West has always misunderstood Putin’s nationalism

The Ukraine conflict escalated tensions between Russia and the NATO countries, leading to severe sanctions and further isolation of that country. Yet, three years later, Putin continues to be a thorn in the flesh for the NATO leaders, who are irritated by his proximity to countries like China and India. An op-ed by a group of European ambassadors in Delhi that “advises” India over how to treat Russia shows that the irritation is turning into frustration. Just as a relentless military campaign could not repress Putin, a no-holds-barred diplomatic campaign did not deter Modi. The visit will be remembered for the strong message it conveys to the world, the broad contours of which include the end of the days of hegemonic order; genuine multipolarity guided by strategic autonomy and, most importantly, there are no takers for duplicity and double standards in international relations.

In dealing with Russia, the Indian leadership will not lose sight of its longstanding commitment to ending wars. However, building peace is a two-way street and that calls for greater understanding.

The West seemed to have failed to understand “Volodya”, as the Russian leader who is often referred to in his country. The son of a soldier who fought in World War II, Putin’s rise from a one-bedroom apartment in Leningrad (Saint Petersburg today) to the presidential palace in Moscow is a fascinating story of grit and hard work. After graduating in law from Leningrad State University, Putin opted to join the KGB and worked for 16 years as an “agent” in Russia and East Germany. He was awarded a bronze medal “for outstanding services to the National People’s Army of the GDR”. KGB agents were trained to develop a mindset best captured in the  Russian word derzhavnik — “those who believe in Russian greatness”. They eventually became staunch statists. Putin is no exception.

As a KGB agent in Dresden, East Germany during the years of Glasnost that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, Putin’s job was to spy on the “main opponent”, NATO. His antipathy for NATO has its origins there. He probably never took Communist party membership. But Putin was clearly disturbed by the collapse of Soviet Russia. “I regretted that the Soviet Union had lost its position in Europe, although intellectually I understood that a position built on walls and dividers cannot last. I wanted something different to rise in its place. And nothing different was proposed. That’s what hurt,” he said in an interview once. He later justified his view quoting Henry Kissinger, who he met in Russia. “Frankly, to this day, I don’t understand why Gorbachev did that,” he is reported to have said.

On the last day of 1999, Putin was with Boris Yeltsin to celebrate the new year. Yeltsin, who was in poor health, reportedly turned to his prime minister and said, “Volodya, take care of Russia.” The dawn of the new millennium thus saw Putin rising to the highest position. Russia was facing separatist terrorism in Chechnya and Dagestan at that time. Many thought that it was going to be Putin’s nemesis. But Putin thought otherwise. For him, protecting Russia’s integrity was most important. “It was a question of preventing the collapse of the country. I realised I could only do this at the cost of my political career,” Putin is reported to have said. He described the danger as “Yugoslavisation of Russia”. Putin carries that attitude to this day.

As Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats points out, “Putin is an extreme statist. For him, state always comes first. Everything else — democratic institutions, personal liberties, individuality — everything else comes after this,” she adds. Like him or not, Russia comes first for Putin.

The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP