Putin ignited a terrible war in Europe. Its purpose is the destruction of Ukraine as an independent state. But there are several real motives for this war.
First, Putin's personal revenge for his defeats in Ukraine during his rule of more than 20 years (starting with the “Orange” Maidan in 2004); secondly, the desire to switch the attention of the people, to veil economic problems and a drop in ratings with the help of a “small victorious war” (tyrants and dictators always did this in the Middle Ages and in the 20th century, because tyranny is always war);
And thirdly, this is a solution to the issue of maintaining personal power for yourself and your friends, as well as for your children and the children of your friends, the desire to provide them all with money, power and complete security for years to come.< /p>When the civilized world was again protected from the country by the “Iron Curtain” – who can prevent them from using this country as their personal property, and its citizens as serfs who will serve their entertainment and palaces – everything is like in the days of “former greatness” at 18 century? That is why Putin's words about security and the need to “defend your sovereignty” are lies! No, the point here, of course, is not the security of Russia, but the security of the one who is now the “owner” there! As “at the best of times” – “All in the name of Man!” and we even know the man's name!
After the nuclear missile shield was created in Russia by the efforts of three previous generations, Russia's military defeat in a global war and its occupation are theoretically impossible. All the talk about the military threat to Russia from the West is PR for the poor in spirit. So what's the deal? The only real threat from the West is that not only its direct or indirect intervention, but even the very fact of its existence as an example of an alternative political culture is a factor that can contribute to the change of power within Russia and the coming to it of persons other than those who has been controlling it since the beginning of the 2000s (and in fact – since the beginning of the 90s). But this is not a question of Russia's security, but a question of security, or rather, the well-being, of these people, – noted political scientist Vladimir Pastukhov.
Most likely, the plan of a “victorious war” has matured in Putin's head. This time it was packaged in the idea of ”returning one's own,” something that allegedly historically rightfully belonged to Russia. But the appetite grew already during the meal, simultaneously with the growth of Putin's confidence in his specialty, his chosenness. At first, it was about claims to the inheritance from the USSR: back in 2005, after the first Maidan, Putin told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rise that Moscow’s interest in the post-Soviet republics was explained by the fact that they got material resources from the Soviet Union, and this is unfair!
But already after the temporary transfer of his chair in the Kremlin “under protection” to Medvedev, ten years ago, Putin returned to the Kremlin with two “fresh” ideas: First: to build a “Eurasian Union” – a confederation of post-Soviet states with a common foreign defense policy (more on this He even wrote an article in Izvestia). A sort of modernized version of the USSR, on the site of what was left after Belovezhskaya Pushcha in December 1991.
And second: now this is Putin's main idea, but for the first time it was formulated in another program article before his return to the Kremlin in 2012: “There is Russia within its borders, but there is “Historical Russia”, “Greater Russia”: Russia as a “historical state”. Our national and migration problems are directly related to the destruction of the USSR, and in fact, historically – great Russia, which has developed at its core back in the 18th century, with the inevitable subsequent degradation of state, social and economic institutions, with a huge gap in development in the post-Soviet space.
It may seem strange, but Putin was repeating the steps taken in Weimar Germany after the defeat in the First World War and the collapse of the empire: first, he returned the Soviet anthem, explaining this by saying “he wanted to give people the feeling that they did not lose everything with the collapse of the USSR” (imperial state symbols were restored in Germany eight years after the collapse of the empire, in Russia – after nine). Then he said that the collapse of the USSR was the biggest geopolitical catastrophe. This was a little later, in 2005, after the failure of his first plan for a “soft” annexation of Ukraine with the help of a controlled President Yanukovych.
A little later, in 2006, Yegor Gaidar assessed the situation, predicting the near future in an article about the dangers of the post-imperial syndrome in Russia (an article in the newspaper “Kommersant” – “Weimar Syndrome”), an article where he drew parallels with Weimar Germany, which fell under the spell of the Hitler myth about a “special country”, about Germany, which “no one defeated on battlefield” in the First World War, but Germany, which was “betrayed by internal enemies – Jews and communists”.
