Book Review: Baker, P. & Glasser, S., (2005), Kremlin Rising, Scribner

This book was published in 2005, around 20 years ago. At the time of its publication, Vladimir Putin had been President of Russia for five years. Now, in 2025, I am rereading this book to try to detect any signs of Putin’s “true character”. The present book review is thus much shorter than most of the other reviews that I have published. The focus herein is on Mr. Putin, and what I may have observed as I pick this up again after so many years and not on providing a full review of this book.

This way of examining books, namely rereading older books with a current context and lens, may perhaps provide the readers of these reviews with clues about what the future could bring. When we read something in the present, are there weak signals in the works that can guide or alert us in future times? Should we be reading whilst looking for clues for the future? Is this another type of investigation or journey, or even “smart reading”, and can the exercise be useful to business leaders? Busy executives may perhaps be able to draw references about likely future developments by reading book reviews such as these. As such, the present book review may serve as an example regarding what might be anticipated in the future.

This approach to reading—especially rereading—with an eye toward uncovering patterns, metaphors, and overlooked signals, aligns with the growing need for anticipatory thinking in today’s volatile world. By engaging with texts not just for their immediate narratives but for the latent ideas they contain, readers can begin to notice recurring themes, emerging dilemmas, and speculative insights that may have been ahead of their time. This “futures-oriented” reading transforms literature into a kind of strategic foresight tool—one that can illuminate the trajectories of culture, technology, politics, or human behavior. In this sense, reading becomes less about passive consumption and more about active interpretation and extrapolation—practices that are increasingly valuable for leaders and decision-makers seeking to understand what lies ahead.

Let us thus begin. The authors of this book, Peter Baker and Susan Glasser, were Moscow bureau chiefs for The Washington Post from early 2001 to end of 2004. They are considered to be leading experts on Russia.

With a background as a KGB officer under the soviet regime, the authors claim that Mr. Putin was already preparing to dismantle democratic institutions in 2005. His presidency was already then very different from what had preceded, under former President Yeltsin. One might perhaps legitimately ask whether an ex-KGB agent might represent the best that Russia had to offer? But, as has often been noted, the Russian mentality needs a baron, a tsar, a president… a boss!

At the start of Putin’s presidency, he demonstrated a clear understanding of the scale and scope of his ambitions at the time. And Mr. Putin was seen to be very careful about not signaling his true intentions. This implied a tendency to lie! In essence, it was as if Mr. Putin understood quite well how not to reform a dictatorial political system and how not to wage a war on terror.

When examining Mr. Putin’s early career, the book suggests that this was rather modest at best. He had nothing more than an average Soviet education, and “with only an average intellect”, according to one of his former teachers. It was also observed that Mr. Putin was very adaptable. He deeply resented the collapse of state power when the Soviet regime faltered. His mission in life appeared to center on restoring at least some of that lost power.But as we know, Mr. Putin sided with the democrats in the beginning, probably because he thought that they were likely to win.

Another key value for Mr. Putin was loyalty, to his old KGB, to the Mayor or St. Petersburg, and so on.

He typically offered well-controlled responses to key environmental factors, such as his slow reaction to the loss of the atomic submarine, or his steely response to the bombings by Chechens. One might perhaps say that Mr. Putin approached his presidency with a certain cynical realpolitik. He was indeed the commander in chief, and had as few persons around him as possible, but possessing the right to command as many as possible. This would imply a single chain of command, with Mr. Putin at the top, “vertical power”.

Some people might consider Russians as gangsters. A common response would be “no, we are Russian!”.

When comparing the Russian armed forces with the Soviet era’s focus of the past, these troops seem smaller, far more corrupt, and with no empire to patrol. Soldiers were apparently often put to work on non-military tasks such as building a cabin for a general. And generals were lying to Mr. Putin almost from the start regarding Russia’s military strengths. The two so-called Chechens wars, for instance, were indeed embarrassing for the Russian army. Mr. Putin proclaimed himself as a convert to military reform. To reintroduce conscription for military service became central. Mr. Putin made use of the Russian armed forces’ poor performances in Chechens conflicts as an “excuse” to tighten up the armed forces. But at the same time, Mr. Putin likely realized that one cannot reform endlessly without diminishing returns. Combat readiness could not be achieved through constant changes.

Mr. Putin was intent on gaining control over the legal system. He probably felt that uncertainty and anxious expectations could be accentuated through a more or less unpredictable legal system. To lessen, even eliminate, an independent legal sector is a major characteristic of many dictatorial leaders.

Mr. Putin was comfortable making sweeping changes in his government, even deciding on the resignation of his entire government, never with any reasons given, indeed a rather imperial style!

Some of the so-called oligarchs, such as the former head of Yukos Oil, Mr. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, may have had the rather naïve assumption that one could take on Kremlin and win. A long-term jail sentence resulted, and also Mr. Khodorkovsky was stripped of all his assets! Russia was becoming a country of one-man rule again!

It is interesting to observe Mr. Putin’s public polling, with 47% of the Russians believing that Mr. Putin was playing a positive role in history, and that 31% wanted to live under his leadership. This was in line with what was noted earlier, namely that Mr. Putin regarded the break-up of the Soviet Union as “a national tragedy, on a colossal scale.”

History became a required course in schools, which emphasized the tragedy of the Soviet breakup. A patriotic tone was re-emphasized, under Mr. Putin’s lead.

Back to Mr. Putin’s circle of leaders in the Kremlin. Former KGB officers took greater roles at the top. Again, as noted earlier, a heavy emphasis was put on loyalty.

Mr. Putin portrayed the regime in Ukraine as “false liberals, and real Nazis.” In general, Mr. Putin was determined to preserve Russia from the sort of democracy that arose after the Soviet collapse. But, for many Russians, politics remained little more than a corrupt form of warfare waged between equally unappealing groupings.

Can we draw some conclusions?

Using the technique of rereading an older book with new light and reality today, can we examine any directions, learnings or hypotheses regarding Putin versus Trump? Can we not only use a rereading as a refresher, a search for clues but also an entirely different context? The book reviewed was about Putin then, but can we use it now to look at Putin compared to Trump, and other super leaders?

Let us now provide some five factors where Presidents Putin and Trump seem to be on similar wavelengths:

-       Respect for other nation’s territories. Mr. Putin showed little respect for other nations’ territories, culminating with Russia’s occupation of Crimea and its invasion of Ukraine. President Trump similarly shows little such respect, with his intention to occupy Greenland as well as to retake the Panama Canal zone, plus his claims to redo Gaza.

-       Dismantling the legal system. Mr. Putin sanctions rather aggressive court rulings for his opponents, with long sentences and appalling conditions in his country’s prisons. President Trump is attempting to gain increased control over the legal sector. Through his appointment of more conservative judges, including now also to the US Supreme Court.

-       Willingness to make new appointmentsBoth Presidents are willing to make such changes in appointments. There typically are few or no explanations. Loyalty to the boss is key, much more than professional competence!

-       The military. Both Presidents emphasize vertical command. This includes shifting out senior leaders in the military sector.

-       Tolerance or intolerance, for open feedback, and implicit/explicit criticism. Both leaders surround themselves with “yes-people,” thus not necessarily getting enough open feedback. And both are unable to handle criticism, taking many comments extremely personally.

After this exercise, I encourage you as leaders to revisit works from years past—texts that, when reread through the lens of today’s context, can reveal fresh perspectives and valuable insights not only for the present but also for shaping the future.