The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

Trump has learned a lot from authoritarian, corrupt leaders throughout history. His playbook is literally from stuff like this https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

Deficit spending isn’t suppose to be a critical tool, just increased spending that can also happen to be deficit spending iirc. Basically we shouldn’t be afraid to spend more during recessions as many nations have previously made the mistake of cutting spending back and trying to treat the government as a business when revenue went down.

Also the 3% isn’t arbitrary, essentially 3% of the GDP is suppose to allow the deficit to not out pace GDP growth during booms as the nineties and some of the 00’s exceeded that: https://www.statista.com/statistics/188165/annual-gdp-growth-of-the-united-states-since-1990/

Also, the punishment isn’t that arbitrary either, as the purpose of the punishment would be to take away the incentive of going into debt as politicians generally have one goal: to get reflected. Or to maximize: (marginal votes obtained /marginal campaign dollars spent). Enforcing the status quo is the reason they go into debt. They subsidize companies that are major employers because no one wants to be the reason why their voters are unemployed (due to factories moving out of the voting district) when the next election comes around: there’s a good video on this and I believe it pops up on YouTube if you google “political engineering, Boeing." Luckily, one of my favorite political science books goes into it and I would check it out: https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

superb post.

have you read The Dictator's Handbook?

Further it only takes a little fraud to tip the scales in the favor of a candidate. There is a great book, that goes into how few people it really takes to swing an election.

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610391845/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_vbToFbXDY4QG7

Taxes are complicated because it allows the ruling party to more easily (less transparently) redistribute the wealth among its supporters.

Source.

This is the book the video is about:

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics https://www.amazon.com/dp/1610391845/ref=cm_sw_r_other_apa_i_A0B2EbET68EPZ

Yeah the fixes I see are REALLY high-bar solutions :-/ the fairness doctrine, for example, would probably be fought against on 1st Amendment grounds if we were to try to reinstate it. And rightly, I think. Messing with 1A in any way makes me nervous, but we can see where our current system has gotten us so I think we ought to try SOMETHING, but I don't pretend to think I'm the smartest person and my ideas are THE good one/s.

I have ranked voting listed first because I personally think it's the most easily achieved and will also have the greatest overall impact. It can be implemented at the state level, state by state if necessary, so no need to mobilize the entire country at once for success. It would start to break up the 2 party system and create groups who would need to work together to achieve rather than group together to oppose, and it would also allow smaller parties to focus more strongly on the particular issues that matter to people. A party might emerge that PRIMARILY cares about campaign finance reform, and if that's your main voting issue you can confidently vote for them without worrying that you are "throwing away your vote" and the person you're really opposed to will win. Finally for ranked voting there are THEORETICALLY no losers: the people get more options with less fear, the politicians shouldn't be afraid if they are confident they represent their constituency, and corporations shouldn't be opposed since it's really just the names of the party of the politicians they will bankroll that are changing.

>We should not have to do this in order to get them to be honest but such a thing would cause a credibility divide...there is always room for corruption however.

This is so close to how I feel that it's painful. There was a really good book I read ((The Dictators Handbook)[https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?dchild=1&hasWorkingJavascript=1&keywords=the+dictators+handbook&qid=1608052023&sprefix=the+dictators+&sr=8-1]) that was a real eye-opener for me about how humans behave when they get power. I've actually spent some time trying to see if the theory has been disproven yet but so far no luck.

As for your disagreement on solutions I'd love to hear other ideas!

This is very true, unfortunately. I recommend reading The Dictator's Handbook for more understanding of political systems and why we, as individuals, are interchangeable parts of the system and how leaders cater to influentials and their necessary inner circles to hold on to power.

The Dictator's Handbook.

For real.

There is an excellent book that covers this exact topic:

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

Cannot recommend it enough

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics este mereu in interesul puterii ca alegatorii (sau coalitia castigatoare) sa fie in numar cat mai mic pentru ca este mai usor sa satisfaci un numar mic de oameni prin coruptie. Atunci cand coalitia castigatoare este foarte marea ea trebuie satisfacuta prin bunuri civile(legi bune, politica in interesul cetatenilor) si asta este un dezavantaja atunci cand, tu ca politician, vrei sa faci politica pentru bunastarea ta. O coalitie mare ii obliga pe politicieni sa faca politica in interesul publicului. De asta nu se face accesul la vot cat mai usor.

There is a book which I cannot recommend enough called: The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845/

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

Read this.

