How Do Leaders Make Decisions?

Evidence from the East and West, Part B

Alex Mintz, Dmitry (Dima) Adamsky, Alex Mintz, Dmitry (Dima) Adamsky

• Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN: 9781838678128
• eBook ISBN: 9781838678135
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Global Politics
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Understanding how leaders make foreign policy and national security decisions is of paramount importance for the policy community and academia. Yet on their own, neither rational nor cognitive schools of decision-making analysis offer totally convincing results, and in any case, rigorous decision analysis methodologies are rarely, if ever, applied to the decisions of world leaders.

How Do Leaders Make Decisions?: Evidence from the East and West, Part B, the second in a two-part volume covering a total of ten world leaders, fills this gap by using the Applied Decision Analysis (ADA) method to explore how figures such as Putin, Erdogan, Khaled Mashal, Mao, and Saddam Hussein make or made major decisions of international significance. By analysing the decisions made by key political figures around the world, past and present, the chapters gathered here shed light on how they are reached and what policy implications they have for their own and other nations. The analyses are based on traditional and contemporary theories of foreign policy decision making, including, but not limited to, the rational actor model, the cybernetic theory of decision, poliheuristic theory, and various decision rules, including the elimination-by-aspect rule and the lexicographic decision rule. Cumulatively, what these chapters uncover is that foreign and national security policies can be best explained by tracing the cognitive process leaders go through in formulating and arriving at their decisions.

For its groundbreakingly rigorous methodology and its unprecedented scope, this book and its companion book are essential reading for students, scholars, and policymakers alike.

THE DECISION CALCULUS OF PUTIN

Hadar Glottman

ABSTRACT

This chapter attempts to uncover the decision code of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, based on 12 decisions he made concerning the Middle East during his third term as president, from 2012 until October 2015.

The study was carried out to understand Putin’s line of thought and decision-making, in light of Putin’s increasing importance throughout the last decade, globally and in the Middle East, in particular. After understanding the decision calculus of Putin, it might also be possible to predict his future decisions concerning the region.

Decision rules can be inferred by analyzing a set of decisions. Analysis of such decisions is made in this chapter using the Applied Decision Analysis (ADA) method that uncovers historic decisions, and aims to peer into the mind of the decision-maker.

The results show the main decision rule for each of Putin’s decisions. The work proves that when it comes to foreign issues, the decision code which leads Putin in his decisions is rational. The results also reveal Putin’s strong desire to promote Russia and himself, while using holistic, maximizing, and compensatory processing, as long as his political survival is not compromised.

Keywords: Applied Decision Analysis; ADA; rational choice; Russia; Vladimir Putin; foreign policy

INTRODUCTION

According to Angus Roxburgh:

The national leader of Russia, Vladimir Putin, is not like any other president or prime minister. Just by shaking hands with Putin, you can see that he is a strong man. His captivating eyes, the way he lowers his head, casts down his gaze at you, stares at you for a few moments, memorizing every detail, perhaps matching your face to an image he saw in the past. His gaze is angry, piercing, and can be very disturbing. (2012, p. vii)

In the elections of March 2012, Putin was elected president for the third time. During his election campaign, he faced a critical challenge for the Russian establishment in the areas of foreign policy and security. Russia was in crisis in the international arena at the time. Foreign policy and security were presented to the public as supreme national goals. Putin chose them as central themes of his election campaign, because they constituted a unifying factor for the public and also satisfied his ambitions, not to be marginalized internationally. Until a few decades ago, Russia had been one of the world’s leading powers. Putin now sought to close the gaps that had opened up between Russia and leading countries. Otherwise, it could find itself on the margins internationally, with regime survival made difficult. During the campaign, a range of threats on Russia were presented by the Russian media using bold rhetoric with the assertion that it was up to Russia to upgrade its defense potential. It had to adopt a strong foreign policy, which would give a worthy response to the new challenges, it faced (Magen, 2012).

Putin linked Russia’s societal situation to the consequences of the Arab Spring, presented as the fruits of Western “soft power” that ultimately led to forceful intervention in sovereign countries in the Middle East. This was a phenomenon that Russia sought to curb. Putin stressed his interest in the area was due to regional markets that the West had secured for itself. In addition, there had been constant Islamic threat to Russia, both from Muslim rebels within Russia and on its borders (Magen, 2012).

