since the fall of the Soviet system that the whole region has kind of gone towards a civilized society. This fight ends that.

Let em kill each other off. Contain it and once it is all over they’ll have got it out of their system for a few years.

“At NATO’s borders since 1999”!?!

Yeah right, as NATO hegemony has been moving east up to the Russian border since 1991. Remember NATO and DC’s promise of “not one inch east” of the East German border. Man, you have to make up a little more sellable BS than that reply. You have to remember, what Biden sells his hinterland stooges doesn’t work on people with functioning brains. “At NATO’s border”, what a globalist useful idiot. Keep the comedy coming, you’ve found something you’re good at.

headspunned Yeah right, as NATO hegemony has been moving east up to the Russian border since 1991.

NATO is an alliance of countries, so not a hegemony.

Furthermore, why did Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Czech republic etc. join NATO?

Because Russia was and is (under Putin) a threat.

If Russia was not a threat, then NATO would not have people clamoring to be members

headspunned Remember NATO and DC’s promise of “not one inch east” of the East German border. --> Why do you keep repeating this lie?

>headspunned Remember NATO and DC’s promise of “not one inch east” of the East German border. --> Why do you keep repeating this lie?

Russia was not told nor promised anything of the sort.
- the USSR was discussing with the USA, France and the UK about allowing the Germanies to reunite. Note: the USSR, not Russia
- the USSR was told not NATO troops in Eastern Germany.
- at that point in 1989, the Soviet bloc was still around and there was every indication it would last a long time more, do NATO moving into those areas was not dreamed of by either side nor discussed.
- so no promise was made to “Russia” about Poland, the Baltic etc joining NATO as it was not even a dream at that point
- Gorbachev himself said that mo such promise was made

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2014/11/06/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/

Gorbachev and the documents show ZERO promise not to enlarge

Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.