The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics

TL:DR. For a ruler in a democracy to stay in power, they need the support of the general population. This can only be achieved by raising the general wealth of the nation. A autocrat pays of only his key supporters and everyone else can die in a ditch for all they care. Everything that counts as corruption in democracies is just normal business for dictators.

Si vos tenes esa preconcepcion, seguro vas a disfrutar este libro:

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

Ok, you’re not asking about socialism yet you keep saying socialism/socialist?

So, what it seems you’re asking about is simply government corruption, no? And how corrupt governments who benefit a select minority maintain control over the majority? That’s a well-covered area of research with lots of literature to explore. I especially recommend Bruce Bueno de Mesquita’s “Dictator’s Handbook”: https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845.

And yeah, “backward” is not an appropriate adjective, nor would you say impoverished people - especially those whose poverty is the product of an exploitative system - are lacking in “progress”. Rather, simply refer to these people as oppressed, marginalized, etc., because that is what they are.

https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199756223/obo-9780199756223-0177.xml

A book called "The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Always Good Politics" does a good job of explaining this in a way that urges the reader to see through the narrative about politicians wanting to serve the people/community. https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

It argues that, rather than protesting or wasting time & effort on swaying public opinion, the best and fastest way to get results is to dive right in and play the game we (claim to) hate so much.

It sounds obvious at first, but provides a lightbulb moment to readers frustrated with why the system doesn't work.

Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro and many others wanted power. They chose to claim they wanted it for social justice becuase they lived in profoundly unjust societies so social justice was popular. They seized control of these unjust societies and since being in control of an unjust society grants you a shit ton of power, they didn't feel like giving it up.

Tl;dr politics is about power, not ideology. Quit being a fucking idiot and read The Dictator's Handbook. Or if you're lazy, watch CPG Grey's summary.

If you are looking for something that will explain how politics work (from dictatorships to democracies) I would suggest a book called The Dictator's Handbook. It's great at covering how and why shitty behavior is often the best course for politicians to take in order to do the only thing they really care about, staying in power.

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11612989-the-dictator-s-handbook

Слажем се, осим да би нам било исто, било би нам боље, али би нам држава личила на лошу мјешавину Норвешког и Бахреинског модела.

А моја читава поента је да демократија једноставно мора бити прљава, таква је и готово, ако се неко само због тога жели одселити, исто ће га дочекати гдје год да оде.

И да не буде забуне, не желим ја овдје водити некакву кампању против демократије, и прљава је боља од каквог крвавог система (фашизам, комунизам).

Једноставно ако хоћете Вучића да скинете с власти, мора постојати некакав опозиционар који може у то блато и да зна балансирати у том свему. [Ево видео ] (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs) Заснован на овој књизи с тим да је и у књизи и у видеу на крају демократија превише нахваљена (само демократски систем жели научни развој! Јест како не), али добор морају и аутори сачувати посао на факултету :-).

Check out this book: https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

It does not enter into the psychological traits of dictators but it explains very well the mechanism that enable them, and other powerful people, to stay in power, once they are bent on that

OK. I have the book on my shelf. what page is this on?

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

hey its on audible too.

A few very good answers in this thread already, however I'd just like to take a moment to shill for The Dictator's Handbook, or as summed up by Youtuber CGP Grey, The Rules for Rulers.

Governing is not necessarily complicated by its very nature. Slave economies were not particularly complicated at all; a plantation owner had near-total dominance and control over his plantation to do with as he pleased. That is technically a form of governance, an autocratic one. HOAs, School Boards, Companies both small and large, these are all forms of government of one kind or another, and they all vary in complexity.

What's complicated are the number of desires to juggle from your key supporters. In an autocracy like North Korea, Kim Jong Un may only have to keep a dozen people happy in order to govern his country. He doesn't have to worry about revolt since his people have very little secondary education and are kept hungry and working. So he just has to make sure that whatever those dozen people want, they get, whether that's money, military power, recognition, etc. Pretty simple, all things told. Look at a country like the US by contrast, and you will find tax codes and penal codes that are volumes long, so convoluted that you can become an attorney specializing in one of a hundred different kinds of law. This is because in order for a party to stay in power, they have to keep a majority of the voting population (roughly 80 million people) happy.

To bring it home, imagine having a family of twelve kids and how much strain that would put on you. Now imagine your family has 80 million kids.

I know this question is retorical, but there are actual mathematical reasons systems like this emerge. It's a product of how power is controlled in a society. In the long run, most institutions tend to being controlled by the lowest cost power base possible.

