Understanding today’s Vladimir Putin

How the USSR’s complex dissolution and decades of non-strategic Western foreign policy led to the horrors we see today.

Let’s start by setting things straight: Ukraine is an independent country, and its people deserve to choose their own destiny and future, shall it be in neutrality, joining the EU, NATO or both. Despite the multi-ethnical construct, the majority of the Ukrainian people have manifested a strong anti-Russian, pro-European and pro-democracy sentiment. Vladimir Putin has always been a “bandit” (as Mikhail Khodorkovsky also defined him) and is an incontestable threat to Ukrainian independence, as clearly shown by the events of 2014 and 2022 (and not only). While his inhumane actions cannot be justified, we must nevertheless understand what caused this post-USSR paranoia, which many of his Russian nationals share. I am confident that by outlining most key events objectively, more like a historian than a journalist, we can make up our own mind and conclude that, unfortunately, nothing is ever black or white. This paper aims to provide a complete outlook on certain geopolitical factors, highlighting the importance to always put ourselves in the other’s side shoes (and walk at least a mile in them) but also to take decisions that will positively impact our future, rather than our immediate tomorrow. Today’s helplessness, anger and fear should not hinder us from observing history’s cause and effect, which are unarguably interlinked. Whatever our arguments or points of view are on how this war has started or shall end, we should not lose the ability to critically observe and analyze events and facts. Due to a confused international context, where it is difficult to find or follow one universal truth, we must recognize the provocations and mistakes made in political decision, which have led us to today’s tragic outcome. While some of us will not agree with a certain interpretation of facts… facts remain facts. Errors (hopefully made in good faith) remain errors. Foreign policies and interventions dictated by our Western leaders, have sometimes worsened problems rather than solving them. And while this is not a game of blame, a more critical investigation can lead us towards to a more global perspective. It is possible that Vladimir Putin would have anyways tended to become an autocrat and a war criminal, but some of the actions conducted by the West (indirectly guided by the United States) surely accelerated that transition. This was impeccably outlined by the acclaimed Russian-American journalist and broadcaster Vladimir Pozner in an interview at Yale already in 2018, which served as a base for inspiration for this article. An opinion also held by the political scientist John Mearsheimer, which recently wrote a detailed essay on the theme for ‘The Economist’. Putin does not trust the West, and he has all the right reasons for it. Looking at the past 30 years more closely will give us a deeper understanding of this conflict and the man behind it, and maybe show us ways in which we can find a common ground or compromise. After all, everyone is against the war… we are just drawn towards it by propaganda-induced and policy-induced fear and nationalism.

What has always been evident, is that Putin and his men are mostly ex-USSR characters that have very little regard for human life. Everyone is expendable if the goal is linked to “Soviet greatness”. To cite few tangible foreign events, these questionable men are responsible for shelling Georgian villages (in 2008) and the consequential war, for the bloody interventions in the Syrian civil war (starting in 2015), where similar weapons as we see today in Ukraine (unguided missiles, cluster bombs, thermobaric bombs, white phosphorus, etc) have caused more civilian casualties (of which a quarter of them children) than any other military casualty on either end, and are also responsible for countless civilian massacres in Chechnya. Vladimir Putin has also ordered the elimination of courageous journalists (as Anna Politkovskaya in 2006, shot dead in a lift on Putin’s birthday), the poisoning of defectors and enemies (as Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 and Sergei Skripal in 2018), the arrest and poisoning of Russian opponents (as Alexei Navalny in 2020 and 2021, and Vladimir Kara-Murza in 2015 and 2017), the public shooting of political leaders (as Boris Nemtsov in 2015), the poisoning of Ukrainian democratic leaders (as Viktor Yushchenko in 2004), and even the poor management of school hostage situations such as the one leading to the ‘Beslan Massacre’ in 2004, where 333 people (of which 186 children) lost their lives. Putin's rule has been characterized by the repression of political opponents, the intimidation and suppression of media freedom, and a lack of free and fair elections. It is nevertheless hard to imagine that a philanthropist or a humanitarian would miraculously emerge from the Soviet regime. It is also important to note, that Russian people never had ‘true democracy’ in their whole long history. Their leaders and autocrats do not truly know how it works and most of their people, especially those that have never left the country, do not know what they are missing out on. An attempt to democracy was given from 1991 to 1999, during Yeltsin’s rule, and it was a colossal economic disaster.

