Vladimir Putin’s recent end-of-the-year press conference was mostly a self-congratulatory snooze, but there were several moments that revealed the depths of depravity and unreality to which the Russian dictator has sunk. For starters, Putin’s minions unfurled the banner of the 155th Marine Brigade of the Pacific Fleet during the press conference. Putin thanked them and then said, “this banner represents all the combat banners of our soldiers, who are fighting for Russia, for the Motherland, along the entire line of contact.” What Putin failed to say was that the 155th Marine Brigade was responsible for committing war crimes and massacring hundreds of Ukrainian civilians in three cities north of Kyiv — Bucha, Irpin and Hostomel — in the early days of the invasion Needless to say, Putin was endorsing the unit’s — and by extension the entire Russian army’s — genocidal actions. He was also signaling to the West that he would continue employing genocide as a legitimate means of waging war — whether in Ukraine, Finland, the Baltic states or Poland. Finally, Putin was declaring that he was completely nonplussed by being an accused war criminal, challenging Russians with a conscience to dare speak out against his having implicated all of Russia in his crimes. As if in confirmation of his belief in Russians’ bloodthirstiness, Putin had this to say about his people: “You know, when everything with us is calm, measured, and stable, we get bored. Stagnation. We want action. As soon as the action starts, everything starts whistling past our temples: both seconds and bullets. Unfortunately, bullets are also whistling now. Yes, we are scared, ‘horror-horror.’ Well, ‘horror.’ But not ‘horror-horror-horror.’" Judge for yourself what that sixfold repetition of the word “horror” means, but given the context it seems to imply that his people’s love of action produces some fear, but not too much. Russians appear to revel in the whistling of bullets, presumably aimed, as his praise of the 155th Brigade suggests, at innocent Ukrainian civilians. Then there’s the following statement: “I believe that Russia has become significantly stronger in the past two or three years. Why? Because we are becoming a truly sovereign country, and we barely depend on anybody. ... [Russia] has grown stronger and become a truly sovereign state, and we will make decisions without looking at other people’s opinions, only with our national interests in mind.” As evidence, Putin cites what he considers to be a strong economy and a strong military. By any measure, both have gotten weaker over the last three years. No one except Putin would say they’ve actually gotten stronger. He is right to say that the economy, military and his decision-making “barely depend on anybody.” Russia has become more isolated, more self-enclosed and less dependent on “other people’s opinions.” But few would claim that not depending on anybody means you’ve gotten stronger. It may mean that you’ve enhanced your sovereignty, except that Putin fails to say that he’s traded Russia’s former involvement with the global economy and international relations for colonial dependence on the big brother in China and the little brother in North Korea. Indeed, it’s arguably the case that Russia’s sovereignty has actually decreased in the last three years. Is Putin delusional? Not quite. He is doing what he’s done for the last 25 years: identifying Russia with himself. As the personification of the Russian state, Putin can rightly claim that, since his dictatorial powers have increased since the war began, it follows that so too have Russia’s. The scary part is his evidently sincere belief that he and Russia are one and the same. The scarier part is the fact that many Russians appear to agree. But there was one especially lucid section toward the end of the press conference. Putin was asked if he would have done things differently in February 2022. Here’s his answer. Reading it is a challenge, but pay attention to what’s missing: “If it were possible to look at the situation in 2022, knowing what's happening now, what would I think? That such a decision, which was made at the beginning of 2022, should have been made earlier... “Knowing this, it was necessary to simply start preparing for these events, including the Special Military Operation. After all, the Crimean events, they were simply spontaneous, and we also started the events of 2022 without any special preparation for them. But why did we start? Because it was no longer possible to stand still and endure, and wait for the situation to worsen for us... “The Kyiv authorities announced that they would not implement the Minsk agreements. They said so directly, declared their claims to some weapons of mass destruction. We saw that we were deceived about the Minsk agreements, the war and slaughter, the destruction of people in the Donbas have been going on for eight years... “And what's more, we saw that the military development of these territories has begun, with the parallel destruction of everything connected with Russia. It was no longer possible to remain in the state we were in. They forced us to take these actions.” What’s missing here? Any mention of NATO and its supposed plans to include Ukraine. Instead, Putin puts the blame squarely on the Ukrainians and what they did or failed to do. Agree or disagree with his assessment, but recognize that Putin has effectively destroyed whatever plausibility the “NATO-threat” thesis may still have among poorly informed policymakers and analysts. Unfortunately, none of these conclusions should surprise or shock us. Putin is being true to himself; indeed, he’s proud of being a genocidaire and warmonger. He thrives on death and destruction — and believes Russians do too. Negotiating with Putin won’t be about ending war and introducing peace. It’ll be about the timing and extent of genocide and war. Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as “Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires” and “Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.”