CGP grey did a video on the subject:

https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs

The book that talk is based on is also pretty interesting (and a great audio book) called "the Dictators handbook:"

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845&ved=2ahUKEwi4_NOI8tvqAhWJHM0KHRHoArEQFjAAegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw24hLprVRnNDMjgI-RjiLOL

Anyone who finds this compelling should read The Dictator's Handbook

Summarized in video form (18min) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

It's actual academic research into how and why these things happen. Some of the most amazing insights:

​

• Countries with more natural resources tend to be more brutal because they aren't as dependent on taxes for revenue.
• There is a correlation between the distance (shorter) and straightness of the road between the ruler's residence and the airport, and the size of the selectorate (smaller) in choosing leaders.

It really helps you see the "Dune" in our world more clearly.

there are two books called 'the dictators handbook' which are both very informative.

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Practical-Manual-Aspiring/dp/0615652425

Haven't read it, but this one is supposedly good too

https://www.amazon.com/How-Democracies-Die-Steven-Levitsky/dp/1524762938

In “The Dictator’s Handbook”, Alastair Smith and Bruce Bueno de Mesquita (hands down best last name ever) talk about the spectrum of democracy to dictatorship and how the difference isn’t as much ideological as it is economical. Every nation has a treasury, and the way the financial assets are divided up allow whoever is in charge to stay in charge or allow rivals for power to swoop in and steal it by promising a more favorable redistribution of wealth to secure the loyalty of those who back them.

They point out that there is a tendency for nations on one side or the other to stay on that side of the spectrum.

Dictatorships usually form in places with large amounts of natural resources where the common people do not need much in the way of rights for the ruling class to stay wealthy. Countries with lots of oil, for example, can make loads of money by allowing foreign countries to drill there without any input from their citizens whatsoever.

Democracies, on the other hand, have been historically very rare until the last few centuries. But once a critical mass of the populace is educated enough and (critically) gains access to a large enough share of the nation’s wealth, the burgeoning middle class wants a share in the power and the nation tends to start democratizing.

The variable that tends to cause a democracy to swing back toward a dictatorship is the share of the nation’s wealth which is based on natural resources, and not on goods or services which require an educated and healthy population to produce. Think Venezuela or Russia, but historically small democracies like Athens or Rome became dictatorships when they won too much land during foreign conquests.

When the few people at the top can earl a small nation’s GDP for themselves just by selling oil, they have plenty of money to pay off the army to prevent any meaningful coups or popular uprisings, buy a handful of loyal cronies, and live the life of luxury while their nation’s people starve.

CGP Grey did a great job summing up the points of this book, but if this is something you’re interested in it’s definitely worth the read. Or Audible has an audiobook version if that’s more your style.

The book is almost unbelievable in the simplicity of its points, but it helps explain so much in easily understandable terms, and hopefully provide some caution to those who wonder what it would take for a democracy to die.

tl;dr - More than we fear, less than we hope.

https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845/ref=nodl_

https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Dictators-Handbook-Audiobook/B007KSIDMC?source_code=AUDORWS0718179KY7

Very similar to what's said here:

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

A summary of the book: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

I think a lot of the philosophies that seek to distribute power run afoul of the reasons that centralization and hierarchy structures exist. The people that have power want to retain power, the people that don't have power want to gain power.

The most overt way to gain power is to change the system to said (resources/power) structure you want. The cost of changing a system is more expensive in general then maintaining a currently existing status quo.

Which is more about how do you deal with who is currently in power, how they seek to retain power, then how to stop your movement from being co-opted as soon as it gets big/powerful enough?

Ignoring all the other issues, making a direct democracy on prediction could easily be gamed by anyone rich enough to cause the prediction to come true. Then highjack said system for their own benefit. Similar to the stock market in which people that are rich enough can pump and dump etc. Or bitcoin as an example of people pumping and dumping a very simple value system.

Its a bit memey in how widespread it is but video by cgp grey "rules for rulers" an example of rules for rulers, book its based on A book in a similar veins Book book 2

I'd highly recommend a book called The Dictator's Handbook, which describes in detail the manner in which power is captured in nations and the 'rules for rulers' as it were. CGPGrey made an excellent video that breaks some of it down in an extremely accessible way, Link here for anyone curious.

It's terrifying to me how much power Trump has been allowed to consolidate in such a short amount of time, from the Republicans going out of their way to shield him from impeachment to Trump having appointed Acting Undersecretary of the Army James McPherson to act as both Acting Undersecrataries of the Navy and Army (allowing him to dodge regular Congressional oversight and vetting in his placements indefinitely).

