It’s perhaps one of the questions most often posed recently. At the time of this writing, Ukrainian forces were making significant gains in the eastern Russian-occupied areas. In fact, a sense of an inevitable Ukrainian victory was palpable.
Putin’s bound to retaliate. But will an end to the conflict, which cannot be perceived by the world as even a partially successful campaign for Moscow, translate into a weakened, politically vulnerable Putin? The prognostications range over a wide spectrum.
Putin is already seen as a pariah internationally, which doesn’t mean he’s lost any overbearing sense of contempt for the West. But the “we must avoid humiliating Putin”, is a cautionary warning that has significant resonance among European politicians. The most audible proponent has been French President Emmanuel Macron who stated this to the media in June. His reasoning? The fighting will eventually cease and a diplomatic solution will be available only if Putin is treated as a competent, reasonable party to a possible agreement.
This conventional wisdom also stresses that Putin must not be humiliated so as to keep him from doing something dangerously insane. Many say it’s vital that a self-confident, proud Putin be invited to the negotiation table because a disgraced adversary will not cooperate in any meaningful way.
Other observers insist that Macron got it wrong. Humiliation is not about shaming Putin. It’s about achieving real peace and the only path to this is a total defeat of the Russian military, a dismantling of the Putin regime so that a significant part of the Russian population – Putin supporters – will abandon their delusions.
The Kremlin has consistently propagated the bizarre notion that the West intentionally provoked Russia into its “special military operation” in Ukraine so as to humiliate Russia. The Kremlin insists that had Ukraine not been battle-ground of choice for the West, another country would have been chosen for its deliberate humiliation campaign. This convoluted argument, with humiliation as a central aspect has found some traction among the domestic audience. Sociologists note the consistency of results from the Levada Centre’s opinion polls which still indicate significant support for Putin’s war.
(Although Levada’s polling reports are deemed to be undistorted, we must take into account the veracity of (especially older) respondents with lingering memories of Soviet repression, who still are reluctant to provide candid answers for fear of retribution. But Levada’s conclusions can be somewhat confirmed by some more unobtrusive measurements. The highest viewer ratings have been drawn by TV programs such as “Sunday Evening with Viktor Solovyov” and “60 Minutes”, where rabidly nationalistic hosts and guests have called for the annihilation of Ukrainian independence. We also note that Kremlin TV often airs clips of Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Russian propaganda thrives on approval from abroad.)
Some Kremlin critics see a Russian deep-seated sense of humiliation amplifying resentment of the West, making Russians into victims. This humiliation leads to aggression. Some psychoanalysts suggest that the humiliated, for their own emotional survival feel it necessary to humiliate others, to make others suffer like they have. The perpetrator enjoys this sadistic behaviour and the victim in trying to cope with the humiliation would learn to enjoy it too. A theory perhaps not as far-fetched as it seems.
Isn’t it unnecessarily risky then, to push Putin into a corner? But Putin doesn’t need to be embarrassed to undertake something totally deranged. The Ukraine invasion is vivid proof. However, wouldn’t a humiliated Putin, not capable of keeping others from losing respect for him, lash out in a deranged fashion with nuclear arms?
He has thoroughly convinced us of his willingness to act out his delusions, such as conquering Ukraine in three days. It’s delusional to believe he can now win the war and that Russia can in the long-run survive sanctions. It’s madness to risk an accident at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant. The list is long.
Others see a vanquished, disgraced and abysmally discredited Putin less able to act out destructively, than a macho-strutting Putin sure of his public esteem. Some observers are convinced that the generals, who actually push the button, will in the end, recoil from obeying a thoroughly humiliated loser.
It’s morally unacceptable that a leader who sees atrocities as valiant battlefield successes be allowed to save face. For most Russians to acknowledge Putin’s decision to attack an unprovoked a neighbour and ruin Russia economically, only a completely humiliated Putin will suffice.
As published in
Eesti Elu / Estonian Life
