PDF Summary:The Man Without a Face, by Masha Gessen

The chaotic aftermath of the Soviet Union's collapse left many Russians disillusioned and yearning for an iron-fisted leader to restore stability. In The Man Without a Face, Masha Gessen chronicles Vladimir Putin's meteoric rise from an obscure intelligence officer to the presidency and his subsequent consolidation of power.

This telling explores Putin's transition from an unassuming successor to an increasingly autocratic ruler. As democratic reforms stalled and public discontent grew, Putin systematically dismantled checks on presidential authority, suffocating opposition through force, legal manipulation, and a pervasive culture of corruption within his inner circle.

(continued)...

Gessen contrasts Putin's systematic approach to leadership with the tumultuous but progressive administration that characterized Yeltsin's era. While she acknowledges the era's shortcomings, marked by financial instability, corruption, and erratic leadership, she emphasizes the considerable progress made in establishing democratic institutions, fostering a free press, and cultivating a market-based economy. Putin's systematic dismantling of these structures, according to Gessen, signaled a dangerous regression to a governance style characterized by authoritarian control and highlighted his quest for absolute power.

Putin consolidated his control by diminishing the influence of regional governance structures and democratic mechanisms.

The author provides a comprehensive analysis of Putin's methodical approach to centralizing his power. She elucidates how he utilized legal maneuvers, such as the controversial measures taken after Beslan under the guise of combating terrorism, to diminish the power of regional governors and consolidate control within the Russian presidential administration.

Gessen details Putin's use of authority and influence to suppress dissent within local governments, documenting cases where those who challenged the supremacy of the federal authorities encountered threats or were removed from office. Putin solidified his dominance in the political arena by reducing the influence of regional authorities and suppressing those who showed opposition to his authority.

Putin’s allies gained control over key industries and resources, creating a system of crony capitalism

Gessen delves into the methods by which Putin exerts control over the country's economic terrain. He tactically allocated lucrative deals to his allies, solidifying their influential roles in key industries and thus overseeing the shift from public to private ownership of state assets. Economic power became a tool to consolidate political dominance, fostering a crony capitalist system. Yuganskneftegaz, the main subsidiary of Yukos Oil Company, was initially in the possession of Khodorkovsky before it transitioned to a little-known company and ultimately became part of the state-run Rosneft, illustrating this tactic. Gessen suggests that this incident, universally regarded as an unequivocal example of government-endorsed theft, signified a pivotal moment where Putin showed his willingness to eradicate any traces of an independent and genuinely capitalist economy.

Gessen draws parallels between this method and the somewhat disorganized yet ultimately clearer privatization initiatives that emerged at the beginning of the 1990s. The writer argues that the shift in focus for Putin's administration was from accumulating personal riches to securing political dominance, thus creating a system where financial clout reinforces and perpetuates authoritarian rule.

People in Putin's inner circle have amassed significant power and riches.

Gessen provides a detailed account of Putin's ascent to power. The story delves into how individuals in the protagonist's inner circle amassed immense wealth while the country grappled with pervasive poverty and stark economic inequalities.

Putin's inner circle, frequently known as his "entourage," amassed considerable personal fortunes by overseeing the privatization process and obtaining government contracts.

Gessen depicts Putin's confidants, comprising childhood friends, steadfast allies from his days in St. Petersburg, and former KGB operatives, as individuals who have leveraged their positions to amass significant fortunes. The structure of the system ensured that individuals who showed unwavering loyalty to Putin were rewarded with substantial wealth. Gessen details the dubious methods used to direct substantial amounts of money toward individuals devoted to the Russian head of state, highlighting the opaqueness of these monetary transactions and the deliberate efforts by government authorities to conceal the source and beneficiaries of the embezzled funds.

Gessen emphasizes the inherent deceitfulness that characterizes the leadership of Putin. While championing changes to reduce corruption and improve the welfare of Russian citizens, he and his associates consistently sought personal gain, accumulating wealth even as the country faced difficulties. Gessen suggests that the widening disparity between Putin's promises and his actions increased public doubt and exposed the emptiness of his commitments.

