❓ Could you have been described as naive in the 2000s?
💬 Vladimir Putin: Yes, there was some naivety <…> I had the naïve idea that the whole world, and above all, the so called “civilised” world realised what had happened to Russia, that it had become a different country, that there was no longer any ideological confrontation, which meant that there were no grounds for confrontation.
If there were any negative elements in the Western nations’ policies towards Russia (among other things, their support for separatism and terrorism in Russia was apparent, I saw it as director of the Federal Security Service), I gullibly believed that this was just inertia in thinking and action: they were used to fighting the Soviet Union and kept on doing it.
<…>
Meanwhile, the reality was (I got a 100 percent confirmation of this later) that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they thought that “we just need to be patient – and we will make Russia collapse, too.”
Such a big country by European standards, with the world’s largest territory and a fairly large population … “is generally redundant.” It would be better, as Brzezinski suggested, to split it into five parts and subjugate them separately, and to use their resources, but proceeding from the premise that all of them will lack weight on their own, they will not have their own voice or the ability to defend their national interests the way the Russian state is doing now.
It was only later that I realised that.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