In any case, Pozner’s argument is that, despite Putin’s mentality and that of his men, from 1985 to 2007, through Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin, over a period of 22 years, there is not a single event in Russian foreign or domestic policies that may have angered or hurt the United States (the wars in Chechnya had nothing to do with the West, Europe or the US). Throughout history, lies are told in all directions, but we can clearly see how 2007 became a turning point (in worse) for mutual foreign policy. On the contrary, multiple events prior 2007 (later described) proved an overall attempt for the Russian leaders to remove tensions and partner with the West. The Putin we see today is the result of repeated bullying (or at least belittling), where the “new-born Russia” was considered un-important in the new geopolitical context, and surely less relevant than the previous Soviet Union. We have missed a colossal opportunity to establish a solid collaboration, and have now pushed Putin to become the worst expression of himself, and further away into the arms of the Chinese regime. Regardless of Russia’s development as a society and as a nation, expecting Putin or any other leader to simply “westernize” or be magically and peacefully replaced, has potentially been the unrealistic prospect of our Western leaders. Putin was ignored and provoked multiple times (yes, ironically with the spread of democracy and free speech) and the pride of the Russian people has often been internationally offended and belittled since the dissolution of USSR. All the events further described, as well as the potentially harmful work of both Western and Russian media, have unfortunately created the outcome we see today. This transition is highlighted by the progressive deterioration of Putin’s perspectives, reflected in his domestic and international speeches.

Who is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin?

Surely, to understand his mysterious past, we cannot rely on his autobiography, as the man is a master in distorting the truth. Nevertheless, details of the first ten years of Putin's life are scarce also in his own book. The official version of his childhood is that he was born in 1952 in Saint Petersburg (Leningrad at the time), and was the third youngest son of Vladimir Spiridonovich Putin (1911–1999), ex-serviceman of the Soviet Navy, and Maria Ivanovna Putina (1911–1998), a factory worker. Putin’s parents, prior his birth, lost both older sons born in the 1930s: one at birth and the other during the siege of Leningrad by the German Wehrmacht. During the siege, where 1 million people starved to death, his mother too almost perished due to the lack of food. His paternal grandfather was supposedly the personal cook of Lenin and Stalin, his maternal grandma was killed by German occupiers and his uncles disappeared during WW2. In his own autobiography, Putin states that he spent his early years in a rat-infested communal apartment in St. Petersburg.

However, in 1999, Vera Putina, a woman living in the village of Metekhi (Georgia) started claiming that Vladimir Putin ("Vova") is in reality her son (and was ready to do a DNA test to prove it). Vera Putina said that Putin's father was a Russian mechanic, Platon Privalov, who got Vera pregnant while he was married to another woman. A "Vladmir Putin" was in fact registered at Metekhi school in 1959–1960, and records show that his stated nationality is Georgian. As Vera Putina married the Georgian soldier Giorgi Osepahvili, her husband pressured her to abandon her son “Vova”. In December 1960, she delivered him back to his grandparents in Russia. Putina believes that the St. Petersburg-based "parents", referred to in Putin's official biography, adopted her son from his grandparents. Roughly 25 years ago, she then learned that Putin had become a KGB officer and, in 1999, she spotted Putin on television and immediately recognized him. In the early 2000s, both Russian and Georgian people visited her village to pressure her to remain silent. A schoolteacher, who says she taught Putin, stated that she too had been threatened. To add to this mystery, Russian journalist Artyom Borovik's plane crash in 2000 coincided with the documentary he was making about Putin's childhood, including a report about Vera Putina. Italian journalist Antonio Russo was reportedly also interested in Vera Putina before he was murdered the same year in Tbilisi, Georgia. Unsure if we will ever know which of the two stories is true, we can nevertheless speculate how the childhood of many characters in history often present distorted versions that aim to strengthen one’s origins, possibly denying any link to “other” ethnicities or less noble descendants.