Putin's ascent ultimately led to the consolidation of economic and political authority, either by assimilating key oligarchs into his regime or by reducing their sway.

Gessen describes how Putin skillfully brought the influential tycoons, who rose to prominence under Yeltsin's regime, under his sway or outright control. Businesspeople aligning their ventures with governmental policies and merging their company goals with the country's priorities frequently encountered opportunities for wealth and protection from prosecution. Critics of the government, including Gusinsky and Berezovsky, were targeted with tax probes, fabricated legal charges, and planned media attacks that damaged their standing, forcing them to either leave the nation or risk imprisonment.

Putin's rise to power in Russia involved systematically eliminating significant opposition and consolidating economic authority within a close circle of allies, thereby transforming the fundamental aspects of capitalism in the country. The previously fragmented and chaotic system, where wealth was dispersed among competing oligarchs, evolved into a meticulously orchestrated structure that directed economic power to bolster the existing political order and to enhance the wealth of those firmly in alliance with the Russian government.

The affluence and power of individuals in Putin's inner circle grew significantly, solidifying the already deep-rooted culture of corruption and autocratic governance.

Masha Gessen provides a thorough examination of the immense wealth accumulated by individuals closely associated with Putin. She describes the vast fortunes amassed through opaque business deals, government contracts, and the blatant exploitation of resources. The transfer of $203 million by Roman Abramovich to a Putin-supervised entity, where only a small portion was allocated for medical supplies procurement, illustrates the state-sanctioned plunder.

Gessen suggests that the accumulation of wealth, which exceeded the opulence of the Yeltsin era, led to the decline of authentic governance and the emergence of an authoritarian state focused on security. As wealth accumulated within Putin's inner circle, their sway over government and judicial bodies grew, further eroding any remaining checks on his power. Gessen suggests that the amalgamation of economic influence and state authority has created a system that appears to be invulnerable to corruption.

As the regime prioritizing security ascended, there simultaneously occurred a diminishing respect for legal norms.

The analysis explores how Putin cultivated an environment of fear and obedience, leveraging security forces to suppress dissent, dominate the legal system, and pursue his opponents.

Putin utilized the Federal Security Service, alongside various other security forces, to suppress dissent and mute voices of opposition.

Gessen describes how Putin, building on his KGB experience, transformed the FSB into a powerful tool of repression. The organization's activities were not limited to just observing and quelling political adversaries; it aimed to broaden its sway across the media, commercial realms, and cultural events. The assassination of Alexander Litvinenko, who had earlier revealed confidential details about the FSB and accused Putin of masterminding the 1999 apartment bombings, underscores the lengths to which the FSB will go. Gessen argues that the use of polonium-210, traced back to Russia, demonstrated the leadership's willingness to silence critics and simultaneously sow a tangible fear among individuals contemplating resistance to the government.

Gessen emphasizes the oppressive tactics employed by the Federal Security Service under Putin, drawing parallels to the Soviet KGB's techniques. The writer argues that Russia has transformed into a country where widespread surveillance of social activities and swift retribution for dissent are the norm, as a result of a powerful and uncontrolled security apparatus.

The judiciary's independence diminished, no longer offering a counterbalance to executive authority.

Gessen chronicles the steady decline of judicial autonomy and how the courts have become tools for political dominance. The courts, often appointed or promoted for their loyalty to the Kremlin, consistently rendered verdicts that benefitted allies of Putin or served to quell opposition. Khodorkovsky's ordeal, marked by a clear contempt for judicial processes and fabricated charges, culminated in a sentence of fourteen years, showcasing how the legal system can be manipulated to crush political opposition.

Gessen emphasizes the severe consequences this degradation has had on the foundational principles of legal governance. She argues that the absence of an independent judiciary eliminated a crucial balance to the executive branch's authority, resulting in a setting devoid of accountability. Individuals connected to the Kremlin often escaped legal consequences, while critics and opponents faced unfounded imprisonment and charges.

