[ad_1]
The dangerous rapprochement between Russia and the US-led West has sparked a heated debate about the nature of the conflict. While some Western experts say the threat comes from “expansionist Russia”, they say it wants to re-establish its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, while others believe that what drives the Kremlin to its enemies is the fear of democracy.
“[Russian President Vladimir] Putin is not afraid of NATO expansion today. He is afraid of democracy in Ukraine, “said Michael McFaul, a former Russian ambassador to the United States, in a recent interview with Economist. Although it is a well-known narrative within some Western political circles, it does not fully reflect the truth.
The second is true or at least it was true in the winter of 2013-14, when the dramatic events of the Maidan revolution taking place in Kyiv gave hope to pro-democracy Russians. Many of them were outraged by Putin’s involvement in the political conflict in Ukraine, the annexation of Crimea and the impetus of the war in the Donbas region. Two marches against the war in Moscow, on March 15 and September 21, 2014, were one of the largest protests by the Russian opposition in the first half of the 2010s.
But soon Ukraine began to lose its appeal in Russian pro-democracy circles. This was largely due to the toxic nature of the political debate in Ukraine, especially on social media, which was surprising to genuine Russian liberals.
Gradually, it became clear that post-Maidan patriotic and Western forces were not really embracing democratic and liberal values. Ukraine began to look more and more like a mirror of nationalist and liberal Russia, but with a twist: it also took on autonomous right-wing paramilitary groups made up of far-right and neo-Nazi elements.
Despite all hopes for radical change and democratic transformation, Maidan revealed that the country was still ruled by the same oligarchic clique, backed by a network of corrupt politicians and security agents who ran the show before the revolution. Some new characters were created, but most remained the same, as was the nature of the political system. With a war in one corner of the country, a strong organized crime, and more political assassinations than Putin’s Russia has seen at the same time, Ukraine reminded the Russians of the turbulent 1990s.
As a result, the Kremlin made a masterpiece of propaganda, turning the neighboring country into a scarecrow because of what the “color revolution” could bring. Thus, instead of a democratic model, Ukraine became a warning story to the Russians, with the idea that without liberalization, some liberalization or way of life would be better than the status quo.
This attitude was somewhat softened after the election of moderate chairman Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a former comedian whose sitcom Servant of the People was as successful in Russia as in Ukraine. But the idea of Ukraine becoming a beacon for Russia has disappeared, at least for now.
From a Russian perspective, what happened in Ukraine after the Maidan revolution has also exposed Western hypocrisy. Despite persistent rhetoric about democratic values, Brussels and Washington are turning a blind eye to a number of factors that have prevented Ukraine from being a role model for Russians. These include discriminatory language laws that severely restrict the use of the Russian language, praise of Nazi collaborators on street names and public celebrations, the government’s reluctance to investigate political assassinations, and the oligarchs still leading the show. .
All of this has fueled a long-standing suspicion in Russia that the West is primarily interested in bringing its military infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders, rather than spreading democracy and liberal values. Putin said the West is trying to create an “anti-Russian” enemy state that acts as a proxy force and offers itself as a battlefield between the two major nuclear powers, the US-Russia. It’s not a better version of Russia, as Russian liberals once predicted.
That’s why experts like McFaul are wrong about the Kremlin’s NATO concern. Fear of the West, its tendency to suspect that it is completely honest in its statements, such as the mere fact that NATO is a mere defense alliance that does not threaten Russia, is not something Putin invented. It is a widespread sentiment in Russian society and not only related to the history of the destructive invasions of the West, but more importantly, it is linked to the last 30 years of antagonistic Western policies.
Russians have felt betrayed by the West in the 1990s. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and its withdrawal from the totalitarian regime, they hoped that it would be fully integrated into the Western world, in its military and political structure. Instead, the West invited all its neighbors, except Russia, to join NATO and the European Union.
Not surprisingly, the deployment of these two entities has been perceived by many Russians as a policy of alienating their country from their neighbors and close relatives in Ukraine and Belarus. They feel deliberately excluded and isolated.
Why Russia was not the first priority for the West in the 1990s with its huge nuclear arsenal is still unanswered.
In 1999, prominent Russian officials, such as Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov, warned that NATO expansion would lead to a siege mentality in Russia and lead to its self-isolation and authoritarianism.
His prophecy was fulfilled in the form of Vladimir Putin, whose evolution from a supposedly liberal to a supposedly hard-fought Western Western (including Lujkov), the evolution of a supposed liberal was gradual and never predetermined. The version of Putin we are seeing today is the product of a very flawed and incompetent Western policy of the last 30 years. It is a Western creation.
For the time being, the confrontation with the Western powers remains by far the most important source of Putin’s legitimacy. By choosing Russia as its enemy, the US and its allies are strengthening their dictatorial regime. The West would do well to step back from geopolitical adventurism and the dangerous border game with Putin, and instead focus its efforts on true liberal democracy and the 21st century.
The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial attitude of Al Jazeera.
[ad_2]
Source link
