It feels a bit like the times that were thought to have been overcome, namely the Cold War. If you watch the news on German television, you see evil Russia against heroic Ukraine, which is trying to free itself from the Russian stranglehold. If you flick through the Russian TV channels, the picture is of course exactly the opposite. There, concerned Russians are helping their compatriots in a neighboring country where there has just been a coup against the incumbent government. The Crimean peninsula was brought under the control of Russian troops, who did not identify themselves as such, and incorporated into the Russian Federation. All this happened at a pace that is alien to Western diplomacy.
The actions of Russia in particular, personified by President Putin, are puzzling the population in the West. It is reminiscent of the gunboat policy of the Victorian and Wilhelmine eras. And despite all the diplomatic hostility and threats of sanctions, Putin goes his own way unimpressed. What seems like a hazardeur’s play is not illogical from a Russian point of view. Anyone familiar with Russia will be able to build an intercultural bridge between the events and the probable intentions of the actors.
The shrunken great power
Russia has an enormous imperial tradition. First it was the tsars who conquered a huge empire that stretched from the North Sea to the steppes of Central Asia and from the Baltic Sea to the Bering Strait. This expansionist drive continued after the October Revolution. The Communist Party’s initial aim during the civil war was to regain control of lost territories (such as Ukraine or the Caucasus), this time in the name of communist ideology. After the Second World War, further territorial expansion followed in the west of the country at the expense of Poland and the Baltic states. At the same time, communist regimes were established in the Eastern European states that had been liberated by the Red Army, thus indirectly expanding the sphere of power. As a result, from the 17th century onwards, Russia assumed the role of a great and world power that could never be conquered due to its size. This awareness is still rooted in the population today, as this great power mentality was naturally promoted by the respective rulers. The Russians themselves naturally played the dominant role at all times, and Russification also set in during the Soviet Union, as the guidelines on how socialism should be shaped naturally came from the headquarters in Moscow.
And all this became a waste of time in 1991. While Mikhail Gorbachev was celebrated in the West as the man who made a bloodless end to communism and German reunification possible, the Russians themselves resented the fact that he was the “gravedigger” of the Soviet Union as a state. Russia was thrown back on itself. The collapse of the Soviet Union was also accompanied by a considerable loss of status – Russia was still powerful, but no longer a world power. Both factors contradict the mentality of the Russians, which had become ingrained in their minds over the last few centuries. As a result, the Russians naturally regard the former Soviet republics as their sphere of influence. This naturally includes Ukraine and any rapprochement between Kiev and the EU is seen as an affront. Examples from the other side of the Atlantic, namely the Cuban Missile Crisis or the ousting of President Allende in Chile, also show how sensitively major powers react to other powers encroaching on their self-imposed sphere of influence.
President Putin can therefore basically be sure of the support of the majority of Russians, as he is not only defending compatriots who feel threatened in a foreign state, but also because his actions are in line with the basic values of the Russian mentality. The concerns of the European states on the eastern periphery, such as Poland or the Baltic states, are therefore understandable. After all, they know this mentality from their own experience.
The strong man in the Kremlin
There is no doubt about it – Vladimir Putin has Russia firmly under control. For now. The last parliamentary elections have already shown that there is also an opposition, and the reactions of state power to opposition demonstrations, which are small by Western European standards, show that any attempt at open opposition is to be nipped in the bud. President Putin is well aware that a development similar to that on the Maidan in Kiev is at least possible in Moscow. It is therefore politically difficult for him to recognize the developments in Kiev. It would also be interpreted as weakness if a pro-Russian government in a country that is part of Russia’s sphere of influence were to be overthrown by a pro-European government. And you can’t show weakness as a “strong man” in Russia.
Russian values also include the idea that a man should be strong, especially when he heads the government. Vladimir Putin is often pictured with his upper body bare while playing sport in the countryside. What makes people smile more in Western Europe is proof in Russia that he is a “real man”, which enhances his legitimacy as head of state. The example of Nikita Khrushchev, who was perceived by the public as a loser after the Cuban missile crisis, also shows what weakness means in Russia. This circumstance also contributed to his replacement three years after the crisis.
