When history does not support the Kremlin’s geo-political objectives, the government and its proxies at home and abroad deny or distort historical events for the domestic as well as the foreign audiences. This has also been applied to the history of Ukrainian statehood.
The article also clearly accused the West for infecting Ukrainians with the Russophobia presenting itself in Ukraine. The article emphasized that the rift with Russia resulted not only from some minor missteps of Moscow but “also the result of deliberate efforts by those forces (Western) that have always sought to undermine our unity. The formula they apply here has been known from time immemorial – divide and conquer”.
The article continues. “All the subterfuges associated with the anti-Russian (Russophobia) project are clear to us. And we will never allow our historical territories and people close to us living there be used against Russia.”
It’s been a knee-flex reaction of Putin’s Kremlin that any Western mention of Russian aggression is labeled as ‘Russophobic’. It’s aimed to muster the Russian public’s support in claiming to be the innocent victim of Western machinations. In fact a detectible amount of ‘Putinophobia’ might actually be spurring anti-Kremlin sentiments because of his steady march towards a repressive autocracy and especially his recent bullying of Ukraine. But the West does not suffer from any discernible or believable Russophobia targeting the Russian people.
Recently, Estonian-based Propastop, states that the concept of Russophobia was only occasionally used prior to 2014, and then mainly by low level officials in reference to the Baltic States.
In 2014, the year of Russian attacks into Crimea and Ukraine’s Donbas, the term Russophobia as an epithet became part of Presidential as well as governmental common rhetoric, especially in official narratives covering the protection of a ‘traditional Russia’ from Western liberal values. Any criticism of Russian aggression against Ukraine was immediately tied to Russophobia. Moscow stressed that the international community’s protests to Russia’s invasion of independent countries was fueled by a Western hatred and fear of Russians. Russians and Russia were the victims not the perpetrators.
Porpastop reminds us that ‘phobia’ is a reference to fear. Fear can be rational and justified. But fear may also be irrational and therefore a psychiatric illness – a phobia – a psychosis, which is precisely the Kremlin’s intent, to ascribe opposition against Russian aggression as an illness. Russian propagandists claim the west suffers from xenophobic, anti-Russian hysteria when it accuses Russia of aggression.
Putin’s ongoing misinformation campaign includes claims that Ukraine is about to join NATO in the near future. But both the West and the Kremlin know that this is not under consideration currently and won’t be in the near future. A 1995 study on NATO expansion concludes that countries involved with existing territorial disputes are denied accession. And this understanding is still the guiding principle in any future NATO enlargement in spite of the promises made to Georgia and Ukraine at the Bucharest Summit of 2008 in which NATO ministers welcomed the future possibility of the two countries becoming members.
Putin may very well have shot himself in the foot. His reckless threats against Ukraine will very likely strengthen the resolve of NATO to toughen its defense capabilities rather than relax them.
Laas Leivat, Toronto