It was clear at the beginning of Putin’s third term in 2012, and even more so today, that Russia has the potential to challenge the world order, and compel the international community to re-consider its interests (Magen, 2012). The potential was clearly evident in events occurring in the Middle East. In that complicated reality, Russia took advantage of the opportunity to set the agenda. Russia’s involvement gained momentum and strengthened its international power. The world is watching to see how Putin led Russia will behave presently, as well as in the long term, what critical choices Putin will make, and what implications will they have on the balance of power between the superpowers (Magen, 2014).

Based on a combination of evidence, quotes, historical facts, biographies, expert opinions, articles, and books, I will follow Putin’s line of thinking to understand his considerations, and perceived alternatives when he makes decisions. Using information I collected and the Applied Decision Analysis (ADA) method of analyzing and decision-making, I will analyze 12 decisions he made regarding the Middle East, beginning in his third term. My goal is to understand how and why he made them and whether there is a fixed code to his decision-making.

THE RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the decision code of Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, President of Russia from 2000 to present-day?

In this chapter, I will analyze the relevant factors, considerations, and decision rules used by Vladimir Putin on matters of foreign as well as security policies. I will focus on his decisions relating to the contemporary Middle East from his return to presidency in 2012 down to present-day.

IMPORTANCE OF THE RESEARCH

Politicians operate in the modern public arena to influence the way in which political institutions determine the nature and direction of the allocation of resources, which are the basis for societal conduct (Rosenthal, 2006). Unlike Western countries where freedom of information is crucial and well-developed, in Russia, constant concern about the news media is the norm (Smaele, 2007). The leadership controls the media and what is published. Russia has six main television channels that are all directly or indirectly controlled by the country’s leadership (CIA, 2015).

As Russia becomes stronger, we attempt to understand Vladimir Putin’s decision process in light of inaccessibility of information. As Russia’s leader for over a decade, he will likely remain so in the years to come (Adamsky, 2015). Understanding his foreign and security policies provides the means for analyzing his decision-making. The benefits are not only an understanding of his decisions, but also the process and dynamics leading up to them. A pre-condition for that end, is an understanding of how he processes information, and the culture and biases that affect each decision (Mintz & DeRouen, 2010).

Voters expect decision-makers to decide rationally. That is, they expect them to choose the alternative with the lowest costs and highest benefits relative to the others. Thanks to intelligence capabilities, there is a supposition in international relations (at least among the leading countries), that each of the parties has information about the others’ goals and available alternatives, and the weights of the pros and cons given to each alternative. In reality, it is challenging to apply abstract logic to thousands of different situations. It is important to consider the specific circumstances of each incident. To determine if and when a potential enemy might attack, it is not enough to know the enemy’s abilities, but also to understand its motivations and ways of thinking (Cimbala, 2012).

Westerners find it difficult to understand the rationale by which Putin behaves. They often wonder whether and how dangerous he is. Western leaders who want to stay “one step ahead” of him must decipher how he will act in the future and how far he will go. So far, Western leaders have demonstrated inadequate responses to Putin. They have failed to undertake steps to permanently restrain his bold undertakings. Thus, a geopolitical void has been left unfilled, which Putin wisely puts to his advantage, causing the West a sense of instability, subject to unforeseen events (CATO Institute, 2015).

Putin has been able to utilize the geopolitical setting to his advantage, undermining the West’s interests, especially in the Middle East, wherein the most significant void remains to be filled. Russia took advantage of the “Arab Spring,” US weakness in the region, and regional wars – whether civil or Shiite-Sunni conflicts – to connect and aid various factions on all sides. Thus, Russia has succeeded where no other country has succeeded, in leading the regional diplomatic process (Adamsky, 2015).