Despite the mysterious first 10 years of his life, both stories describe a childhood ripe with hardship. A childhood where both his parents (or foster parents, depending on the story) worked full-time and still struggled to survive. One where he was left to look out for himself, alone, even when bullied by other kids in the neighborhood. A childhood also clearly marked by lack of food, inadequate housing, neglect and parental depression. And while his past does not justify his present, we can observe how also characters as Mao Zedong, Nicolae Ceausescu, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler had brutal childhoods. In Putin’s case, he was saved from a life of crime by a martial arts coach. He began to practice sambo and judo at age 12 and channeled his traumas through these sports, which he carefully mastered. The year 1973 then sees the release of “Seventeen Moments of Spring”, what is considered to be the most successful Soviet spy thriller series ever made and is the equivalent of a Russian “James Bond” movie, although profoundly different in context. The protagonist of the fictional series is a respected “SS leader”, which was in fact an undercover Soviet spy who had infiltrated the German establishment. Vladimir Putin is reported to have been inspired by the show, confirming his vocation to become a secret service agent. Two years after it first screened, at age 23, he joined the KGB and thereafter spent many years serving in East Germany (just like the protagonist of the series). Putin ended up serving as a KGB officer for 16 years, from 1975 to his resignation in 1991, after which he laid the base for a fast political career. He joined the Boris Yeltsin administration in 1996, briefly serving as Director of FSB (the new KGB) and Secretary of the Security Council until 1999. Following Yeltsin’s resignation, Putin became Prime Minister in 1999 and until 2000, when he emerged as President of Russia for two terms until 2008. As the Constitution prevented a third consecutive term, from 2008 until 2012, he served as Prime Minister, while his marionette Dmitry Medvedev was appointed President of Russia. In 2012 he was again “re-elected” President of Russia, a position held until present day. In other words, Russia has now been in Putin’s hands for the past 22 years, a time frame over which he was able to consolidate outstanding political, economic and mediatic power. Putin may well be the world’s richest man, with a potential net worth well over 200 billion USD… a shadow fortune that nobody has been able to quantify with an exact or approximate figure, nor trace its precise whereabouts. In the eyes of many still today, Putin is the savior of Russia and potentially the only valuable leader in the country, worthy of the Presidential role.

Despite his troubled story and ruthless methods, there is no doubt that Putin is an extremely intelligent man with a strong and manipulative KGB mentality. He in fact a was a low-ranking officer and made it to the top in few years. Yeltsin saw his strength and determination, and it was exactly what was needed to make Russia re-emerge from the decadence caused by the USSR’s dissolution and first attempt at capitalism. He was around when Yeltsin made a deal with the first oligarchs in 1996, he has then used them and overthrown them to create (his) new ones as soon as in power to do so in the early 2000s. A clear example of that is when he prosecuted and exiled Mikhail Khodorkovsky (once the richest man in Russia and owner of the incredibly valuable Yukos oil and gas company), and staged an auction where Boris Berezovsky (another of the ‘first oligarchs’) acquired 50% of its shares. Putin then “invited” Berezovsky to leave Russia and his shares were assigned to the famous Roman Abramovich, as part of Sibneft. It is important to recognize that Berezovsky helped fund ‘Unity’, the political party that would form Vladimir Putin's first parliamentary base, but was then expelled from Russia when he started having different views in 2003. Berezovsky supposedly “hanged himself” in his house in the UK in 2013, and the Russian government took over all his television assets, leading to the efficient state propaganda we see today. In fact, already during the Yeltsin re-election in ’96, Putin understood the true power of TV and obviously wanted to fully control it, dictating the national narrative.

