He said that the roots of the conflict are historical

Russian researcher: Ukraine's war is not the result of contemporary events

  • Imperial dreams have long teased Putin.

    AFP

  • Destruction befell many Ukrainian cities.

    AFP

picture

Almost two months have passed since the start of the Russian war in Ukraine, without a clear end in sight to that war, despite the obvious losses that affect many countries around the world.

In a report published by the Kennan Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Russian researcher Maxim Trudolyubov, senior advisor to the Kennan Institute and editor of Medusa, says that Russia's war against Ukraine can be seen as the culmination of decades of Russian society poisoning itself with stories of foreign encirclement. and abuse by the West.

For more than two decades now, politicians and state media have promoted fears of an external threat, the West's containment of Russia, and national grievances about isolated territories and economic failures.

Reviving old concepts

Trudolyubov adds that Russia's ultra-conservatives and communists began reviving old concepts such as "heartland", "restricted states" and "geopolitical destiny" as early as the mid-1990s.

He argues that since the late 2000s, a toxic mixture of early 20th century geopolitics and historical sentiment has been effectively Russia's ideology.

The combination is now in full bloom with Vladimir Putin's letter on Ukraine published last summer, and in his angry speech about the cause of the war, which was followed by a large-scale invasion of a neighboring country.

cementing historical grievances

Trudolyubov argues that geopolitics can only attract those political leaders who entrench various historical grievances as the basis for their revenge.

This is a political program not only for the Russian president, but also for like-minded politicians, including, to varying degrees, the leaders of Cuba, China and Hungary, Iran and Serbia, Turkey and Venezuela.

They all complain constantly about past humiliations, lack of international recognition, hostility from some outside powers, and wrongly drawn borders.

vogue

What is less clear, he adds, is why geopolitics publications continue to be popular in many international academic arenas.

Those trying to understand or even justify Russia's war against Ukraine often speak the language of "great power politics".

Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago, a favorite of the Russian authorities, never tires of repeating that "the United States and its European allies share most of the responsibility for this crisis."

In Mearsheimer's words, NATO expansion is the core of the West's strategy, but it also includes the enlargement of the European Union, and "includes the transformation of Ukraine into a liberal democracy pro-American, and from a Russian point of view, this constitutes an existential threat."

One response to this kind of reasoning is that Russia's behavior is proactive, not reactive.

Historian Stephen Kotkin says: “Before the existence of (NATO), in the nineteenth century Russia looked like this.

She had a despot, she had repression, she had militarism.

It is not Russia that arrived yesterday or in the nineties, it is not a response to the actions of the West.

There are internal processes in Russia that represent what we are today.”

geopolitical language

Thus, the geopolitical language used by foreign policy theorists, scholars, and analysts as an explanatory mechanism may not capture the full picture.

It also allows Russian superpower ideologues to disguise their ideas with an aura of respect.

But of course, scholars are entitled to a free discussion.

Nor do they usually start wars, but only explain them, after the fact.

The main problem with this type of discourse is not its explanatory weakness.

As many in the United States will admit, "turning a country into a pro-American liberal democracy" is easier said than done.

Trudolyubov sees Putin's geopolitics flawed on another level as well.

He adds that the Russian president is famous for being late for meetings.

This time it is about a century late.

Many observers have said that Putin is focused on the idea of ​​Ukraine's subjugation because, as Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former US national security adviser, famously observed, "Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire."

magical thinking

And in the twenty-first century, this is magical thinking.

Putin's idea of ​​having a large landmass is very important in and of itself, mysteriously granting its owner global, or at least regional, hegemony is very old.

Putin is trying to reproduce the geopolitics of the twentieth century in the modernity of the twenty-first century, where the economy, finance and technology are more important than geography and the land mass.

In Russia, we see failures in managing its civil economy, its financial system, and failures to create its own technology.

Putin and his inner circle are now trying to re-launch the war on Nazism, in order to emerge as the winners of the last war.

pursuit of conflict

Trudolyubov concludes that the global struggle for hegemony in today's world is pursued by economic, technological and financial means, the kinds of things that do not require men in tanks to cross international borders.

“By transporting tanks to Ukraine, Putin has challenged not only Ukraine, but all of our modernity.

He was not doing well in the modern world, so he wants the clock to stop.”

• Russia's war against Ukraine can be seen as the culmination of decades of Russian society's poisoning itself with stories of foreign encirclement and abuse by the West.


• Conservatives and communists in Russia began reviving old concepts, such as "heartland", "restricted states" and "geopolitical destiny", as early as the mid-nineties.


• Before the existence of "NATO", in the nineteenth century, Russia looked like this.

She had a despot, she had repression, she had militarism.

It is not Russia that arrived yesterday or in the nineties, it is not a response to the actions of the West.

There are internal processes in Russia that are what we are today.


• Putin is trying to reproduce the geopolitics of the twentieth century in the modernity of the twenty-first century, where the economy, finance and technology are more important than geography and the land mass.

In Russia, we see failures in managing its civil economy, its financial system, and failures to create its own technology.

Follow our latest local and sports news and the latest political and economic developments via Google news