Russia has several interests in the region. It sees an opportunity to re-establish its position as a major player on the global scene in its competition with the West. It also demonstrates the ability to thwart US policy objectives and proves its value as a strategic partner to China, giving the latter new prospects for gas and oil links after the steep fall of oil prices. Russia is also building a buffer against Jihad extremism on its southern flank, increasing exports of weapons and nuclear energy, projecting power in the Mediterranean waters, and expanding its influence through Christian communities in the region. These interests have led Russia to establish relations with Iran, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states. With each of these countries, Russia has created economic, military, and diplomatic cooperation (decisions which will be detailed below). Russia even has relationships with the neighboring countries of the Middle East – Cyprus and Greece. Although Israel has relations with Russia, it is understandable that this does not contradict Russia’s assistance to Israel’s geopolitical rivals. Russia’s support of the Assad regime while Assad is hurting some citizens of his country, has shocked the West, who understandably is suspicious of Putin’s future steps. Israel, the only liberal country in the region, understands that there is a new key player in the area. Israel knows it must be wary of him and watch his steps while maintaining a positive relationship with him (Adamsky, 2015).

In summary, understanding Putin’s decision-making code is critical. First, to understand whether a non-Western leader makes decisions in a manner that corresponds to the Western concept of rationality, and second, to understand how a leader who firmly controls one of the militarily strongest countries in the world, makes his decisions. It is also important to address the factors influencing him, the weight he assigns to each of them, and his biases, knowing that he will remain in power for quite some time and even gain additional considerable clout. The expansion of Russian presence in the region requires the West, especially Israel, to delve into Putin’s decision-making process to try and predict, as realistically as possible, the immediate future.

PRIOR RESEARCH – WHO IS VLADIMIR VLADIMIROVICH PUTIN?

This part of the work is based on previous studies, data, biography, and interviews. I will give a general overview of the major events in Putin’s life, his various roles, and prominent personality characteristics, both as a man and as a ruler, which shaped and continue to shape his presidency in Russia. The role of this section is to shed light on the image of Putin so as to assist in understanding his various decisions examined later.

Who is Vladimir Putin? This question has never been completely answered. Putin does not volunteer information about himself and his family, and he controls the information published. Even the dates regarding major events in his past are controversial, probably due to his service in the KGB (Hill & Gaddy, 2013).

Russia’s national leader is unlike any other president or prime minister. A former KGB spy, at first awkward and restrained who was surprisingly urged into a position of high office in 1999. Over time, he became a man without inhibitions, strong and narcissistic, who often boasts of his physical prowess (Roxburgh, 2012).

Putin’s background and path to the presidency are important for understanding his character as a leader with many contradictory features. He is a democrat who does not rely on democracy, a man of the West whose understanding of the West is limited. He believes in the free market, but his worldview is perceived as communist. He speaks admiringly of the Soviet Union, but says he wants to create a new and better Russia. He is a passionate believer in the Russian state. With a combination of coldness and cruelty, he exhibits the behavior of a former KGB agent against his enemies (Roxburgh, 2012; Rutland, 2000).

Vladimir Putin was born in 1952 in Leningrad and grew up there. It was a city still recovering from the damage of World War II. His thinking was shaped by Soviet propaganda. At school, he learned that the West was evil and that capitalists exploited the workers and were preparing for war against the Soviet Union. He was told that those who lived in his country were happier. As a child, he trained in Judo, becoming a champion and continuing these activities well into his presidency. After high school, he studied law at the University of Leningrad. He graduated in 1975 and joined the Soviet intelligence service. He was transferred to Dresden in East Germany in 1985. In 1990, he was called back, when the Soviet Union was about to collapse (Hill & Gaddy, 2013; Roxburgh, 2012).

One of Putin’s most formative periods, creating the contradictions he is characterized by, was from 1985 to 1990 when he was sent to blend in with the Communists in East Germany. While Moscow theaters and newspapers began to shatter clichés about the West, Putin was immersed in one of the most communist areas. He missed Gorbachev’s revolution in Russia. He saw what was happening in East Germany (leading to the fall of the Berlin Wall) as national humiliation. The Communists in East Germany simply left everything behind and got out. But this period forced him to look at the overall picture and to challenge himself and what he had learned from his childhood and from his service in the KGB (Roxburgh, 2012).

In 1991, when the Communist Party fell and the Soviet Union came apart, Putin was Anatoly Sobchak’s deputy (one of the leaders of free-thinking during “perestroika”), in the Municipality of Leningrad. He ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Introduction: How Do Leaders Make Decisions? Evidence from the East
• The Decision Calculus of Putin
• The Decision Calculus of Erdoğan: A Poliheuristic Perspective
• The Decision Calculus of Khaled Mashal
• The Decision Calculus of Mao
• Saddam Hussein’s Decision Calculus
• Conclusion
• Index