This is only a glimpse over recent Russian history, and we can already understand how Putin used and uses people to the advantage of his agenda, and crushes anyone with a slightly different vision. He built his persona and power gradually but steadily, and wanted Russia to be great again, at all costs. He was seen as a savior to the people, as he wanted to remove the old oligarchs and restore the pride of his country. He even used Stalin’s words from 1929, wanting “to destroy them as a class”, even if Stalin was referring to the richer kulaks at the time. The absolute control over media enabled him (and still does) to distort the narrative and maintain popular consent. This is perhaps evident from the constant boosting and inflation of Western failures as well as the underplaying and hiding of Russian failures (ex: war casualties and mismanagement).

Regardless of the public charisma, Putin is without doubt a character with a criminal mentality. Khodorkovsky, a man that has been on a personal fight with Putin for the past 20 years and jailed in Russia for 10, knows his mindset extremely well: “he attacks you and then observes how you react. He considers a talk or negotiation only with those of equal power”. This is a mentality that has transferred across the country’s society, government bodies, businesses, economy and modus operandi. Regardless, this is not to say all Russians are dishonest, but the regard of the national law depends entirely on how much money you have and who you know: the “golden rule” as some speculate, the one where who has more gold, rules. Despite the apparent westernization of Russia, the system is tremendously biased, flawed and undemocratic. Putin’s game of strength is ramified everywhere, and a peaceful living is guaranteed only to those who do not oppose the narrative and interests of the Kremlin, or to those that do not step over the feet of someone connected. We see this manifesting even more today.

“Strength” was definitely needed in the turbulent years following the dissolution of USSR, where many ethnicities re-emerged and re-instated their democratic aspirations. The military interventions of the Kremlin majorly served to repress the deep anger in local population that 70 years of Soviet repression caused. The Cold War finished with the end of the Soviet Union, but the rebirth of Russia has caused even more wars (19 conflicts in 30 years to be precise) with the intent to restore the imperial pride, settle ethnical disputes, protect Russian minorities or establish friendly governments. In the 90s and 2000s, Russian strength and a “single narrative” was obviously to be maintained afloat when in Georgia they entered “to help” the Ossetian brothers menaced with genocide, or in Chechnya (which some would argue is the first Russian “Vietnam” or “Afghanistan”) “to defend Christianity” from Islam. All of which was pure propaganda of course, just to maintain the sphere of influence. The First Chechen war (1994-1996) was in fact a conflict that Russia started and lost, and were estimated civilian casualties surpassed the 100,000 mark. In Yeltsin’s bombing of Grozny and Dresda in 1995 (which some argue was the worst bombing in Europe since WW2) over 35,000 civilians died, of which 5,000 children. This proves, once again, the Soviets’ extremely low regard for human life.

After the first war, chaos continued in Chechnya, between racial discrimination, local mafias, kidnappings and aggressions to “even the scores”. The region was badly damaged, and its economy was in shambles. As FSB director and newly appointed Prime Minister, Putin’s first thought in 1999 is to “close the bill” with Chechnya and Dagestan. He launches a series of false flag operations, as the terrorist attacks in Moscow and potentially the invasion of Dagestan (unconfirmed). He then launches a new attack on Grozny, which the United Nations defined the most destroyed city in the world. This time Russian forces secure a victory and in 2003 an questionable referendum to reintegrate Chechnya within Russia. In 2004, when Chechen separatist rebels occupied a school in Beslan, demanding recognition of the independence of Chechnya and a Russian withdrawal, we all know how it went.

Today the Chechen Republic is a Republic of Russia, with limited autonomy, and high-level corruption, a poor human rights record, widespread use of torture. The Republic is obviously a satellite of Russia… but why is this relevant to understanding Vladimir Putin?  Aside from the evident brutal tactics employed, some may remember that both the journalist Anna Politkovskaya and the ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko revealed how the FSB (headed by Putin) was behind those Moscow attacks, and not the Chechens. Unsurprisingly, both Politkovskaya and Litvinenko were killed... and who dares to speak about Chechnya since then? These events are key to comprehend the manipulative and KGB-styled operations of Russia’s “new tsar”.

Despite that, Putin in the early 2000s was not an isolationist. George Robertson (former secretary general and NATO lead between 1999 and 2003) said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. “They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,” he said. Robertson specifically recalled an early meeting with Putin, where he inquired: “When are you going to invite us to join NATO?”

