Putin no longer fears’ ‘Ukraine democracy’ | The problems of Ukraine-Russia

The deadly conflict between Russia and the West led by the US in Ukraine has provoked a heated controversy over the nature of the conflict. While some Western experts insist that the threat stems from a “growing Russia”, which seeks to re-establish its influence in Eastern Europe, others believe it is what drives the Kremlin in its anti-democracy movement.

“[Russian President Vladimir] Putin is not afraid of NATO growth today. They fear Ukrainian democracy, “former US ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul told a recent Economist magazine.”

The second is true or was true in the winter of 2013-14, when the major Maidan reforms taking place in Kyiv gave hope of democracy in Russia. Many of them were outraged by Putin’s involvement in the Ukrainian war effort, the occupation of Crimea and the incursion of war in the Donbas region. Two anti-war protests in Moscow, March 15 and September 21, 2014, were among the biggest protests by Russian protesters in the first half of 2010s.

But soon Ukraine began to lose interest in Russian democratic institutions. This was largely due to the Ukrainian political crisis, especially on social networking sites, which Russian sympathizers felt strange.

Gradually, it became clear that the Maidan and Western armies did not support the principles of democracy and democracy. Ukraine began to look like a mirror of Russia’s patriotic and liberal, but twisted – it also had independent terrorist groups made up of right-wing extremists and Nazis.

While the Maidan is expecting a radical change and democratic change, it became clear that the country was under the control of the same oligarchs, with the help of fraudulent political networks and security forces, who ran the protest before it took place. Some newcomers emerged, but most remained in place, as did politics. With war on the other side of the country, more powerful terrorists and political assassins than Putin’s Russians perceived at the same time, Ukraine came to remind the Russians of the turmoil of the 1990s.

This led the Kremlin to play a very false role, turning the neighboring country into a threat to what “racial change” could bring. As a result, instead of the democratic model, Ukraine turned out to be a warning to the Russians who enjoyed the idea that some kind of freedom or life without Putin could be better than it really is.

This idea softened slightly after the election of independent president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, a former comedian whose sitcom Servant of the People hit Russia as hard as it did in Ukraine. But Ukraine’s idea of ​​being a beacon in Russia has faded, especially at the moment.

From Russia, what happened in Ukraine after the Maidan revolution also exposed Western hypocrisy. Despite their insistence on democracy, Brussels and Washington have been keeping an eye on the many issues that have prevented Ukraine from setting an example for the Russian people. These include racist language laws, strictly prohibiting the use of the Russian language, respect for Nazi allies in street names and public celebrations, a lack of government interest in investigating political assassinations and the fact that the oligarchs are still running the protests. . .

All of this has led to long-standing suspicions in Russia that the West is interested in moving its weapons closer to Russia’s borders, rather than propagating democracy and the principles of democracy. As Putin has pointed out, the West is trying to create an “anti-Russia”, a hostile country that acts as an ally and volunteer as a global war zone between the two major nuclear powers, the US and Russia. It is not the best Russian nation, as the free Russian people saw it.

This is why pundits like McFaul are wrong on the NATO crisis of the Kremlin. Western fears, the tendency to doubt that it does not contradict itself in any of its declarations, such as that of NATO being a self-defense alliance that does not threaten Russia, is not something Putin has developed. It is an idea that many Russians feel and relate not only to the history of destructive attacks from the West but more importantly – to the last 30 years of anti-white ideology.

The Russians saw the West betraying them in the 1990s. When the Soviet Union collapsed and they came out of the dictatorship, they hoped to ally with the West, its military and political parties. Instead, the West invited any allies, except Russia, to join NATO and the European Union.

Not surprisingly, the spread of the two organizations has been recognized by many Russians as a means of separating their country from their neighbors and close relatives in Ukraine and Belarus. They feel trapped by deliberate isolation.

The question of why the integration of Russia, with its major nuclear weapons, back in the 1990s was not so important in the West, remains unanswered.

In 1999, Russian officials, such as the mayor of Moscow Yury Luzhkov, warned that NATO’s expansion would lead to a shift in Russia’s ideology and lead to secession and totalitarian rule.

His prediction looked like Vladimir Putin, whose evolution from so-called generosity, with the wise support of Westerners against the supposed extremists (including Luzhkov), to the oppressive dictator against the West was slow and unpredictable. The Putin color we see today is based on flaws and inconsistencies with Western principles over the past 30 years. He is a western creature.

In the meantime, the struggle against Western domination remains the most important source of Putin’s approval. By choosing Russia as its enemy, the US and its allies are strengthening its authoritarian rule. The West would do well to turn away from geopolitical adventurism and the dangerous game of brinkmanship with Putin and, instead, support efforts to foster a true 21st century democracy and democracy in Ukraine without political interference.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Al Jazeera.