Russia attacked Ukraine more than a year ago and justified its illegal act with two reasons.
The first was to stop the “genocide perpetrated by Ukraine” in the Donbass of eastern Ukraine. President of Russia Vladimir Putin claimed in his speech before the attack that the West had closed its eyes to “genocide”.
Putin cited the expansion of NATO as the second reason for the attack. According to him, it directly threatened Russia’s security.
Putin also justified Russia’s actions by claiming that Ukraine is not a real state.
Now the message of Putin and the Russian propaganda machine has changed.
– A very radical change has taken place in the rhetoric, says Jussi Lassila. He is a senior researcher at the Institute of Foreign Policy.
The Russian leadership is talking more and more about the fact that if Russia loses the war, it will disappear from the world map, at least in the form in which it is now.
That’s what Putin said in February in his speech: (you switch to another service)
– I don’t even know if an ethnic group like the Russian people can survive in the form it is in now.
The same message about the threat of the entire existence being wiped out was repeated last week Friday, when Russia published its new foreign policy strategy. The 42-page document claims that “the United States and its satellites” are determined to destroy Russia and that Russia must defend itself against the West.
Foreign minister Sergei Lavrov repeated the phrase about the West as an “existential threat to Russia” at the announcement event.
– These speeches are like echoes of the rhetoric of Nazi Germany. Comes to mind Hitler and how he framed Germanness and “fought for the whole of European civilization,” says Lassila.
According to Lassila, radicalization is clearly visible in the speeches of the Russian leadership. Russia is possibly undergoing a transition where the administration is becoming openly ideological, Lassila states. By that he means that the anti-West and the fight against the West seems to have become the central priority of politics.
The Russian leadership increasingly avoids mentioning Ukraine when speaking to Russians. For example, in his State of the Nation speech in February, Putin claimed that Ukraine was occupied by the West and that Ukraine was just a proxy used by the West to destroy Russia.
– There is no room for cooperation with the West anymore, Lassila states.
Russia rides on Russophobia
The Russian leadership emphasizes the confrontation with the West more and more, also by appealing to Russophobia. Russophobia refers to discrimination against Russians.
Published by the Polish Center for Eastern Studies according to the survey (you switch to another service) Russophobia has become a term almost comparable to anti-Semitism for the Kremlin, and by invoking it, Russia has tried to divert all attention from the criticism aimed at itself.
In March, Russia even invited the UN Security Council to a meeting on Russophobia. Professor of History at Yale University Timothy Snyder explained Russia’s propagandist rhetoric at the meeting.
– The idea that Ukrainians have a disease called Russophobia is used as an argument to destroy them.
According to Snyder, Russia’s martyrdom by appealing to Russophobia is part of the crime it is currently committing in Ukraine.
According to UPI researcher Lassila, despite the tough talk, the Russian administration does not seem to have succeeded in mobilizing the entire Russian society behind the new ideology.
– The Kremlin has to strike a balance in its communication, when it tries to militarize society at the same time and at the same time maintain the impression that everything is as it was before. For example, last year the viewership numbers of the most watched TV channels started to fall when the propaganda exceeded certain metrics, Lassila points out.
Threats of nuclear weapons are also discussed
According to Lassila, the root cause of Russia’s statements is the failure of its military operations in Ukraine. It is necessary to invent new, lofty reasons for war.
– Radicalization is a clear consequence of the failure of war goals. If the Kremlin could be even somewhat satisfied with its achievements, it would not need to emphasize the ideological side so visibly.
Lassila reminds that after the annexation of Crimea in 2014, Russia’s rhetoric was much more conciliatory.
In Lassila’s opinion, the current radicalized speech is aimed especially at the Russian elite, but it is also veiled in threatening the West with nuclear weapons.
– This is also talk of escalation. When talking about the existence of Russia, it is also about nuclear deterrence, because Russia justifies the use of nuclear weapons in the event that its existence is threatened.
However, the researcher does not see any indications that they are ready to use nuclear weapons because of the war in Ukraine.
– The February attack was supposed to be a success story similar to the annexation of Crimea in 2014. It would probably have been followed by Putin’s wonderful speech about “a new era between the West and Russia”.
Lassila does not believe that talk about Russia’s existence sinks in with ordinary people.
– Uniting the people behind the Russian government to the extent that was seen after the annexation of Crimea has not really succeeded in Russian society.
It is difficult to change the situation in Russia so that the Russians believe that Russia’s existence is genuinely threatened.
Putin and Russia are the same thing for Putin
UPI’s Lassila does not consider the talk of the threat to Russia’s existence justified, but he believes that Putin’s fate is tied to it.
– When he talks about the existence of Russia, he talks about his own existence. He has a primitive autocratic idea that Russia does not exist without him.
Lassila does not believe that Putin’s position is directly threatened, even if he now announces that Russia has achieved its goal and is ending the attack. For the majority of the people and the elite, this would be fine. The problem is that Putin can’t get away with war crimes and putting the country in a miserable economic mess.
– At some point, there will be an interest in starting with the West from a clean slate. And it won’t happen under Putin.
According to the researcher, however, Putin himself may be seriously afraid of Russia’s disintegration. Lassila considers the color revolutions to be a significant turning point during the Putin era. They made Putin fear that Russians would also want to change.
Color revolutions refer to revolutions that took place in the territories of the former Soviet Union.
– Ukraine’s orange movement and the change of power in 2004-2005 started the tightening of civil society’s grip in Russia and the change to a more authoritarian one. However, the actual turning point was the 2014 revolution in Ukraine. It had been preceded by the changes of power in the Arab Spring and extensive waves of protests in Russia.
Lassila does not believe that Russia would start to fall apart or drift into a civil war, even if it were to lose militarily.
– Many regions of Russia are so poor and colonized that it is difficult to see such an alternative. It is likely that Russia will return to a truly federalist model, where many regions would have a more autonomous status. It is the only realistic way to effectively govern a country the size of Russia.