In 2000, when interviewed by BBC journalist David Frost, Putin said he would not rule out joining NATO “if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner”. He told Frost it was hard for him to visualize NATO as an enemy. “Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilized world.” In fact, Putin’s current behavior, against democracy and the capitalistic West, is quite different versus what we can observe prior 2007. Gradually, but especially after the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, where pro-Yushchenko groups were manifesting against the rigged presidential election of Yanukovych (Putin’s man in Ukraine), Putin became increasingly suspicious of the west, which he blamed for funding pro-democracy NGOs (probably true). He was further angered by NATO’s continuing expansion into central and eastern Europe, with Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Croatia and Albania joining the alliance. During the 2008 summit in Bucharest, the countries of Georgia and Ukraine were also promised a future membership, something that Putin always considered a “red line” not to be crossed.

Putin always mentions Kosovo as a justification for his support towards the Russian republics in Donbas, as he did also in 2008 before intervening in Georgia: “Just like NATO intervened in Kosovo to help the Albanians”. Regardless of the tactics applied by NATO, Kosovo remains a pain point on the Russian’s pride, as the independence from Serbia, a historical friend of Russia, was set by the West without pre-consulting the Kremlin. This also explains the Serbians’ anti-American sentiment and is obviously the reason why, to date, both Russia and Serbia do not recognize Kosovo as a nation. NATO’s interventions in Kosovo (as well as the US’ war in Afghanistan and others) are obviously used by the anti-American establishments to highlight the failures or “black spots” in Western history, to prove the imperfections of capitalism and democracy. Putin is quite good at that.

But Vladimir is certainly not a communist, he is a proud nationalist and newly-born fascist. He himself described communism in 1999 as "a blind alley, far away from the mainstream of civilization". He also honored and quoted multiple times the Russian political philosopher, Ivan Ilyin (1883-1954), which was a renowned anti-Bolshevik, pro-fascist and pro-Hitler “émigré”. According to the famous political scientist and historian Robert Paxton, “Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.”

Putin’s narrative today is precisely containing these elements. Restoring Russian pride, and ensuring the protection of Russian interests will therefore come at any cost and, contrarily to what our Western leaders say, the recent invasion of Ukraine was definitely not a surprise.

To facilitate the conception of today’s geopolitical context, I will now outline a series of key dates (on the Cold War, NATO, Putin and Ukraine) linked to today’s crisis and motives. The extremist behaviors of the “new tsar” are obviously to be highlighted and condemned but, nevertheless, to be fully understood. After all, Vladimir Putin is a product of Soviet Russia, and today’s Russia is a product of Putin. As the grievances against the West mounted, year by year, the distinctions between Putin and “the State” blurred… and today we can conclude that he has, in fact, fully become the state.

The timeline: a non-exhaustive list of key events

1949: the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is established, an intergovernmental military alliance setup during the Cold War (1947-1991) in response to the threat posed by the Soviet Union. Twelve countries take part in the founding of NATO: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

1952: Greece and Turkey become members of NATO.

1954: in an attempt to reconcile the relationship with the Ukrainian SSR (Soviet Socialist Republic), Nikita Khrushchev, along with the other leadership of the Soviet Union, transfers the “Crimean Oblast” from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR. The gifting of Crimea was considered by some almost as an apology for the USSR-caused damages to Ukraine (as the “Holodomor famine”) and a personal gesture towards his favorite republic.

1955 (May 8th): West Germany joins NATO.

1955 (May 14th): the Warsaw Pact, officially the “Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance”, is signed in Warsaw as collective defense treaty between the Soviet Union and seven other socialist republics of Central and Eastern Europe (Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Romania). Dominated by the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact was established as a balance of power or counterweight to NATO (despite being different in nature).

1962: during the “Cuban Missile Crisis” confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union is the closest the Cold War comes to escalating into a full-scale nuclear war. The crisis starts when American deployments of PGM-19 Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey are matched by Soviet deployments of similar ballistic missiles in Cuba. The crisis is resolved with Kennedy and Khrushchev finally finding a compromise (both sides removing missiles). The “Moscow–Washington hotline” is established in 1963 and a series of subsequent agreements reduce US–Soviet tensions for several years… until both parties eventually resume the expansion of their nuclear arsenals.

