Now that the flames of outrage have to a large extent subsided, what are we to make of Vladimir Putin’s incendiary remarks about the liberal democracies on the eve of the G20 summit in Japan? The Russian president, you will recall, said the model had outlived its usefulness, citing Brexit and the rise of populists such as Donald Trump in the US, Matteo Salvini in Italy and Marine le Pen in France as evidence. Allowing a million (mainly Syrian) refugees into Germany was an error by Chancellor Angela Merkel, he said, before letting rip at “mindless multiculturism.” Cue barely contained fury in the West, led by the European Council’s outgoing president Donald Tusk with a robust defense of freedom, human rights and the rule of law. To understand where Putin was coming from, it helps to know where he’s been. He grew up in a Soviet Union ruled by an autocratic communist regime, and is very much a product of its secret service, having served as KGB station chief in Dresden. When Putin came to power, he had to bring order to an oligarchy gone awry. Russia — whether the tsarist empire, the Soviet Union or the current state — has never been anyone’s idea of a cuddly democracy. In other words, Putin is not the product of, and has no experience of living in, a liberal democracy. He feels more comfortable negotiating his way around an autocratic system. The author of this column is a strong advocate of precisely the values Donald Tusk tried to defend, but we have to look deeper. To understand Putin"s comments at the G20 Summit, it helps to know where he has come from - he grew up in a Soviet Union ruled by an autocratic communist regime, and is very much a product of its secret service, having served as KGB station chief in Dresden. Cornelia Meyer Globalization and technology have created many winners, but also losers, an inconvenient truth rarely acknowledged inside the M25 circle in the UK or on the east and west coasts of the US. Many lost their jobs when big corporations streamlined their operations and outsourced their supply chains. A whole segment of the population in both the US and Europe either cannot find one job or need to work several, still failing to make ends meet. Justifiably or unjustifiably, they feel threatened by immigrants and refugees, who they feel will take their jobs and obtain benefits without ever having had to pay taxes. They feel that they are the new “underclass,” lacking any pathway to prosperity. What makes matters worse in the eyes of that self-declared underclass is that the protagonists of liberal values tend to be better educated and better off. These protagonists have at large been the winners of globalization and technological progress. The “losers” object to being taught tolerance and liberal values by those they perceive to be affluent elites. The deprived feel that they are looked down upon, their feelings and fears ignored. This is where Putin has a point: Salvini, Le Pen, Trump and Nigel Farage, the godfather of Brexit, play precisely on these fears and feelings of inadequacy. For the populists it is easy to inspire people who feel left behind. They cater to their emotions and find common enemies — for instance, refugees and supranational entities such as the EU. They appeal to the values of sovereignty and self-determination, as in the Brexit mantra of “taking back control of our borders, our money and and our laws.” Liberal democracy remains a good thing, and probably the fairest form of government for all. But its leaders and elites have a duty to listen carefully to those among their compatriots who were not fortunate enough to benefit from globalization and technological progress. Intellectual arrogance is not the way to bring the less fortunate on board. In a democracy, everyone’s voice counts — be they rich or poor, winners or losers. If Putin’s provocation serves as a wake-up call for those who have lost touch with the people they are supposed to represent, it will have been a fire worth starting.