Putin’s Perspective vs. Western Views

On February 24, 2022, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russian troops began. This event brought an incredible amount of grief to Ukraine, forcing millions of people out of their own homes. In turn, Russia’s reputation, which was already not the best before the war, suffered a serious blow, especially in the West. These actions confirmed all of the worst stereotypes that existed about Russia’s aggressive nature — the Kremlin had carried out an imperialist invasion into the territory of a democratic neighbour, with absolutely no concern for the sovereignty of the other state or what the people who inhabited this country thought about it.

Among political scientists and international relations experts, Putin’s decision to go to war has often been attributed to his distorted, if not insane, view of politics. According to them, the Russian dictator is living in a dreamy delusion in which only strong and large states play a truly important role in international relations. These true sovereigns interact directly with each other, often sidelining smaller or “client” countries, which are destined only to do what the “masters” tell them to. This way of looking at things resembles a grotesque interpretation of the realist school of thought in international relations, which emphasizes the competitive and conflictual aspects of relations between countries, often downplaying the role of international institutions and moral considerations.​

In response, Western countries, led by the United States, put forward their own vision, which can be characterized as liberal internationalism, the essence of which is based on respect for international law, cooperative security and support for liberal democracies. European leaders and President Biden have repeatedly stated that the very type of thinking that guides Putin, and politicians like him, is insulting to small countries and to the principles of international security. In this regard, members of the political class in the West have repeatedly called for a fight against the spread of Putin’s narratives since they justify Russia’s attack on Ukraine. People who defended Putin as acting somewhat rationally or logically while still acting in violation of international law were ignored or labeled as distributors of Russian propaganda. Even the renowned scholar of political science, John Mearsheimer, could not escape this fate.

However, things have changed with the rise of Donald Trump and America, and thus to some extent the world has been turned upside down. What was Russian propaganda turned out to be arguments worthy of attention, as the hero of the democratic world Zelensky turned out to be one of the main supporters of an endless war, and Europe – the main ally of the United States, became practically a rival of the White House across the ocean. Shockingly in this context even the perception of Putin has changed. Now, he is seen as, if not a partner, then at least no longer the main enemy of the United States. 

It is pointless to ask what is going on, as no one understands it, but one thing is clear: three years of war have confirmed bad stereotypes not only about Russia, but also about the West. And it is these stereotypes that will help us understand why the world is changing so much before our eyes, why Trump is so friendly with Putin, and why Europe now faces the most important dilemma in recent history.

Stereotypes & Hypocrisy

The stereotypes this text is about to describe relate to the perception of the West in the global South.  Talk about democracy, international cooperation and respect for the sovereignty of each country have come to be seen as just  covers for defending someone’s specific interests, usually the American ones. In fact, nowadays, the main propagator of this point of view is Vladimir Putin. For a long time, he was not able to achieve serious media success among his opponents in the West because the ideology of liberal internationalism was, and remains, strong there. However, with Donald Trump’s second term and his current rhetoric, the persuasiveness of the arguments  which justify these stereotypes has grown enormously.

Perhaps key to this is the notion of “the art of the deal” to which Trump so often resorts. “You should have never started it. You could have made a deal”, he said recently in an address to Ukrainians, shifting the blame for starting the war to Kyiv. Although Putin, a former KGB officer, is not associated with the world of entrepreneurship, do not be confused – 

it is precisely this “business approach” to the fate of nations that is shared by the Russian president.

Thanks to it, everything that comes out of Trump’s mouth is also perfectly understood in the Kremlin. This transactional approach to international relations has validated long-standing suspicions that Western nations preach democracy and sovereignty while practicing a form of neo-imperialism when it suits their interests.​ The fact that this time such thinking is being directly demonstrated by the USA is a major problem for the West as a whole since it challenges its ideological foundations and puts the EU in an extremely difficult position. 

This is the first time in a long time that the decision European leaders make will be of such a long-term nature. In choosing whether or not to rearm and possibly intervene militarily in Ukraine, they will have to answer the question of what liberal internationalism has been all along. Was it a real ideology and moral basis, or was it all pure rhetoric, whose time has come and gone just as the era of Marxism-Leninism ended with the USSR: that is, which died the moment the hegemon stopped supporting it with its military might, and there appeared no one among its supporters who, in the moment of confrontation, dared to really stand up for it.

Written by: Fedor Agapov

Edited by: Majbritt Rosendahl

© “President Donald J. Trump and President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation” by Shealah Craighead (2018, July 16) on Flickr.