Mia s’an mia – Self-confidence in Russian
Russia is a large country with long borders. In the past, there were enemies on the borders and they had to be protected in order to ward off threats. This circumstance has also shaped the Russian mentality with an increased need for security. At the same time, however, Russia was always a great power that was free to act as it saw fit. Other great powers, such as Great Britain and France, were much more forced to come to terms with their neighbors. There were also economic reasons for this, as both nations were and are international trading nations, a tradition that Russia largely lacked due to its geographical location. This circumstance naturally had the effect of shaping the Russian consciousness to the effect that little or no consideration had to be given to the sensitivities of other nations. In earlier times, the ability to behave in this way was based on military power. Today, it is based on the country’s wealth of raw materials, which brings both an inflow of money and influence. But at the same time, the world has become more complex, economies are increasingly interdependent and economic and political-diplomatic interests are becoming increasingly intertwined. However, the mentality of Russians has not yet fully arrived in this world. While in the Western world, both in business and in politics, a win-win solution is sought, this concept is not widespread in Russia. In fact, you very often encounter a win-lose mentality, which in turn goes hand in hand with the attitude of having to show strength at all costs.
If we remember the oil crisis triggered by OPEC in the 1970s, it was precisely the commodity weapon that hit the Western world. However, there was also a mutual dependency, as the OPEC states could not, of course, permanently deny oil to their only lucrative sales market at the time without suffering economic damage themselves. So is the concern about Russian gas supplies to Germany justified? Maybe, maybe not. The fact is that Russia has always responded to sanctions with counter-sanctions. What these will look like and what a response might look like remains speculation. It is also a fact that the USA can act more freely here than the EU, which has to take much greater account of its economic ties with Russia. To do this, the US needs Russian support on the Iran and Syria issues.
Heroes and villains?
Even if the Russian approach may have become more understandable in view of the intercultural explanations, it cannot of course be described as okay. Understanding does not mean condoning. However, the situation is more complex than is usually portrayed by reducing it to the reprehensibility of the Russian reaction to the events in Ukraine. Anyone who considers the developments of the past few weeks will not be able to ignore the fact that the Ukrainians have also made a decisive contribution to this. After all, the dismissal of President Yanukovych by the parliament in Kiev prevented the already negotiated diplomatic solution to the Maidan conflict, which Russia had also agreed to. Experts on the situation in Ukraine have repeatedly emphasized that the protests on the Maidan were not aimed at bringing the country closer to the EU, but were directed against the president and the government, which were accused of rampant corruption. The ensuing escalation reopened the rifts that exist in Ukraine between the Russian-speaking and Ukrainian-speaking parts of the population. The bone of contention, Crimea, which became part of Ukraine as a result of a “whim” by Khrushchev in 1954, had already wanted to hold a referendum on its own independence when Ukraine gained independence in 1991, which ultimately led to the formation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea within Ukraine. Ultimately, however, the Ukrainian mentality is not very different from the Russian mentality, which in turn puts the Ukrainians in a precarious position. Because today they are the weak ones and have to subordinate themselves to “big brother” against their will. Fortunately, so far without military resistance.
Recent European history after the fall of communism is full of examples of the formation of new states and the annexation of others to existing states, both by peaceful and military means. The most prominent example is certainly the annexation of the GDR by the Federal Republic of Germany. The Czechs and Slovaks separated peacefully. In Yugoslavia, on the other hand, the dissolution of the state led to war and genocide. Montenegro later separated peacefully from Serbia. NATO even waged war in Kosovo and KFOR troops are still securing the fragile peace today. However, with the exception of German reunification, these events affected regions that ultimately played a subordinate role in world affairs, both politically and economically. In the case of Ukraine, on the other hand, global players on the world political scene are involved in a region that is regarded as strategically important. And last but not least, as a transit country for raw material supplies, Ukraine is also always about economic interests.
Prime Minister Cameron has allowed the Scots to hold a referendum on whether Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Is it therefore so reprehensible for the inhabitants of Crimea to vote on their own future? The majority of Crimea’s inhabitants are Russian. However, the question remains as to what will happen to the minorities in the event of independence or annexation to the Russian Federation. It remains to be hoped that diplomacy will ultimately win out, because one thing is certain in any case – a military escalation would have disastrous consequences for all involved.
