Putinology 102: Putin is paranoid about freedom

Echo opinion published in EuroNews by Oleksandr Sushko: This report in EuroNews has introduced me to this excellent news source!

Check it out! 

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is a Russian politician and former KGB intelligence officer. He has been the president of Russia 2012, and he previously held this office from 1999 until 2008. He was also the prime minister from 1999 to 2000, and again from 2008 to 2012. 
Putin was Born: October 7, 1952.

Despite his rhetoric, Putin is not challenging NATO's expansion, but Ukraine’s right to make sovereign choices and forge alliances that will make the country flourish. All of these are decisions denied to anyone living under Russia’s "sphere of influence".

The argument is that Vladimir Putin is so afraid of NATO that he has no choice but to menace neighboring countries and occasionally invade them, as he is threatening to do once again in Ukraine.

Lowry: Putin fearful of freedom, not NATO:  

The root cause of this Ukrainians conflict isn't NATO. 

Rather, it's Putin. He is the aggressor. Vladimir Putin is the one who has created an international emergency from out of nowhere by moving 130,000 troops to the border of a country that represents no conceivable physical threat to Russia.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a defensive alliance. No one sincerely believes, not even the Kremlin, that it is going to wage a war of aggression against Russia. Think about it. Since when does Russia have more to fear from, say, Estonia or Poland — countries on the eastern flank of NATO — than those countries have to fear from Russia?

Surely, what worries Putin most isn't any military threat, but the Western model of free, accountable government that puts his kleptocratic authoritarianism in a particularly bad light, especially the closer it gets to Mother Russia.

Even if NATO completely collapsed and Putin swept to control of all of continental Europe, it's not clear that his head would rest easy on his pillow at night, knowing that his government lacks democratic legitimacy and is being outstripped by countries reaping the benefits of self-government, the rule of law, independent judiciaries and constitutional rights.

Amid the drumbeat of war, it is often pointed out that Russia has already invaded Ukraine in 2014: first with the annexation of Crimea, and with the continuing occupation of parts of the Donbas.

But although parts of eastern Ukraine are a combat zone, the country’s future should not be reduced to a battlefield between great powers.

To describe Ukraine as a site of struggle between competing spheres of influence takes away its agency and frames the debate completely on terms set by the Kremlin.

Ukraine made its choice to move forward as a European nation with liberal, democratic institutions, not as a Russian satellite state.

Western commentators risk viewing the current tensions through the lens that Vladimir Putin desires - one of military chess moves - rather than Ukrainians’ legitimate demand for the right to self-determination. This can be a non-negotiable.

Ukraine has a strategic purpose for joining NATO and the EU, codified in the Ukrainian constitution, though these are objectives that are unlikely to be met for many years. But Russia wants the world to believe that they are somehow imminent and so artificially concentrates on this issue.

Putin has already de facto blocked NATO and EU membership by frightening European governments into thinking that they will get sucked into the conflict. NATO membership is exaggerated in the debate as a ruse by Russia to conceal its real ambitions.

Putin talks about the need to prevent the deployment of offensive weapons in Ukraine - but they only exist for defensive purposes due to Russia’s ongoing occupation of the eastern regions.

Hollow justifications for Putin's aggression

Putin’s specialty is in dividing the West, to the point where he has managed to convene the West to talk to him as a reward for his belligerence, over the heads of Ukraine and even its European allies.

There is nothing wrong with the US and Russia discussing military issues. Even at the height of the Cold War, Washington and Moscow discussed the deployment of weapons.

But the future of Ukraine, and eastern Europe more widely, is not a bilateral issue for Russia and the West. This is a journey that the people, their elected officials, and Ukrainian civil society walk together. Putin is escalating the situation because he understands that this aim, for a peaceful, democratic society, is irreversible.

Freedom and self-determination ought to be non-negotiable

In recent focus groups, Ukrainians were asked to identify a one-word concept that would make the most positive difference to their country.

"Freedom" was the overwhelming answer, outranking concerns over low average income and a lack of confidence in public institutions.

Ukraine's national journey is seen as a threat

Moscow wants to revive the Brezhnevian idea of limited sovereignty in which those in the "near abroad" have scope to run some of their affairs, but the boundaries are always set by Moscow, and the penalties for insubordination are deadly, as Hungary and Czechoslovakia found out.

If the West accepts these terms, it will be another tragedy for eastern Europe. NATO does not wish to expand for the sake of ideology: the pressure to join is coming from countries like Ukraine and Georgia, whose sovereign territory is menaced by Russia.

Ukraine has many struggles -- debilitating corruption, weak governance, the lack of a fair judiciary -- but it also has a strong civil society that is constantly providing innovative ways to resist the authoritarian backlash.

What else should be done?

The West can support Ukrainian freedom by weaning itself off the oil and gas that Russia uses to blackmail Europe, and by withholding regulatory approval for Nord Stream 2.

It must strengthen efforts to track Russian dirty money and freeze the assets of the regime. To prevent Russia from spreading its malign influence, its investments in Europe must be screened, and it must be prevented from buying stakes in crucial sectors like defense, energy infrastructure and IT.

Not invading Ukraine is not enough. The West should demand Russia stop undermining the free choice of democratic societies in Eastern Europe, while at the same time increasing support to strengthen democratic institutions, civil society, and independent media.

This crisis must not be viewed as a contest between large geopolitical entities. It is a contest between freedom and tyranny, and the West must not find itself humming along to the Kremlin’s song.

Ukraine's national journey is seen as a threat

Moscow wants to revive the (failed!) Brezhnevian idea of limited sovereignty in which those in the "near abroad" have scope to run some of their affairs, but the boundaries are always set by Moscow, and the penalties for insubordination are deadly, as Hungary and Czechoslovakia found out.

If the West accepts these terms, it will be another tragedy for eastern Europe. NATO does not wish to expand for the sake of ideology: the pressure to join is coming from countries like Ukraine and Georgia, whose sovereign territory is menaced by Russia.

Oleksandr Sushko is executive director of the International Renaissance Foundation in Ukraine.