The author is a philosopher, publicist, former chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Slovakia and former member of the European Parliament.
But Putin did not embark on a democratic reorganization of this chaos and decay. No, he set about “building” a strong centralized state. From the beginning, with the aim of maintaining internal unity and revitalizing its great power status: it will abolish the decentralized elections of governors dividing Russia into isolated domains of incalculable overlords; will suppress the Chechen resistance in blood; it establishes a client structure, regulated political plurality, state-oligarchic capitalism – and completes this whole model by searching for the moral basis of national unity. His patriotism is clearly national-conservative: it rests on the legendary “peculiarity” of Russian history, tradition and Orthodoxy; on education and inciting national pride.
It will restore geopolitics in its completely classic form. what really shocked Merkel, when she was surprised to realize after negotiations with Putin, is that he lives in the 19th century. Well, yes, after all, Putin is solving the missed history, the task of the constitution of the Russian nation, the task that other ethnic groups solved on the ruins of monarchies, but before Russia formed its national identity, it jumped into the revolutionary-adventurous attempt at “Soviet”. Yes, Putin is breathing the 19th century upon us, but with a massive arsenal of nuclear weapons.
Total state and leader
Indeed, it was only a matter of time before this combination of oligarchic capitalism, statism and nationalism transformed into imperialism. Putin seized this opportunity. His manifesto from December 2012 was ideologically groundbreaking: “The unity, integrity and sovereignty of Russia are unconditional”.
And all institutions of the country must submit to this goal.
Here, nationalism is directly connected to the state, the state becomes the unreserved representative of the national interest – it is the concept of the “total state” as we know it from early Italian fascism; and he, the true national leader, becomes more and more the embodiment of the state. (Just by the way, it would seem that fascism lacks one strong factor: the armed forces of the ruling United Russia party – just like Mussollini or Hitler had them: but Putin does not need them, he has at his disposal a complete apparatus of security forces and intelligence services. Finally, The Duce and the Fuhrer eliminated these party armed “guards” after seizing state power…).
The geopolitics of unattractiveness
Imperialism is always expansive, that is its essence. Putin would like to restore the “empire”, certainly on the scale of the “Soviet” – and he would undoubtedly be pleased if the sphere of Russian influence included the states of the former Warsaw Pact. But there is a fundamental obstacle here: it’s not NATO, it’s the European Union. Please don’t forget that NATO is a contractual defense organization, still under the umbrella and baton of the USA.
However, the EU is a co-state, a mix of confederal and federative arrangements: a co-state that, with its socio-economic standards and guarantee of national existence, pulls the European states of the former Soviet Union away from the Russian sphere of influence. Let’s remember that almost all conflicts either directly or indirectly arose from the preparation and signing of various economic agreements with the European Union.
Agreements that pulled these countries (Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia, potentially Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan) out of Russia’s direct reach. Moreover, they showed little perspective of Putin’s Eurasian Economic Union project. Treaties with the EU and the eventual launch of association processes definitively changed the geopolitics of the regions (Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus) to the disadvantage of Russia. Against this economic soft power, Russia had no tools or levers to compete with it. The only power that Russia has is military power and energy raw materials. All the “color revolutions” in these countries are happening under the flag of the European Union.
Intervention and manipulation
I visited probably all the mentioned countries in the zone of Russian interest (except Moldova). I had conversations with the highest representatives of these states, including those “officially” pro-Russian. Everyone in the interviews gave priority to economic cooperation with the EU and the European perspective. None of these politicians wanted their country to be dependent on Russia. Many also told me about the coercive activities of the Russian government and – what is the worst – about the ways in which the Russian oligarchy divided the territories in these countries.
It is quite humorous and at the same time humiliating for these countries when our (un)successful prime minister forcefully interprets their desire, struggle and struggle for the European future as “interference” by the EU. The paradox and cynicism of this interpretation is that the EU does not need to “intervene” or manipulate – because it is an authentic ideal that a large part of the population of these states see as their desire and future. And Putin has to “interfere” and manipulate, because there is absolutely nothing that Russia could offer, which could become attractive for the present and future of those states and residents.
Decline of freedom
By not choosing the path of the democratic constitution of the Russian nation, but betting on great-power nationalism, Putin exposed Russia to the worst decline. Not only socio-economic, but also the decline of freedom. Because Merkel was still an optimist when she said that Putin is in the thoughts of the 19th century.
In reality, today it is in the first half of the 20th century, when it repeats all the procedures and uses all the tools of extreme nationalism: internal limitation of political and civil liberties to a minimum, and external military campaigns against neighbors. It is visibly in decline mainly because it is losing on all fronts. Little noticed was that the “betrayal” of Armenia was simply a capitulation to Turkey, and the fall of Assad’s Syria to Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
Putin will seek success in Ukraine all the more usurpingly.
But it is obvious that he will not succeed here either: he can grab a piece of territory, but nothing more, and thus in the eyes of the world he will remain at most a “petty thief”. And that’s only if he is helped by another “little thief” who would like to appropriate Greenland, the Panama Canal or Canada…