Putin's regime was marked by the discriminatory application of laws and the persecution of dissenters.

The regime under Putin is depicted as one that selectively enforces laws and openly suppresses opposition. She narrates the ordeals faced by journalists, activists, and business figures who endured intimidation, harassment, and imprisonment for their boldness in challenging the authority of the Russian state. The government's severe response and wrongful incarceration of dissenters, exemplified by the case of an individual who actively opposed corruption and exposed the state's fiscal improprieties, highlights its intolerance for dissent.

Gessen posits that the deliberate persecution of detractors instilled a widespread reluctance to voice opposition. The fear of repercussions extended beyond political figures and included journalists, scholars, artists, and ordinary people who had the courage to question the authorities' decisions.

Other Perspectives

• Centralization of power can be seen as a response to the instability and chaos of the 1990s, aiming to restore order and governance efficiency.
• The dismantling of democratic structures could be argued as an effort to streamline decision-making processes in the face of bureaucratic paralysis.
• The consolidation of control over regions might be defended as a means to unify the country and standardize policies across diverse territories.
• The rise of crony capitalism can be contextualized as a common transitional issue faced by many post-communist societies moving towards market economies.
• The accumulation of wealth by Putin's inner circle could be seen as a byproduct of the privatization process, which often leads to the concentration of wealth in transitional economies.
• The assimilation of oligarchs into the regime might be justified as a pragmatic approach to stabilize the economy and reduce the political influence of business elites over state affairs.
• The prioritization of security could be argued as necessary for national integrity and the protection of citizens in a geopolitical context perceived as hostile.
• The use of security forces to suppress dissent may be defended as a measure to protect national interests and prevent foreign interference.
• The diminished independence of the judiciary might be seen as an unfortunate but temporary setback in the broader context of strengthening state institutions.
• The discriminatory application of laws could be argued as being targeted at individuals who pose a genuine threat to national security or public order.

Russia experienced significant political upheaval following the disintegration of the Soviet Union in the 1990s.

The story begins by painting a picture of the tumultuous 1990s, highlighting the factors that contributed to a collective sense of disillusionment with the post-collapse transformations, paving the way for the rise of a dictatorial ruler.

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a period characterized by chaos and uncertainty emerged.

This part delves into the sequence of occurrences that transpired after the Soviet Union collapsed.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union ushered in an era marked by considerable political and economic instability in Russia.

The narrative of the turmoil that engulfed Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union is provided by Masha Gessen. The disintegration of the powerful empire resulted in an instant power vacuum, characterized by the disintegration of the established Soviet system and the difficult birth of a new political terrain. The sudden shift, along with economic turmoil and societal disruption, left numerous individuals in Russia feeling lost, deceived, and unsure of what lay ahead.

Gessen underscores the magnitude and rapidity of this downfall, contending that it set free forces that overwhelmed the nascent Russian administration's capacity to control them. Gessen implies that the ensuing chaos provided an ideal environment for the rise of authoritarian figures who pledged to reestablish stability and governance.

The stability of the Russian Federation was compromised by regional and ethnic conflicts, particularly the turmoil in Chechnya.

Gessen depicts the intensification of political turmoil that followed the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a situation worsened by local and ethnic conflicts, creating an environment filled with apprehension and suspicion within the emerging Russian Federation. The tumultuous period was encapsulated by the Chechen struggle, marked by fierce fighting and substantial violations of human rights. Gessen suggested that Putin used these conflicts to craft an image of determination and steadfastness, committing to vanquish the Chechen rebels and maintain the integrity of Russia's territory.

Gessen emphasizes how Putin and his associates exploited societal fears regarding ethnic strife and national defense to strengthen their hold on power and justify oppressive actions.

The privatization process was chaotic, leading to the rise of powerful magnates who forged significant ties to figures within the Russian government.

