In his New York Times column David Brooks gives his explanation for why Russian President Vladimir Putin cannot “back down”:
I don’t know about you, but I’ve found the writings of conventional international relations experts to be not very helpful in understanding what this whole crisis is about. But I’ve found the writing of experts in social psychology to be enormously helpful.
That’s because Vladimir Putin is not a conventional great power politician. He’s fundamentally an identity entrepreneur. His singular achievement has been to help Russians to recover from a psychic trauma — the aftermath of the Soviet Union — and to give them a collective identity so they can feel that they matter, that their life has dignity.
The war in Ukraine is not primarily about land; it’s primarily about status. Putin invaded so Russians could feel they are a great nation once again and so Putin himself could feel that he’s a world historical figure along the lines of Peter the Great.
Maybe we should see this invasion as a rabid form of identity politics. Putin spent years stoking Russian resentments toward the West. He falsely claimed Russian-speakers are under widespread attack in Ukraine. He uses the tools of war in an attempt to make Russians take pride in their group identity.
The Soviet Union was a messed-up tyranny, but as Gulnaz Sharafutdinova writes in her book “The Red Mirror,†Soviet history and rhetoric gave Russians a sense that they were “living in a country that was in many ways unique and superior to the rest of the world.†People could derive a sense of personal significance from being part of this larger Soviet project.
The end of the Soviet Union could have been seen as a liberation, a chance to build a new and greater Russia. But Putin chose to see it as a catastrophic loss, one creating a feeling of helplessness and a shattered identity. Who are we now? Do we matter anymore?
A little background might be clarifying here. There is a theological and political belief in Russia that goes back to the 15th and 16th centuries, to the period of Ivan Grozniy, the very foundations of the Russian state, that Moscow is the “Third Rome”, the heir to Rome and Byzantium. The belief has three aspects:
- a theological aspect that the Eastern Orthodox Churches will be united
- a social aspect that there it a unity of East Slavic peoples in the Eastern Orthodox faith and Slavic culture
- a political aspect in which the prince of Moscow is the rightful ruler of Eastern Orthodox countries and defender of Eastern Orthodoxy.
and these three aspects are God’s will. You should be able to see the relationship between those beliefs and the Russian reaction to NATO’s actions in the former Yugoslavia, Putin’s assistance to Syria, and the present situation in Ukraine. It’s sort of Russia’s version of “Manifest Destiny” and very deeply ingrained. No, he won’t back down, it doesn’t matter how economically painful it becomes. It would be heresy.
By the way, if you think that Manifest Destiny died in the 19th century, you haven’t been paying attention. It’s alive and well and represented by the “American Greatness” school of foreign policy of which the late Sen. John McCain was the primary exponent up until his death. It’s still a major factor both among Republicans and Democrats. The Democratic version includes things like standing up for women’s rights, treatment of sexual preference, etc.
As should be needless to say, I don’t believe that Moscow is the Third Rome, that the United States has a Manifest Destiny, or, indeed, that “the arc of the moral universe bends towards justice”. But I don’t dismiss that a lot of people do, that those beliefs inform their actions, and that not everything can be reduced to economic determinism.
“…not everything can be reduced to economic determinism.”
So much psychological noodling. I view it much more simply. Putin saw the opportunity to prevent having a NATO country adjacent to his border, where it could be used militarily. Resets and red button gifts, the “don’t worry be happy” world view of Obama, the “trust me, we will defend you” politics of Clinton and now, a weak president presented an opportunity. David Brooks can play psychologist all he wants. Putin is a cold blooded KGBer.
Once you understand that Putin does not care a whit about public opinion, can anyone make the case that he didn’t ruthlessly seize a strategic opportunity no matter the historical national psychology?
It’s pretty obvious that Putin is a Russian nationalist, some sort of Russian orthodox believer, and a slavophile. But those are just context for the invasion of Ukraine. That invasion was driven by security concerns deriving from the US/NATO expansionist drive to Russian borders. US/NATO tanks are now only a few hundred miles from St. Petersburg. Would we be happy with Russian tanks in Tijuana? We were willing to go to war over missiles in Cuba. But we had much better leaders then.
It is also clear now that Russia merely preempted a scheduled Ukrainian attack on the Donbas republics, which is why there were 12 to 16 Ukrainian brigades on the Donbas border. It is also clear now that the US was funding biowarfare research in Ukraine, stupidly confirmed, once again, by the girl-idiot Victoria Nuland, who ran the 2014 coup d’état. Further documents have been captured that showed Ukraine had an actual nuclear weapon research program underway. Zelensky’s threat to go nuclear was based on an active weapons development program.
The US is now trying to get the EU and Anglophones to implement a complete embargo on trade with Russia. There are a number of EU countries that are refusing to do this, as well as Turkey, Mexico, India, China… It is not possible to isolate Russia from the wider world, so this will be another American policy that fails.