It was not true, just like the fact that Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich did not destroy the Soviet Union – it rotted and collapsed itself four months before the Belovezhskaya agreement, after the August putsch. And this happened not because someone was systematically ruining it, but under the weight of their own problems, due to the inefficiency of the planned economy and the deceitfulness of the communist ideology, which was clear to all the people.
Everything naturally ended, forever and very quickly, which is important, and Gaidar wrote about this in the article: “Suddenness, the speed with which seemingly unshakable empires collapse, gives rise to a feeling of unreality of what is happening. It is easy to convince society that a state that collapsed so unexpectedly can be restored just as quickly if there is political will. This is an illusion, and a dangerous one! The price for it was the rivers of blood shed during the Second World War.Since the 2000s, Putin has decided to restore “imperial greatness” both politically and symbolically. But already in August 2008, the war in Georgia showed that, under the pretext of protecting compatriots, he was ready to invade the territories of other countries (Hitler, inspired by popular support after the Anschluss of Austria, did exactly the same, he decided to “liberate” the Sudeten Germans from “Czechoslovak oppression”).
By 2012, Putin already had a ready plan of action for Ukraine, because by that time the pro-Russian Yanukovych became president in the country and the entire vertical of power was controlled by Moscow. And of course, without Ukraine, this imperial plan for the revival of great Russia was impossible! What is the USSR without Kyiv and Kharkov? And is “historical Russia” possible without Odessa and Crimea? Zbigniew Brzezinski said back in the late 80s – “Without Ukraine, Russia is not an empire.”
However, it failed again to subjugate Ukraine by political methods – again there was a “failure”, or rather, the second Maidan, a full-fledged uprising – the “Revolution of Dignity”, as the Ukrainians themselves proudly called it. And then Putin decided to take Crimea by force and ignite the conflict in the Donbass, all the time adding fuel to the fire, not letting it go out, and at the same time pretending to be a peacemaker all the time. All this again got away with and added enthusiasm, and therefore, after eight years, his imperial ambitions reached a new level, and he began a full-scale invasion and attempt to capture the entire territory of Ukraine.
At the same time, the growth of his appetite was fueled by the public support that all his previous adventures enjoyed. The German magazine Spiegel very well illustrated on its first page of the issue in August 2022 – “Why so many Russians support Putin's war – because he is the People!”
Political scientist Kirill Rogov draws attention in an interview to the YouTube channel ” Sakharov Center” that the reaction of society both to the war with Georgia fourteen years ago and to the seizure of Crimea convinced Putin that war is the path to success!
It is important to understand this history of the attitude of the Russian population to the war and its reaction. And in fact, for a long time she was “not noticed” at the international level, attention was concentrated on Putin, on the leadership of Russia. But we must understand this connection between the enthusiastic and joyful reaction that there is in society in relation to the wars of 2008 and 2014, and the fact that the Russian leadership adopted this line of behavior because it looks successful for them in a political sense.
And now the war for Putin has turned into his life. And until he is defeated, he will not stop and will expand his “historical Russia”! At the same time, although sociologists do not observe today such enthusiasm and enthusiasm with which the Russian people met the annexation of Crimea, they do not see a sharp rejection of the war either. Russian society does not so much support the war as it fences itself off from it – anyway, it is impossible to influence the course of events, it is better to adapt, to benefit from it if possible.
For representatives of the “deep people of Russia” the war has become a kind of social elevator, with the help of which one can get rich on the promised “lifting” and monthly payments, receive compensation for the injury and “shop around” with wealthy crests. In the “extreme case” relatives will earn on “coffin”.
The Kommersant newspaper cited the results of a poll by the Russian Field sociological service: 60% would support Putin's decision to attack Kyiv again, while 65% would approve of his decision to make peace. Truly “iron logic”, because the total is 125%! But for an experienced Russian layman – a common thing! After all, this happened according to the results of the official vote count in elections from the Russian Central Election Commission.
