(MOSCOW, RUSSIA) – The Russian dictator Vladimir Putin is not the sole cause of Russia’s aggressive behaviour, but rather the product of deeply rooted imperial attitudes that have persisted for centuries, according to analysis from the Warsaw-based Centre for Eastern Studies.
Maria Domanska, Senior Fellow at the Centre for Eastern Studies, stated that while Putin bears responsibility as the principal perpetrator of the war in Ukraine, neither he nor a small group of associates could have created such a system without a particular social foundation.
“Putin’s rule was to a very large extent a response to the specific beliefs, fears and expectations of Russian society. A society deeply scarred by the difficult history of the 20th century,” Domanska said.
The Russian Empire expanded across a single continuous landmass, absorbing adjacent territories and covering an estimated one sixth of all land on Earth at its peak.
Unlike maritime empires such as the British Empire, Russia’s continental expansion created the impression of one vast country growing stronger with each passing year.
Russian writer and journalist Sergei Lebedev described the effect of this imperial conditioning in an interview with the Centre for Eastern Studies.
“I had this feeling of awe, uncritical awe. Here was something enormous. To be Russian, raised in Russia, made in Russia, means above all to imagine yourself as part of something very large and not really understanding what it means to belong to a small nation,” Lebedev said.
The Soviet Union that followed the Russian Empire continued to promote ideas of Russian superiority, with Russia viewing itself as the centre around which other Soviet republics orbited.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, imperial institutions were weakened, but imperial attitudes remained deeply ingrained in the Russian psyche.
This led to the formation of the “near abroad” concept, a term used to describe former Soviet republics not as fully sovereign nations but as territories within Russia’s sphere of influence.
Russia has resisted the idea that states such as Ukraine and Georgia have genuine autonomy and the freedom to choose their own political and cultural pathways, according to the analysis.
The Kremlin has weaponised the Second World War, known in Russia as the Great Patriotic War, as the cornerstone of modern Russian identity.
In schools, parades and official speeches, Russians are taught that their country defeated the greatest evil the world had ever seen and therefore occupies an exclusive moral high ground.
This narrative was used to justify the invasion of Ukraine, with the Russian dictator Vladimir Putin repeatedly claiming Russian forces were being dispatched to combat Nazism.
Unlike Germany, which was forced to confront its crimes through the Nuremberg Trials, Russia never underwent a post-imperial reckoning following the collapse of either the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union.
Without such a reckoning, Russian society has not clearly established a boundary between past and present, allowing imperial and Soviet ideas to persist.
Putin’s rise to power was not the result of an outstanding career, having spent most of his time in the KGB in middle management roles without particular distinction.
His success came from an ability to tap into Russian cultural narratives, offering order after the chaos of the Soviet break-up and promising to restore Russia’s former glory.
Through repression, censorship and the promotion of fear and helplessness, the Kremlin has conditioned those who might oppose the regime to feel that the system is too powerful to change.
Many Russians who do not support the state nonetheless believe it is a necessary evil, maintaining order across a vast nation and potentially restoring past glory.
Ukraine represented a direct challenge to this ideology by demonstrating that a former Soviet republic could build a successful, sovereign and democratic state outside Russian influence.
Had Ukraine been allowed to continue on this path, the foundations of Russian imperial identity would have been undermined, according to the analysis.
Even if Putin were to disappear overnight, the infrastructure, mythology, narratives and identity that define Russian society would remain intact.
Decades of propaganda would not simply evaporate, and millions of Russians would not suddenly abandon beliefs instilled throughout their lives.
Putinism could easily outlive Putin himself, with another strongman likely to step into the void and sell the public on the same ideas.
For Russia to genuinely change would require a reckoning of historic proportions and a fundamental redefinition of what it means to be Russian.
The analysis was presented by The Domino Effect, a YouTube channel examining geopolitical developments, with sources drawn from the Centre for Eastern Studies and other research institutions.
Be First to Comment