What’s going on in Putin’s head?
If we want to see into Vladimir Putin’s mind, we can look at what has come out of it, and from that we can trace his ideological influences. For almost a decade now what he has written and said about Ukraine, and the states to its West, has been consistent. According to the mind of Putin, the former doesn’t exist, and the latter want only to dominate and then dismember Russia.
This was apparent in his alarming and rambling speech of 21 February, three days ahead of the invasion. Ukraine was “an inalienable part of our own history, culture”, the Ukrainians and Russians were “people bound by blood.” As for the western powers – they were continuing a centuries-long “constant attempt to push us back into a corner because we have an independent position, because we stand up for ourselves.”
These were themes he had expounded in his essay last July. At the time they were mostly ignored outside of the world of geopolitics, but to see and hear them come tumbling out of his mouth sent shudders around the world.
It’s worth quoting from the essay at length because in it we see Putin’s mind-set and the ideas of Russian thinkers we know he takes seriously. He writes:
“Russians, Ukrainians, and Belarusians are all descendants of Ancient Rus”.
“The spiritual choice made by St. Vladimir, who was both Prince of Novgorod and Grand Prince of Kiev, still largely determines our affinity today”.
“The name “Ukraine“ was used more often in the meaning of the Old Russian word ‘okraina’ (periphery).”
“Modern Ukraine is entirely the product of the Soviet era… it was shaped – for a significant part – on the lands of historical Russia.”
“One fact is crystal clear: Russia was robbed, indeed.”
“I am confident that true sovereignty of Ukraine is possible only in partnership with Russia… For we are one people”.
Putin is thought to adhere to the concept that Moscow is the “Third Rome” – the successor to Rome and Constantinople. The term was coined by an Orthodox monk named Philotheus in the early 1500s. He believed that: “All the Christian kingdoms have come to an end and have converged in the single kingdom of our sovereign… Two Romes fell, a third stands, and there will not be a fourth one.” The idea is that after the schism in 1054, when the Church split between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox, Constantinople became the capital of Christendom because Rome was the seat of “Latin heretics” while Russian Christians recognised the authority of the Byzantine Emperor. When the city fell to the Ottomans in 1453, Moscow inherited the mantle.
The concept only really caught on in the 1800s after Emperor Alexander II had Philotheus’s epistles published in large print runs. The Pan-Slavic movement adopted the idea only to see it suppressed by the Communists after 1917. Under Putin it’s back.
Whether Vlad the Invader is a true believer in the “Third Rome” is unknown, but he knows its value in what he does believe in – Russian nationalism. It also keeps the hierarchy of Russia’s Orthodox Church happy. Patriarch Kirill has been a full-throated supporter of Putin for years and it is not a surprise that he has backed the invasion of Ukraine despite the outrage his support has caused among the rank and file, other Orthodox churches, the Vatican, and the World Council of Churches.
Kirill, 75, who sees Ukraine as an indivisible part of his spiritual jurisdiction, shares Putin’s view that the West is in decline, and is weak and decadent, especially in its acceptance of homosexuality. Conversely, Russia is strong, spiritually pure, and despite evidence to the contrary – a rising power.
Here we see the influence of the 20th century Russian historian Lev Gumilev and his theory that humans have an inner biocosmic energy which he calls “passionarnost”. Last year Putin, who may have known Gumilev in his St Petersburg days, declared he believes passionarnost exists and that the Russian people are somehow special. He said: “In nature as in society, there is development, climax and decline. Russia has not yet attained its highest point. We are on the way”.
He’s also on record as being a reader of the Soviet-era political writer Ivan Ilyin who penned essays such as “What does the world seek from the dismemberment of Russia?” Ilyin believed in Russian exceptionalism and wrote that the West’s endgame was the destruction of Russia by first controlling the countries to its west, and then destroying it.
When these ideas are married to Russia’s history and geography we can see how Putin, his inner circle, and many ordinary Russians support the idea that Ukraine must be brought back into the warm embrace of the Motherland – if necessary, by invading it and killing thousands of people.
This was all on display in his chilling TV address on Wednesday evening when he called for Russia to undergo a “self-purification” to rid it of anyone who questions the invasion of Ukraine. He said such people sought the destruction of Russia but that Russians “will always be able to distinguish true patriots from scum and traitors”.
Putin may be the Capo dei Capi of his gangster circle, but that does not mean he is immune from ideology, nor of wanting a place in history. So, he can overlook, or be in denial, that Russia only annexed Ukraine (for the first time) in 1783, that NATO is not a threat to Russia, or, that despite his semi-mystical fantasies about “Sacred Russia”, Ukrainians might be given the chance to determine their own futures.
In liberal democracies, intellectuals – and on occasion policymakers – sometimes make the mistake of thinking that when despots espouse radical and violent views, they don’t really mean them. In this decade, in proving the folly of such naiveté, Exhibit A is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.