Putin's claims came with a clearly labeled disclaimer. (@Slate, Twitter)

Sorry, Snowden, but Putin’s claims came with a clearly labeled disclaimer.

In his commentary published to defend his questioning of Russian President Vladimir Putin on surveillance activities during Russia's annual call-in meeting on Thursday, Snowden revealed that his goal had been to trick Putin into negating a purposely broad statement; thus bringing forth either “an important concession or a clear evasion” that would “provide opportunities for serious journalists and civil society to push the discussion [of mass civilian surveillance] further.”

It is surprising (and naïve) of Snowden to think he could corner the former KGB agent and FSB Director who is known for giving on-the-spot retorts. Putin’s custom to speak in double meanings is well-known and to understand him is to read between the lines.

In an opinion piece for The Washington Post titled, “To Understand Putin, Look To The Past,” Strobe Talbott, President of the Brookings Institution recalls his first meeting with Putin in 1999 during the Kosovo conflict. At the time, Putin was the head of the Kremlin Security Council, and he was meeting with Talbott and other United States officials to discuss the crisis in Kosovo. 

In our meeting, he managed to seem both relaxed and on guard... his personal touches were pointed. For no reason other than to show he had read my KGB dossier, he dropped the names of two Russian poets I had studied in college.

Later on in the meeting, Talbott recounts:

During the meeting, my State Department colleague Victoria Nuland (now assistant secretary of state for Europe) passed me a note saying that Gen. Ivashov had just issued a threat to our Pentagon companions... When I read Nuland’s note aloud, Putin smugly waved it off and feigned puzzlement about who Ivashov was, which was patently implausible. His overall message was twofold: He knew details from my distant past but wasn’t going to let me know anything about what was happening in the here and now — or what would happen next.

One of the claims brought up by Snowden is that the pundits completely overlooked President Putin’s answer and instead criticized Snowden’s participation in the open forum. As I read up about the case from different and well-respected outlets, I too was very disappointed with the coverage. Most focused on criticizing Snowden’s participation. Almost no attention was paid to President Putin’s response, specifically, his first two sentences:

Mr. Snowden, you are a former agent, and in the past, I had something to do with intelligence. So we will talk among ourselves as professionals.

Taken at face value, this is a nonsequitur to the discussion that follows and perhaps this is why most news outlets brushed it completely aside while the few that did mention it, did so cursorily - not even scratching at what Putin could’ve meant by drawing a parallel between himself and Snowden.

Yet seemingly off-kilter and jocose statements like this are most often the key to understanding Putin’s remarks and, ultimately, his thought process. 

Whether using the Guardian’s or the official translator’s version of the Telethon Q&A, Putin begins by drawing a veil of familiarity around Snowden:

Mr Snowden, you are a former agent and in the past, I had something to do with intelligence. So we will talk among ourselves as professionals.

In the video, the president delivers this opening remark with a humorous tone and a relaxed, almost gleeful posture. Taken together, Putin’s reaction prefaces a play, a double entendre, one, which he clearly expects to go over most people’s head, including, judging from his Guardian piece, the inquirer himself. Thus, Putin’s mocking glee.

“We are going to talk among ourselves as professionals.” What is the profession in question? Espionage. What is the language of spies? Deceit and subterfuge. In other words: lies.

Therefore, by prefacing his answer with this “explanation” Putin is discreetly telling Snowden that everything he is about to say will be given in their “professional language." Viewed from this lens, his subsequent response is no longer a trove of outrageous lies and bold statements. In fact, it is refreshing to find a politician willing to give such a detailed admission under so thin a veil.

Reach Guest Contributor Francesca Martens here.