Gessen chronicles the often unprincipled shift toward privatization that unfolded throughout the 1990s. She argues that the progression towards a market economy faced obstacles, leading to the emergence of a wealthy elite who amassed substantial wealth through insider dealings and strong connections with those in power. These oligarchs, she explains, used their ill-gotten gains to influence government policies, further eroding public trust and fueling a perception of widespread corruption and inequality.

Gessen notes that the effort to diminish the Soviet state's control over the economy inadvertently led to the emergence of a different power hierarchy. Former Komsomol participants utilized their economic clout to transform the legal framework, thereby gaining dominance over key industries.

The struggle for power led to the emergence of a tight circle often referred to as associates of Yeltsin.

In this section, Gessen highlights Yeltsin's contributions. Gessen details how his declining health and leadership style contributed to the chaotic period of the 1990s, setting the stage for the rise of individuals closely connected to him.

The erratic leadership and declining health of Boris Yeltsin intensified the chaos in both the political and economic spheres throughout the 1990s.

Gessen depicts Yeltsin as a leader with a magnetic charm, crucial in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but lacking the necessary skills to create a stable and functioning democracy in its wake. His governance was characterized by erratic choices, constant reorganization of his team, and a pattern of oscillating between direct involvement in management and periods of detachment, which intensified the already unstable political climate and contributed to a pervasive feeling of unpredictability. The deteriorating health of Yeltsin and the ensuing instability led to a lack of leadership within the government's highest ranks.

Gessen suggests that Yeltsin truly aspired to create a free and democratic Russia, but his leadership style, shaped by his extensive experience within the Soviet framework, was not appropriate for the nascent democratic needs. The decline in his health and unpredictable conduct allowed those closest to him to consolidate their control and form a government that functioned independently of democratic principles.

The tight circle of counselors, commonly dubbed the "Family," cemented their power and began to wield authority after Yeltsin's tenure came to an end.

Gessen documents the rise of a small but powerful group of advisors, referred to as the "Family," and their significant impact on the final phase of Yeltsin's time in office. The governance of the nation was progressively taken over by a group close to Yeltsin, comprising his daughter Tatyana, his principal advisors, and a select group of oligarchs, including Berezovsky. As his health deteriorated and his popularity with the populace diminished, their primary concern was to preserve their own positions and protect themselves against any legal repercussions that might be brought by subsequent authorities.

Gessen argues that while the "Family" seemed to support democratic principles, they actually operated in a manner reminiscent of a clandestine circle of influence reminiscent of times during Soviet rule, protecting their personal interests and manipulating state apparatus for their benefit. The quest to identify a successor, she contends, was less about locating a competent leader and more about a frantic effort to ensure a successor who would preserve their power and protect them from legal consequences.

The "Family" ultimately chose Vladimir Putin, a figure not well-known at the time, to succeed Yeltsin, believing he would be amenable to their influence.

The writer describes the circumstances under which the "Family" chose Vladimir Putin to follow Yeltsin. Recognizing the increasing disillusionment of the public with Yeltsin and the potential for political fallout, they sought an individual who would protect their interests and represent the dawn of a new leadership epoch. Putin's background in the KGB seemed to perfectly suit him for the role. Gessen exposes how the "Family" chose Putin due to a string of gross miscalculations, significantly misjudging his drive, his relentless effectiveness, and his skill in wielding power to serve his personal objectives.

Gessen depicts the "Family" choosing Putin in a way that mirrors historical instances where the elite aimed to control the succession of power, yet their chosen successor eventually turned against them. She argues that their belief in their ability to sway Putin originated from a dangerous combination of self-delusion and a deep-seated contempt for democratic values.

Public sentiment became increasingly disenchanted during the transition from Soviet governance.

The examination of the analysis segment reveals how the tumultuous era of the 1990s sowed the seeds for the ascent of Vladimir Putin to a position of power.

In the chaotic 1990s, marked by economic instability and social upheaval, there was a growing nostalgia for the stability once provided by the Soviet era.