Between that, with at least 170 key positions with no nominations lined up as of January it seems very apparent that keeping those positions vacant just cedes more *direct* control of the specific functions of the Executive branch to the President directly. In an administration that prioritized the public interest or the well-being of the Nation as a whole this might not be a bad thing as it would allow for a more ambitious leader to overcome some of the bureaucratic drag and implement their policy direction more effectively. THIS administration however seems more interested in lining their own pockets and funneling the nation's treasures to donors (Keys to Power).

​

I'd highly recommend watching the video that CGPGrey made (Rules for Rulers). As an introductory primer to The Dictator's Handbook it is better packaged and presented than most of the college level courses I've taken over the last decade.

You're not wrong, but that's not how politicians look at things. They're always looking _only_ to the next election.

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

if you want the short version: https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs -- you'll be either enlightened or saddened. I find I'm a bit of both.

If you’re really interested in the way power works, consider reading:

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845/ref=nodl_

If you want a more fun version which draws heavily on the book:

https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs

The first thing that come to mind is this book here

De Mesquita, B. B., & Smith, A. (2011). The dictator's handbook: why bad behavior is almost always good politics. PublicAffairs.

Reviewed in an academic political science journal here

Zodian, M. (2012). Book Review: Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, Alastair Smith, The Dictator’s Handbook, Polirom, Iaşi, 2012 (2010), 347 pages. Romanian Journal of Society and Politics, 7(2), 121-124.

Likened to Freakonomics by the Wall Street Journal here

Book Review: Dictator's Handbook - WSJ

And summarized by CGP Grey in two parts here

The Rules for Rulers

and here

Death & Dynasties.

So a) no its spelled paedophile you colonial

and b) So... you seem to have a fundamental misconception of society, power structures, and corruption, and you are completely missing the point of what I'm saying.

So I can try to explain but what you've written is very fundamentally flawed on many levels. It's full of logical leaps and seems to use a very childlike logic in it's assumptions about society and power.

Your assumptions about what causes abuse of power, and what the consequences of corruption are are logically flawed for starters.

For instance being a priest doesn't make you a paedophile. And many abusive and corrupt cops never see justice.

A simple question you should ask, is what separates the police in Russia, or China or India, where corruption and abuse is rampant from American Police? What is a "good" police force and what is a "bad" police force.

Another is to ask why is it that American rates of violent crime, corruption and abuse of power far exceed any other MEDC?

I can't explain to you all the ways what you wrote is problematic and flawed. Because you clearly have a severely flawed view of reality. What you wrote, is so completely divorced from logic that we are having two entirely different discussions.

I can't claim that what I believe is objective fact. But what you wrote is objectively wrong. From the faulty logic to the childlike understanding of power structures, corruption, and society.

However what I can say is it seems to show a fundamental misunderstanding of how society works, what systemic issues are, what corruption is etc.

I don't mean this as an insult but if you think that celibacy made priest paedophiles, or that child molesters dont seek out avenues of power where they have control over children, well it shows a childlike understanding of the world.

... Which makes me suspect you're a child. Which there's nothing wrong with. You're mind is developing and you are on a journey towards critical thinking. Engaging with new ideas is great and valuable. But you're argument is, and I mean this with as much civility and politeness as possible.

So ill-informed and poorly thought out it's not worth engaging with. I can't make you critically think with a few hundred words on reddit that you will only skim.

So I would suggest you read this: https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

Fantastic book that breaks down how power structures form and operate. Really interesting. Not political at all.

Then watch this,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks

Then consider these facts about American law enforcement.

The Chicago PD managed a black site where they illegally detained and tortured Americans.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/24/chicago-police-detain-americans-black-site

Or that the FBI found that White Nationalists were actively infiltrating law enforcement and running internal gangs

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/fbi-white-supremacists-in-law-enforcement

Or that border patrol has been significantly involved in drug smuggling

https://www.insightcrime.org/news/analysis/mexico-cartels-us-border-patrol-corruption/

Or that the police used to be involved in the mass murder of peacefully protesting americans

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_Wars

Or that America at one point infected an entire town of black americans with syphilis and pretended to treat them to see what would happen in the 70's.

Or that prosecuting police is almost impossible. Or the transferring of problem officers, or the domestic violence rates of police, and on and on.

I honestly can't link enough articles about the ways police abuse their power and are protected in America, but Last Week Tonight does many fantastic breakdowns of the ways police are kept free from the consequences of their actions.

Then I would research the catholic church and it's history with child molestation. Because while sexual repression is problematic it does not cause paedophilia.