Has the US had a single foreign policy or military adventure that succeeded since 1945? I will grant you the Marshall plan, and even NATO in the early years. But NATO has been a liability since the fall of the USSR, and its expansion has been a strategic disaster, which has brought us to the edge of WW III.
“It is also clear now that the US was funding biowarfare research in Ukraine…”
C’mon now. They were researching tuberculosis. Or was it a 17 year clean-up of old Soviet labs? (snicker)
Russian history and psychology pre-date the Soviet Union by 500 years, at least. While autocratic since Russia’s inception, the Soviet Union is an anomaly in Russian history.
(I think Czar is the better spelling because it means Caesar. When Eastern Rome fell, Russia claimed the mantle.)
A Russian history lesson:
While Russia straddles both Europe and Asia, Russia west of the Urals is not European, and Russia east of the Urals is not Asian. Russia is an amalgamation of various groups of people, and these groups are antagonistic, at best.
Every spring the Viking and Mongols would raid the lands demanding tribute and slaves. This was the “raiding season”, and it occurred every year. It was mostly stopped by Ivan the Terrible.
Ivan united the groups, but to do so, he was ruthless. The only way they would work together was by force, and this was the case until Nicholas II. Had Nicholas II been as ruthless as his father Alexander II, the Soviet Union would never have existed.
Claiming to be the heir of the Empire and Church was for legitimacy. As Caesar, Ivan was the defender of the Eastern Orthodox Church and its members. The Church was the main tie between the various groups, and therefore, his ruthlessness was the “Will of God”.
Stronger Czars have claimed ownership of all Russian lands and all Russian people. Land ownership could be revoked at any time, and in essence, everybody was a serf. The aristocracy existed at the pleasure of the Czar, and one’s title and land could be confiscated at the pleasure of the Czar.
(Fun fact: Peter the Great had to order the Russian aristocracy to build homes and live in Petersburg. Most of Russia was built of wood, but he declared that their homes had to be stone. Those who refused to comply would have everything confiscated.)
The boyars were the historic aristocracy, but they were not the royal aristocracy. With a weak Czar, they could challenge his authority over them, their land, and their people. They were largely from the Ukraine, and during these times the Ukraine would be somewhat autonomous. Also, the Cossacks originated there, as well.
The Europeans have never accepted the Russians as equals, and the European lesser nobility were the only marriage candidates. Catherine the Great was a minor German princess who was married to a mentally challenged Czar. (Most likely, Peter III was the last Czar to carry Hapsburg blood.)
Daughters of the Czar could not marry below the sons of upper nobility, but since they were at the top of Russian nobility, Europeans were the only option. Often, a Czarevna (Russian princess) would never marry. Subsequently, Russian never was able to become more European. (Sons were able to marry lesser nobility.)
Putin is simply a throwback to the Czarist era. Ukrainians are not Europeans yearning for freedom. They are Ukrainians yearning for a Ukrainian autocrat. Europe will never accept Ukrainian values, and Europe will never accept the Ukraine as European.
In the end, the Ukraine has no place to go but east. Sooner rather than later, the West will tire of Ukrainian values, and the Ukrainians will integrate back into the Russian ecosystem.
That’s certainly my take.
Once upon a time “Kievan Rus'” was the land of the Eastern Slavs. Then the Tartars (Mongols) came and that ended. There was periodic Tartar raiding until Ivan, as described above, drove them out. Since then Moscow has been the center of the Eastern Slavs. I suspect the Ukrainians want Kyiv to be the center of the Eastern Slavs as it was a millennium ago.
BTW, “Magnificent” or “Awesome” is a better translation of Ivan’s epithet than “Terrible”. Fun fact: he proposed to Elizabeth I. That would have been interesting.
The funniest thing I ever read about Russia was about Peter the Great visiting England. Supposedly, Russians had never seen a wheelbarrow, and his entourage took turns wheeling each other around. It was probably English propaganda, but the image still makes me laugh.
I think I remember reading that there was a debate about Ivan being “Terrible”, but I did not know that the translation was so Terrible. It might have been English propaganda as well.
Unfortunately, I have forgotten a lot, and I am too apathetic to research it, again.
At one time, I had a historical atlas, and other than The World Almanac, it was the most useful resource I had. Somewhere on the internet, I think there was a graphic that showed how borders changed over the centuries. If not, there should be. It makes history more tangible.
Speaking of Third Rome and Orthodoxy; have you seen this article by former NSA official John Schrindler?
TL;DR; Apparently American policy for the past several years (or at least its appearance) was to create a schism in the Russian Orthodox church; including the Ukrainian embassy tweeting congratulations when it occurred.
Which is really remarkable because if a similar thing was tried in say Iran / Iraq / Afghanistan, about 500 experts would have exclaimed the danger of doing so (i.e. its practically inviting war) and it would be a scandal.