Gessen posits that the swift transformation of societal and economic frameworks after the Soviet Union's collapse engendered a yearning for the reestablishment of stability, the reconstruction of order, and the revival of familiar systems from the past. The hope for a more democratic society was eclipsed when rampant inflation, extensive joblessness, and the collapse of social protections plunged many in Russia into a state of impoverishment, destroying their hopeful outlook. Many individuals, grappling with a loss of national pride and a growing sense of disillusionment, were drawn to the idea of returning to the era of Soviet stability and order.

Gessen emphasizes that the prevailing feeling of nostalgia was not so much a yearning for Communist ideology but rather a wish for the perceived stability and certainty of a bygone era. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent challenges and instability of the 1990s led to a longing for a strong leader capable of restoring Russia's standing on the world stage and reviving its sense of national pride.

The stagnation of democratic reforms that failed to improve the everyday lives of Russian citizens fueled significant discontent with the ruling elite.

Gessen portrayed the growing disenchantment among Russians with their political leaders and their yearning for a more authoritarian figure, a feeling that emerged as democratic reforms failed to substantially improve their lives. Widespread indignation escalated with the perception that a pervasive state of corruption existed, an affluent minority thrived amidst widespread hardship, and the authorities were unsuccessful in guaranteeing basic necessities like sustenance, shelter, and healthcare. In this climate of political powerlessness, an individual emerged who vowed to tear down the existing system and restore order.

Gessen suggests that although Yeltsin's era had its flaws, which originated from genuine attempts to rejuvenate a static system, these measures inadvertently established the foundation for Putin's rise to power. The neglect of the political elite toward corruption and inequality, combined with their inability to satisfy the essential needs of the populace, unintentionally laid the groundwork for their own decline and the slow erosion of the democratic principles they sought to maintain.

The pervasive unrest and discontent paved the way for Putin to rise to power, ultimately leading to the erosion of democratic values.

The author establishes a clear connection between the tumultuous period of the 1990s and Putin's rise to power, indicating that the time's disillusionment, instability, and desire for stability set the stage for the rise of an authoritarian leader. In a time of significant transformation, the nation took solace in the emergence of a leader whose background in the intelligence services, coupled with a conscious projection of strength and decisiveness, and promises to bring back stability and national pride, resonated with the citizens' yearning for guidance.

Gessen warns that it is not appropriate to view Putin's rise to power as an event that was inevitable. She argues that if alternative decisions had been taken during the 1990s, Russia could have developed into a country characterized by enhanced stability and more substantial democratic institutions. The rise of authoritarian rule and the erosion of hard-won freedoms can be traced back to the deficiencies linked to Yeltsin's tenure, the clear vulnerability of democratic institutions, and the calculated manipulation of apprehension and resentment by those seeking power.

Other Perspectives

• The political and economic instability post-Soviet Union could be seen as a necessary period of transition that many countries experience after significant regime changes, and not solely as a negative consequence.
• The conflicts in regions like Chechnya could be interpreted as struggles for self-determination and resistance against central Russian control, rather than merely sources of instability.
• The privatization process, while chaotic, could also be viewed as a step towards a market economy and away from the centralized planning of the Soviet era, which some argue was unsustainable.
• Boris Yeltsin's leadership style might be seen as a reflection of the tumultuous times and the absence of a clear roadmap for transitioning from a totalitarian regime to a democracy.
• The influence of Yeltsin's "Family" could be argued as a common feature in transitional governments where old networks of power persist and play a role in shaping new governance structures.
• The selection of Vladimir Putin by the "Family" might be seen as a strategic move to ensure continuity of governance and stability, rather than a mere protection of their interests.
• Public nostalgia for the Soviet era could be interpreted as a complex sentiment that includes not only a desire for stability but also a sense of lost communal values and social security.
• The discontent with democratic reforms might be viewed as a critique of the specific implementation of these reforms, rather than a rejection of democratic principles altogether.
• Putin's rise to power can be seen as part of a broader trend of strongman leaders emerging in times of national crisis, which some argue is a response to the demand for decisive leadership.