So, I genuiley hope you read some of these and that it, if not changes your opinions, it at least makes them more nuanced.

Always remember there are countries outside America. Remember to compare and contrast. And just keep engaging with ideas. Good luck

Kenneth Arrow's classic, Social Choice and Individual Values

In it, he introduces the "impossibility theorem" in ranked voting, and from that work sprang a whole field of social choice and expansions upon these paradoxes in forms of voting...finding them to exist generally (i.e. not just in ranked voting, but in cardinal systems as well)

Glen Weyl's "Radical Markets" is a fun and thought-provoking read in which he explores Quadratic and other voting mechanisms which try to get around these paradoxes.

But then, and most importantly,, you want to make sure you study the much more comprehensive methodology in Public Choice economics; book suggestions in link.

Other mentions:

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691138737

https://www.amazon.com/Extortion-Politicians-Extract-Money-Pockets/dp/0544334558

To all the people saying that Putin is a horrible person, and Lex would be basically promoting Satan if he interviewed him...I have three points of contention.

Continued dialogue on this controversy is welcomed. I have my biases just as you have yours, but I think that a conversation with Putin would actually help people understand how authoritarians are made and what makes them tick, two things that are very poorly understood and extremely valuable if you give a shit about world peace.

TLDR - 1) US presidents kill way more people than Putin has ever killed. They just delegate the killings via more formal channels. 2) Most historical figures who shaped the modern world order were either murderous or had highly fucked up morals. 3) The point of an interview isn't to promote someone's point of view. It's to learn something that might help make the world a better place.

The long version (with many citations)

1. I'm not sure what countries you are from, but if you are from the US (as I am), remember that people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Between 2000 and 2019, the US military conflicts, most of which were centered around the (mostly bogusly justified) "war on terrorism" or "humanitarian/pro-democracy interventions" killed over 800,000 people, made terrorism " more feasible" (according to a US Army War College publication), and actually made the world a less democratic place. Meanwhile, the US emits roughly 30% more carbon per capita than Russia and keeps antagonizing Iran, bringing us closer to a nuclear holocaust.

Yes, Putin has done some terrible things, and styming free speech and democratization in Russia and its satellite states via assassinations and opposition arrests is a notable one of them. But a lot of US presidents have a lot more blood on their hands than he does if you go purely by the numbers.

2) If you aren't from the US but would be excited to interview a historical figure such as Genghis Khan (who some estimate is responsible for 40 million deaths), Marcus Aurelius (who made the stupid decision to put his murderous son on the throne of the Roman empire), Woodrow Wilson (who is widely commemorated as the godfather of the United Nations, but defended white supremacists, thought black people were an "ignorant and inferior"race, and reintroduced segregation in federal agencies after it had been abolished, even putting a clerk who logistically couldn't be separated from his white coworkers in a cage to maintain his racist standards), Obama (whose ordered 10 times more drone strikes than Bush and killed thousands of people, none of whom posed a true existential threat to the United States, as a result; Trump is worse, but I doubt many people who are bashing Putin would be fans of talking to him) or any of the tech heroes like Steve Jobs who promoted wide production of electronics in sweatshops that drove people to suicide).... you get my point... then stop freaking out. Influential people are generally fucked up.

3) One final point. Interviews are not about promoting someone's point of view. They're about building goodwill and engaging in an intellectually stimulating dialogue. What makes someone worth interviewing is whether understanding his or her point of view better could make the world a better place. And interviewing Putin - even if he is a murderous narcissist - would certainly do that. We know remarkably little about how dictators think, what makes them behave the way they do, and under what circumstances they are most likely to take aggressive or hostile actions. Having a human conversation would help us get a bit closer to doing just that. During the cold war, there were numerous close calls in which we narrowly averted nuclear war with the Soviet Union thanks to someone's optimistic attitude towards the enemy's intention (Stanislav Petrov is a prime example) or a productive person-to-person dialogue (e.g., Cuban Missile Crisis.) By decrying the opportunity to talk with someone whose morals and behavior we find abhorrent as a deviant thing to want to do, we incentivize an "us vs them mentality" which threatens all of humanity.

​

Recommended readings - these are speculative analyses of Putin's political decisions that fail to get a good understanding of his personality but nonetheless are useful in that they strip the moralistic overtones out of the dialogue about his behavior:

Book - The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics - A game theory model that explains a ton of Putin's behavior.

Article An Interesting Theory That Could Explain Vladimir Putin's Risky Behavior