documentaries, latest, Putin Myth & Reality, Russia
Comments 25

WATCH: The President, a profile of Vladimir Putin from Russian TV

As a counterpoint to PBS’s recent “documentary” PUTIN’S REVENGE, in which complete lies are employed in a sub-intelligent attempt to present the Russian president as a pasteboard super-villain, we now offer you THE PRESIDENT, a two-hour Russian TV feature on the man’s life and work. We don’t suggest this is the objective truth; in fact, it’s unapologetically approving in tone and doesn’t even try to cover anything that might reflect negatively on its subject. But it is at least adult in tone and presentation, and it can do no harm to give it some space


25 Comments

  1. Johnny Hacket says

    As the intro points out you will not find any negative views on Putin being expressed here , somewhat in the style of a G Foreman grill advert, Do you mean to say that I can enjoy great steaks and save money ? That being said it is a very informative piece , liked how he actually listens to working Russians , this may well be staged but the fact that he thinks it important to be seen to serve the people puts him in a different universe from western leaders.




    0



    0
  2. For many years I had paid little attention to Putin and was thus mostly informed by western MSM and cases such as the Litvinenko murder by means of polonium poisoning. Between that and the crash of the plane carrying many dignitaries near Smolensk, which was subtly framed as a Russian assassination, ( if it was not simple pilot error I see it far more likely it was a black op designed to cause Polish hatred of Russia, a can of worms subject way underexplored in the English language), I had a dim regard for Putin.
    Yet any honest appraisal of the man has to recognise that he revived the corpse of the Soviet Union which was haemorrhageing all it’s considerable natural wealth through a few oligarchs into the coffers of western banks. If Putin was not Russian but had done the same thing in the US he would be hailed as the greatest President of all time. Even when you look at the much pilloried RT you do get a sense of the culture he has created, one that lets the truth be heard and let that truth do battle. You also see this mirrored in Lavrov when he speaks.
    I have little doubt Litvinenko was so horribly, gruesomely executed by the direct orders of Putin. However Litvinenko was a traitorous double agent and knew the risks. His creatively induced demise shows Putin will deal with traitors as he has to and without compromise as he must given the strength of his enemies. After all his enemies are people that would see his country a place of poverty, desperation and misery – such as we see in much of the US and austerity Britain today where such human hardships are on the opposite trajectory to that of Russia.
    I now view Putin as the greatest leader of my lifetime and wish with all my heart some ordinary individual from the working classes would emerge here in the UK too.




    0



    0
    • Not with any intention to disagree, but what evidence is there that convinces you Putin was responsible for Litvinenko’s death?




      0



      0
      • As we both know there is no definitive evidence that I have seen that can finger Putin as having ordered the hit. So you are right to pull me up and question my unequivocal statement. I have no evidence. However it is my best hunch given what I have seen published on the matter the most likely instigator of the hit was Putin. Please feel free to explain a more likely scenario.




        0



        0
        • It’s not about doubting your scenario or suggesting alternatives, it’s about trying to focus on facts rather than supposition or assumption. That’s our motto after all. The best way to discover the most likely scenario is to look at the evidence rather than follow hunches don’t you think?




          0



          0
          • Well the facts are he died of polonium poisoning, something that’s not easy to get a hold of. The radioactive trail led back to Moscow and was attributable to two FSB agents with personal associations to Putin and who recieved not just his personal protection but were hailed in state media as heroes, even becoming media stars. This event served Putins interests sending a clear message that traitors would be hunted and die horribly.
            Sometimes you will never have good evidence, and even good evidence can be manufactured. So sometimes, often actually, you have to interpret what there is as best you can. In my experience facts are so often tenuous interpretations and are held as fact through consensus and a lack of contrary facts.
            I admire Putin as a great statesman, the greatest of my lifetime no less. But he is without doubt capable of making decisions that kill people. He is no saint and that is a fact.




            0



            0
            • Your ethical choices are completely your own, and if they include admiring a man you also think guilty of vicious and vindictive murder, that’s entirely up to you. You don’t, however, source any of the facts you claim, and in an area of such contention, one person’s “fact” can be another person’s baseless propaganda. How well documented are these particular facts? Have you looked at alternative analyses?




