|
Putin: The West’s Conflict With Russia Is Not About Ideology
In an interview with the Russian TV channel Rossiya President Vladimir Putin gave some insight into Russia's changing perspective of the West.
There is unfortunately no transcript available yet. Various Russian media provid snippets of the talk in English language:
I have yet to find the full interview. But these tweets of Djole include some quotes and subtitled video excerpts:
In an interview with Pavlo Zarubin, a well-known journalist on Russian state television, Putin spoke about deep misunderstandings that, he says, he initially mistakenly attributed to ideological differences. But over time, he points out, it became clear that the background is not ideology, but something else – interest.
"I thought that the contradictions with the West were primarily ideological. It seemed logical at the time – Cold War inertia, different views of the world, values, the organization of society," Putin said.
"But even when the ideology disappeared, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the same, almost routine deviation from Russia's interests continued. And it was not because of ideas, but because of the pursuit of advantages – geopolitical, economic, strategic."
…
"The world respects only those who can protect themselves," he said. "Until we show that we are an independent and sovereign power that stands behind our interests, there will be no room for anyone to treat us as equals."
My very first thought when reading that was 'what took him so long'. During the Cold War I was indoctrinated with the fairy tale of Western freedoms versus the evils of eastern communism. But I for one have never accepted that view. Western animosity against Russia goes back many centuries. (Maybe even further back than the big schism of 1054). The fight against the 'evils of communism' was just a contemporary variance of it.
One might call that ideological but I believe that it always has been and is about greed. There is one side in this conflict which never seems to have enough and therefore aims for Russia's riches. What else explains Napoleon's march to Moscow or the British war in Crimea? (See Karlov1 who writes a bit more about the 'ideological' aspect of this.)
But why did it take Putin and Russia until 2022 to accept the consequences of this insight?
You’re right of course, it is all ultimately about greed. But what is referred to as “ideology” has at times been the primary driving force—or has been the excuse given—for the West’s actions.
Probably the best example of this, which happens to be extremely apt, is not the Cold War, but rather the whole reason why the Second World War happened. Since 1917 British elites had been terrified of the perceived threat Soviet Russia posed to their positions of power and privilege within British society; believing the “virus” of Communism would spread from Russia to Germany, Germany to France, and from France to Britain, and thus the whole capitalist order would collapse. When the Nazis came to power in Germany, these British elites believed they could utilize the Nazis—vehemently anti-communist remember—and have them destroy the Soviet threat once and for all on their behalf—a direct British attack on Russia being out of the question because the British public would never stand for it, with Britain being somewhat democratic and acts of unprompted aggression being seen as generally immoral. So they officially, but covertly, encouraged the Nazis, through the Chamberlain and Baldwin governments (Chamberlain being the chief proponent of this plan), to expand into eastern Europe (presented to the British public as “Appeasement” by the government and the media), which the British anticipated would inevitably lead to a huge war between the Soviets and Nazis—one were the Nazis would be victorious, in no small part because they would have Britain and France backing them the entire time. However things obviously didn’t quite go to plan: Hitler fundamentally didn’t trust Britain’s minimally democratic form of governance and instead sought to secure western Europe before taking on the Soviets.
It’s about greed for power and resources, or retaining power and allocation of resources.
What Putin refers to as “ideology” here is really a euphemism for “the West wants Russia’s stuff, and to some extent tell Russians what to do”. What Putin refers to as “pursuit of advantages – geopolitical, economic, strategic”, is just a big complicated and adult-sounding way of saying “the West wants Russia’s stuff, and to some extent tell Russians what to do”. They essentially mean the same thing at a basic level. The problem is when you say “the West wants Russia’s stuff”, it makes you sound like a 4 year old, and it makes it much harder to manipulate people. On this level, either Putin doesn’t realize he’s mistaking two different euphemisms of the same idea for two different ideas (a classic victim of your own PR), or it’s all for PR purposes. (I’m inclined to say it’s both). Today’s post could almost legitimately be called: “Putin realizes he was wrong to think the West’s conflict with Russia was about taking Russia’s stuff—it’s actually about taking Russia’s stuff”. That’s the 4 year old version.
Greed is the West’s ideology. But it is Russia’s also, to a lesser extent.
The West wants Russia’s stuff—”the West” meaning wealthy and powerful people in the West, mainly American; while Russia only wants Russia’s stuff—Russia (Italics) meaning Putin and his cohorts. “Ideology” was being used to justify the West’s actions, and Russia’s reactions. Now it has changed to “pursuit of advantages – geopolitical, economic, strategic”.
The reason why WWII happened was because some wealthy and powerful British people wanted to continue to live in big houses, have nice cars, eat nice food, and so forth, for which they were willing to kill tens of millions of people to maintain. That it in it’s 4 year old terms. Ideology was used to justify their actions.
A change in rhetoric from “ideology” to “pursuit of advantages – geopolitical, economic, strategic”, while having the same basic meaning, suggests, to me, a PR scale down, which in turn infers a reduction in the scale of the crimes and atrocities expected to be committed by both sides. That’s what I took away from this.
Talk of “ideology” is only reserved for the huge crimes.
Sorry about the big post.
Posted by: MPil | Jul 15 2025 0:56 utc | 269
|