Such a seemingly impossible paradoxical alignment of “60% for war and 65% for peace” if it says something, it is that, firstly, there is no longer mass support for war in society, and secondly, that the Russian layman does not care what approve the decision of the authorities – as grandfathers used to say, “we don't care: what to attack – run, what to retreat – run.”
In Russian society, of course, there is a group of militarists, aggressive “revivalists of the empire”, who vote only for the war, for the destruction of Ukraine, the Baltic states, for returning to the USSR. Their aspirations and hopes today are, of course, voiced by Igor Strelkov/Girkin. But there are not so many such people. But there are many more who adapt to the war. The first shock from her passed, the second phase came – acceptance, addiction, adaptation. With the same “you have to live somehow”.
People see that Putin's The “special operation” has dragged on and is clearly not going according to plan, but coffins are coming and going from the front, and depression is accumulating in society. And the most simple and habitual reaction of the Russian society is to shift the responsibility from itself to the authorities, to Putin. That's how he decides – so be it!
Kremlin sociologists fix support for the war (“special operations”) at the level of 72%. However, experts from sociology believe that this is an inflated propaganda figure obtained through manipulation. The head of the research center “Chronicles” believes that today the number of supporters of war and peace in Russia is the same and amounts to approximately 40%. Thus Koneva fixes a sharp drop in support for the war in Ukraine. Nevertheless, the vast majority is waiting for Russia's “victory” in this war. However, what meaning do respondents put into the word “victory”?
It turned out that 82% of the respondents “expect victory.” They do not declare that they are “ready to fight for victory”, but “expect victory”. How they imagine it can be known only by indirect questions (people are afraid to answer frankly). Therefore, to an open question (without prompts), when they fantasize, answer as they want, it turns out that the main meaningful answers to such a question come down to the fact that “we will simply return to the” pre-war level “, everything will return and be as it was before, we will be friends with Ukraine again,” says sociologist Trilena Koneva, analyst at Extremscan.
This is a completely irresponsible, naive, infantile position. The position of people who do not understand or do not want to understand what is really happening. Such unwillingness of society to take responsibility is typical for Russia. Indeed, in Russia there is a tradition that took root under any government and any regime, and this is the tradition of “adapting to the desires of the authorities.” But now it has become an adaptation to the new realities created by the authorities, terrible and unthinkable in terms of cruelty, because now the authorities are killing innocent people!
And he kills them on behalf of the entire Russian society, trying to kill an entire nation, an entire country. And the longer Putin is at war with Ukraine, the more the world is convinced that all of Russia is to blame. And all the louder are the calls in Europe to isolate themselves from Russia, to ban entry and even drive Russian citizens away. This logic goes further – not only has Russia not overcome its imperial syndrome, it has never stopped thinking “imperially”! And since it ALL sees itself as an empire, then let ALL answer in its entirety!
“Let's return to friendship with Ukraine” – it turns out that the majority thinks so. There is also nostalgia, and “great power” and attitude towards all its neighbors “from top to bottom”, as to younger brothers, and disrespect for neighboring peoples, their interests, their borders – all this was and is. So it was under the Soviet regime, and in the 90s and in the “zero”, it is today. The question is how these complexes are encouraged and used.
The Soviet Union was the “great Russia” that Putin is now dreaming of so much. In the same article in which ten years ago he introduced the formula “historical Russia, a historical state,” he accused the then instigators of sovereignty that in the heat of fighting with each other they forgot about their common homeland. As noted above, this is very similar to Hitler's accusations against “internal enemies” who doomed the empire to collapse.
What will happen next, and what can stop the madness, the adventure into which with enthusiasm and enthusiasm behind Putin and his power turned on a huge part of Russian society? Only the complete defeat of Russia at the front, a drop in the standard of living in all strata of Russian society, which sooner or later will lead to “senseless and merciless” riots, and ultimately to the fall of Putinism and the very idea of u200bu200bthe revival of the empire. It will happen sooner or later. The only question is what price we all have to pay for this.