              0



              0
              • Well these facts form the basis of the conclusions of the inquiry led by Sir Robert Owen. It’s basically the official story. If Putin did order it I would still admire him because of his commitment to his country and its people. He is not Ghandi. And no Ghandi would ever claim an 80% approval rating from the Russian people.
                That said your challenge to my assumptions has been most welcome and has put me in the position of revisiting the evidence.
                The most glaring evidence that has surfaced since I last gave this any more than a cursory glance is the evidence that shows Yasser Arafat was murdered also by polonium poisoning two years before Litvinenko. As only state players have access to polonium the question is which state is brazen enough to employ such a controversial substance for an assassination? As Arafat was poisoned first one nation had form before Litvinenko. And Litvinenko was poisoned 6 years before the exhumation and testing that revealed the poisoning of Arafat. So whoever poisoned Arafat may have thought it a safe bet to use clandestinely.
                I wonder what country would want Arafat dead?
                I need to ponder…………..




                0



                0
                • What facts do you think were established by the inquiry?

                  Just to save you time in future posts, no one at OffGuardian is claiming Putin is Gandhi. 🙂




                  0



                  0
                  • It was established that Litvinenko was murdered by means of polonium delivered orally. Erm, that’s it I think.
                    As Jen points out “probably” was the best that could be stated. However “probably” is not as vacuous a term in legalese or logic as some might wish it to be. The sun will probably rise tomorrow, however there is a slim chance another universe will collide with ours and scupper that probability. That the sun will rise is a strong “probably”. Some say Bitcoin will “probably” reach a $100k value next year, a weak “probably”. Probably is highly subjective and open to all kinds of bias yet is often the best we can have.
                    I have backpeddled, accepted your challenge and recognised it’s merit. So, do me a favour and tell me who do you think was responsible for the death of Litvinenko?




                    0



                    0
                    • I think in legal terms Owen was well out of line to be pronouncing on probability at all. Or indeed to be pronouncing on guilt or innocence, since this was an inquiry not a trial.

                      It’s not my function to offer opinions :-), and frankly I don’t know who murdered Litvinenko. I am just encouraging discussion by questioning assumptions.




                      0



                      0
                  • Thank you for challenging me. Revisiting the facts has been a lesson in how much I did not know about the Livinenko incident and about how much I still don’t know. That the trail of radiation is so heavy around the two main suspects and is inconsistent in timeline with their movements prior to meeting Livinenko should really exonerate them. I know you don’t like hunches, but this has a stink about it. Indeed it reeks. Of Mosad.




                    0



                    0
                • Also could everyone please spell Mohandas Gandhi’s name properly? Thank you.




                  0



                  0
            • @candideschmyles.
              “Well the facts are he died of polonium poisoning, something that’s not easy to get a hold of.”
              I don’t know if you are aware but several scientists have countered that by stating quite emphatically that Po is readily and easily available not just in the US but various countries across the globe. So is Anthrax, Botulism, Pu and many other BW/CW toxins. It’s usually a black market trade, which is what Litvinenko specialized in. It’s interesting to note that of the many ways Litvinenko could have been poisoned(if he didn’t accidentally poison himself in his contraband activities)was a poison that was associated with Russia previously. It’s rather like hanging a sign above the murder pointing to Russia saying “This way to the only clue you’ll need to solving the murder”
              If I wanted to poison someone, but didn’t want to cast the net of suspicion on innocent people I doubt that I would choose something which would point directly at them.
              On the other hand, if I wanted to poison someone and lay the blame at a specific suspect, then I WOULD use a poison I knew was most likely to incriminate them.
              Would Putin be:
              a) that nasty in giving the west the opportunity to denounce the Russian people and it’s government?
              b) that dim witted in his choice of poisons?
              c) that insecure he would deliberately point the finger at himself so as to gain kudos for audacity?
              Putin has proven his worth since coming in to office and I don’t think he is any of the above, not nasty, not dim witted and certainly not lacking in confidence in his own abilities or prowess as a President and diplomat.




              0



              0
              • I appreciate the points you make and if you read the rest of my comments I went on to question my own initial assumptions.
                I also state that Putin is the greatest statesman of my lifetime, and I’m a long way from young.
                That said I am not ever going to think him incapable of ordering a hit. He is the supreme pragmatist and I believe if a hit was the logical solution to a problem then he would choose it.




                0



                0
    • Deborah says

      I have read somewhere that Litvenko said it wasn’t Putin. His wife is saying it after his death. I’ll see if I have the link & post it here for you.




      0



      0
      • Litvinenko never actually said it was Putin in his own words. In fact he specifically named other people as potential suspects. However shortly before his death he signed a statement written by others which claimed Putin was behind his poisoning.




        0



        0
  3. CIA declassified documents prove the Americans had fingers in the Chechen wars with the aim to break Russia into 40 small controllable countries – they never counted on Putin !

    Just like Truman, Eisenhower, Churchill never counted on Stalin.




    0



    0

Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole