ABSTRACT
Drawing heavily upon five extensive biographical analyses of Putin’s life as well as upon Putin’s own semi-autobiographical book, First Person, the author compares and contrasts the behavioural record with the expectations the model generates of both Putin’s behaviour and his relationships. The limitations and advantages of such an approach are carefully considered. In spite of the caveats that are identified, it is decided that reliance on this methodology, although imperfect (as any analysis must be), is likely to yield a potentially meaningful portrait of Putin’s psychodynamics. It is also argued that as mental health professionals are knowledgeable about pathological leadership, it is incumbent upon the helping professions not only to engage in duty to warn but also to attempt to explore and understand the dynamics of potentially damaging personalities who occupy positions of great responsibility. The bulk of the chapter explores the biographical records and Putin’s own comments about himself in great depth. It is concluded that with the exception of predictions the model would make about impulsivity, the model does a reasonably good job of corresponding closely to the way one would expect Putin to handle himself. It is also noted that the model appears to reaffirm malignant narcissism as a personality structure that evolves out of significant early trauma.
