Russia’s conduct on the global stage has been a source of bewilderment for analysts, as highlighted by dueling letters signed by Western and Ukrainian Russia policy experts featured in POLITICO in August and September. These letters presented conflicting views on appropriate U.S. foreign policy approaches toward Russia. The crux of the debate revolves around divergent opinions regarding the nature of the Putin regime. While one group of experts advocates for cooperation with Russia despite its status as a rival, another contends that the Putin regime fundamentally opposes the West. This lack of consensus among seasoned Russia experts underscores the critical importance of determining the nature of the Putin regime, a crucial factor in shaping Western policymaking and guiding U.S. foreign policy decisions.

In her book, “Putin’s People: How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took on the West,” former British investigative journalist Catherine Belton offers a distinctive perspective on the nature of Putin’s regime. Belton traces the rise of what she terms a KGB elite, a faction that persisted even after the KGB’s formal dissolution following the collapse of the USSR. This elite, which includes Vladimir Putin, strategically aimed to seize control of the Russian state, executing a “KGB takeover of the [Russian] economy – and the country’s political and legal system.” The ultimate manifestation of this strategy is identified as the Putin regime.

Once in control of the state, the KGB elite allegedly sought to “undermine and corrupt the institutions and democracies in the West.” If Belton’s theory holds, it carries profound policy implications for both the broader Western community and the United States. According to Belton, the KGB elite, dominating the Russian state, operates within a mindset where the Cold War never truly ended, and the restoration of Russia’s geopolitical might takes precedence over cooperation with the West and liberal democracy. This perspective challenges the efficacy of relationship resets and suggests that the West may be confronting an implacable Russian regime determined to engage in confrontation.

Critically assessing Belton’s theory involves examining the logic underpinning the claim of a KGB elite conspiracy. Belton argues that the KGB elite’s strategy was facilitated by their access to financial resources during Soviet times, which they utilized for foreign intelligence operations. As the USSR faced challenges in the 1980s, the KGB elite reportedly engaged in efforts to amass and relocate financial resources outside the country, creating an “invisible economy” for the Communist Party’s wealth. Simultaneously, they navigated the transition from a planned to a more capitalist economy. However, questions arise about the logic of corruption within the Putin regime. Belton describes state corruption as a means to establish “parallel budgets” and enhance authoritarian control domestically while undermining institutions in the West. Yet, the economic outcomes of this strategy, such as Russia’s reliance on natural resources, suggest a less than stellar performance in achieving competitive economic strength.

Moreover, Belton’s theory hinges on the animating drive of the KGB elite. The argument that corruption serves the goal of restoring Russian geopolitical strength raises questions about whether self-enrichment is prioritized over the objective of undermining the West. If the primary goal is personal enrichment, the Putin regime may not be inherently driven to challenge the foundations of liberal democracy.

The evaluation of Belton’s theory also involves scrutiny of her sources, as she relies on anonymous sources and on-the-record accounts, notably from figures like Sergei Pugachev. Pugachev’s controversial background and his legal battles raise concerns about the reliability of his testimony. Belton’s reliance on him necessitates careful consideration of his claims and their potential impact on the overall credibility of her theory.

In conclusion, while “Putin’s People” provides a vivid portrayal of the individuals surrounding Putin and raises critical questions about the nature of the Putin regime, readers must approach Belton’s theory with a critical lens. The scarcity of evidence connecting state corruption to subversive operations against the West, coupled with the reliance on potentially biased sources, underscores the need for more robust evidence before reaching definitive conclusions. The book’s insights, though engaging, must be subject to thorough scrutiny as policymakers navigate the complex landscape of U.S. foreign policy toward Russia.