In some way I trace this to the fact Americans who aren’t Christians wouldn’t understand the serious nature of a schism; and among American Christians most are unfamiliar with Orthodoxy and how it defines the relationship between members, church and state is a distinct manner from Catholicism or Protestantism.
Another thing that is remarkable. The Russian Orthodox church is the most significant (perhaps only?) cultural institution from before the Soviet Union that has survived Communism. Even irreligious Russians would be sensitive on these matters.
Reminds me of the quote from Sun Tzu. Are US policy makers ignorant about Russia? Do US policy makers know (since they are mostly irreligious) they have very ignorant concepts on these matters.
They’ve always been ignorant. Actually, a combination of ignorance, misinformation, and disinformation. Little known anecdote: the reason the U. S. didn’t intervene in Hungary in 1956 was disinformation. CIA disinformation which persisted for decades.
If you recall, I just quoted it a day or so ago. Very apt under the circumstances.
That’s a very informative article, CuriousOnlooker. I was aware of everything in it but I doubt many Americans were.
The proof that we caused the split is that we congratulated them? Seriously? The guy does make some good points. NATO was off the table and Russia knew it. They guaranteed it by starting the fighting in 2014. So he is correct that NATO is just an excuse. The real reasons are economic and Putin wanting to stay in power. I have no idea if Putin is observant, I am skeptical, but I do think he has correctly identified the Orthodox church as the important surviving cultural institution in Russia. It is clear that he has used them to gain legitimacy.
Is he in the position that he needs to make the church happy to maintain power? I dont know but i ma sure it doesnt hurt. Much like in our country where politicians who are clearly not faithful in any way reach out to those of faith to get support. As always, when religion and politics mix religion loses.
Steve
I’ll make a point with a set of questions.
What trivial matter caused the schism between the Anglican and Catholic Church?
Name 3 civil wars, change of government, and actual wars directly due to the schism between the Anglican and Catholic church.
What specific event that is usually dated as the cause of the Protestant reformation (schism between Protestantism and Catholicism)?
Name 2 wars that arose from the reformation
As an analog; Iran has a theology “velayat-e faqih” which to my understanding is not an agreed matter in Shia Islam. Yet US policy has never been to comment on the matter or use disagreement on it for US policy goals — because people have understood the danger in meddling with these matters.
The grade school answer is that Henry wanted a divorce. I think the larger answer is monarchical control of the church.
Well, there were more than three but
Again the grade school answer is Martin Luther’s nailing his 95 theses to the door of Mainz Cathedral but I think the actual answer, again, is monarchical control of the church.
The Dutch Revolt, the Hessian War, and the Thirty Years War but there were dozens.
I don’t disagree with your point. I think that too many modern Western people completely underestimate the power of religion in human affairs.
I think religion has often been used as both reason and excuse for war. In the current case I would expect more excuse but hard to tell. It looks to me like Ukraine has been asking to join NATO and asking to join the EU or at least be more involved in the EU. It has been trying to separate itself from Russia. I think it most likely that the Ukrainians pushed to leave Russian influence absent any other evidence. Did we comment upon it? Yes? Does our failure to comment upon Sunnis and Shia separating mean anything or is it relevant in any way? No. Our failure to comment upon the protestant revolution? No. I think that it most likely that this is how Putin gets the church to support him and the church to explain this to the people.
We do have countervailing meta-stories dont we? Putin is also the savior of the Slavic peoples, who he is saving by massacring. Not cool. Slaughtering to save them for religious reasons. Cool!
Steve
Explaining is not defending.
Sure but lets also explain why some explanations make little sense. In the context of any m oder religion is it likely that the guy who has stolen billions from his country, helped others do the same, ordered thousands murdered is a true believer of any kind of faith? Or is it more likely he is using those people of faith? Especially knowing that people of faith sell themselves in a heartbeat to any politician who panders to them.
Steve
I am not saying what Putin did is justified.
I am pointing out intervening or contributing to a religious schism is dangerous stuff.
As an example; Henry VII wasn’t a pious man; he did everything Putin is accused of doing. And Henry used religion as justification for achieving many of his own ends (seizing the wealth of the Catholic Church, etc).
When schisms occur; they unleash forces which the unscrupulous can use for their own ends…. And turn into intractable conflict for decades / centuries.
Just recall the subsequent history of the UK. Beyond the wars already mentioned; the Anglican / Catholic split contributed to the Spanish Armada; the gunpowder plot; and every Irish trouble up to the present day.
Assuming you mean Henry VIII, actually he was. He wrote a treatise defending the Catholic Church against Martin Luther’s charges and for that was given the title “Defender of the Faith”. It’s an instance of relative priorities. Consolidating power in his own hands was more important to him than his religion.