The New York Times: Putin's war in Ukraine is a "clash of civilizations" that aims to form a parallel Russian world

When the United States launched a war to reshape the Middle East in 2003, Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized American ambitions and defended international institutions, pluralism, and national sovereignty, but the picture now appears to be opposite with the developments of the Russian war on Ukraine.

In his article in The New York Times, young political analyst Ross Douthat wrote that Putin's position during the Iraq war was cynical and based on his own self-interest to the fullest, but the events revealed by the arrogant American invasion later proved its relevance, as it revealed the failure of The United States in Iraq and then in Afghanistan the challenges of the invasion, the risks of occupation, and the unintended consequences of the war, according to the author.

Russia, led by President Vladimir Putin, which profited largely from America's follies, continued its gradual resurgence, shrewdly seizing land on a small scale in areas of "frozen conflict" and cautiously expanding its influence.

big gamble

But now Putin is making a world-historic gamble, adopting a more sinister version of the vision that once led George W. Bush in the wrong direction.

It is worth asking here why a leader who in the past seemed aware of the dangers of arrogance would take this gamble now?

The writer - author of "Dissolved Society: How We Became Victims of Our Success" - says he believes Putin was sincere when he criticized Russia's blockade of NATO and insisted that Western influence threatens the historical relationship between Ukraine and Russia.

It is clear that he sees an opportunity in the chaos caused by the outbreak of the Corona epidemic, the imperial expansion of America and the internal division afflicting the West.

But even so, all scenarios—including Putin's most successful invasion of Ukraine, which predicts an easy victory, no real rebellion and the installation of a loyal government in Kiev—will likely undermine some of the interests that the Russian military is fighting to defend.

NATO will remain almost besieged to the west of Russia, more countries may join the alliance, European military spending will increase, and we will see more forces and military mechanisms pushed into Eastern Europe.

Not to mention the pressure for European energy independence, and some attempts to dispense with the long-term gas pipelines and Russian production.

The reconstituted Russian Empire would be poorer and more isolated from the world economy, in the face of a West whose union would be strengthened, and all of the above assuming there was no crushing occupation or anti-war sentiment within Russia.

A world divided by civilizations

The writer says that it is possible that Putin has assumed that the West is very corrupt and easy to buy, to the extent that tantrums will pass with him and resume his usual relationship with him in the past without any long-term consequences.

But suppose he anticipates some of these consequences, including a more isolated future for his country, why would he choose that path?

The answer may be that Putin believes that the era of American world leadership is coming to an end, that some walls imposed by the pandemic will remain everywhere, and that the goal over the next 50 years is to consolidate what can be nurtured resources, talents, peoples, and lands within the walls of your own civilization.

Proceeding from this vision, the future is not a liberal world empire, nor does it bear a renewed cold war between two competing world powers.

Rather, the future is for a world divided into a multiplication of what Bruno Macis, a researcher at the American Hudson Institute, called “civilizations of states,” which are culturally coherent great powers that do not aspire to dominate the world, but rather aspire to be their own world separately, under their own nuclear umbrella.

This idea, which smells like the arguments of American political theorist Samuel Huntington in the "clash of civilizations" of the past generation, clearly influences many of the world's rising powers—from Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Hindutva ideology to turning against exchange Cultural and Western influence at Xi Jinping, President of China.

Macys hopes that a diet of civilization will lead to the revival of Europe, and that Putin's adventure may provide a catalyst for stronger continental cohesion.

Even within the United States, the re-emergence of economic nationalism and wars over national identity can be seen as a shift toward this kind of civilizational concern.

Persuasion and power in the Russian world

In light of the foregoing, the invasion of Ukraine appears to be an act of frenzied adherence to civilization, and an attempt to shape what the Russian nationalist writer Anatoly Karelin calls the “Russian world” by force, that is, to create a “technological civilization in its own right, complete with its own ecosystem and its own information technology...and its project.” And its technological vision... extends from Brest (in Belarus) to Vladivostok (the Far East of Russia)."

The goal here is not to ignite a world revolution or conquer the world, but rather to civilized self-containment and unify “our history, our culture and our spiritual space,” as Putin put it in his speech about “the war with some lost children” (a euphemism for countries trying to get away from Russia’s influence) whom he seeks to drag to return home even though they did not want to.

But if your civilized nation cannot persuade its separated children, can you really keep them in it by force?

Even if the invasion were successful, wouldn't many Ukrainians—especially the young, talented and ambitious—find ways to flee or emigrate, leaving Putin to inherit a poor, broken country full of pensioners?

And to what extent will the nationalist vision of Russian self-sufficiency be fictional, could Greater Russia - according to Putin's vision - end up being a mere client or vassal of China, attracted by Beijing's stronger attraction to a more dependent relationship as its relations with it increased and its ties with Europe weakened?

Those are the long-term challenges - as the writer concludes - to Putin's vision, which accepts self-sufficiency and isolation as a price for Russia's unification.

But for now, as long as the Ukrainians continue to fight, there is hope that Putin will not need to confront the long-term repercussions of his strategy, and that history, which the Russian president imagines he is making, will record his defeat!