1982: Spain joins NATO.

1990 (February): in a conversation with Mikhail Gorbachev held in Moscow, US Secretary of State James Baker argued in favor of holding the “Two-Plus-Four” talks, a treaty later signed by France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States that year in September, where each nation renounced their rights to Germany, allowing its reunification. According to Moscow as well as Baker's notes, the famous "not one inch eastward" promise about NATO's eastward expansion was made during this conversation. Gorbachev was led to believe that NATO would not expand eastward, but the door for that was nevertheless left open. These verbal assurances were repeatedly made by German, US, and NATO officials in the same period.

1990 (October): with the fall of the Berlin Wall (started in November 1989) and the reunification of Germany (officially occurring on October 3rd, 1990) NATO grows to include the former country of East Germany, which clearly wanted to disconnect from the (ex) Soviet influence.

1989-1991: Communist governments are overthrown in Albania, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union. As the last acts of the Cold War were playing out, several Warsaw Pact states (Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary) participate in the US-led coalition effort to liberate Kuwait in the Gulf War (1990-1991).

1991 (February): in Hungary, at a meeting of foreign ministers from remaining Pact countries, the Warsaw Pact is declared officially disbanded.

1991 (December): year of the dissolution of the Soviet Union into 15 countries (amongst which Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania and others). Gorbachev consequently becomes the president of nothing and resigns, handing over his presidential powers and nuclear launch codes to Boris Yeltsin, who was the President of the Russian Federation.

1990s: fast privatization of Russian state-owned assets, where regulation could not keep up with the fast progress and pace of an open economy. During this decade, the smartest and most connected men accumulated incredible wealth. This is the rise of the “first oligarchs”, such as Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky.

1993: surprisingly, during his visit to Poland, Yeltsin tells Polish president Lech Walesa that "Russia does not oppose Poland's membership in NATO and does not perceive its membership in NATO as a threat to Russia." Under pressure from opposition within Russia, this informal declaration was retracted the following month, marking the beginning of this grievance among Russian elites. Angling for Russia to join NATO, Yeltsin writes to Bill Clinton (who just became US President) to argue that any further expansion of NATO eastwards breached the spirit of the 1990 treaty (the ‘Two Plus Four Agreement’ between the two Germanies, France, UK, USA and the USSR). Internationally, Russia throughout presents itself as a potential NATO member, but the US establishment sees this as a fantasy that would paralyze the alliance. Unfortunately, Russia at the time is in economic and political ruin, hence in a weak spot to negotiate.

1994 (June): Russia joins the ‘Partnership for Peace’ program, the first of several important cooperation agreements between NATO and Russia.

1994 (July): Alexander Lukashenko is elected President of Belarus. The pro-soviet and pro-Russia politician holds this position until present day and is arguably the "last dictator" in Europe.

1994 (December): following the FSK’s (the former KGB and future FSB) covert attempt to destabilize the Chechen Republic, a bloody war explodes and lasts until mid-1996, resulting with Chechen victory. Estimated casualties are around 10,000 Russian military, 15,000 Chechen forces and potentially 100,000 to 200,000 Chechen civilians.

1995 (August): to undermine the military capability of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS), which had threatened and attacked UN-designated "safe areas" in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Bosnian War (1992-1995) and during the ‘Srebrenica genocide’ and ‘Markale massacres’, NATO launches “Operation Deliberate Force”. Intervention is explicitly asked by the United Nations, following the shelling of the Sarajevo marketplace by the “VRS”. In less than a month, NATO secures a strategic victory. Side note: depleted uranium munitions were used multiple times by NATO forces and further studies in the region reported an increase in illnesses and developments of cancers among veterans that served in Balkan peacekeeping missions.

1995-1996: facing severe fiscal deficit, Yeltsin recruits the time’s financial and media oligarchs to bankroll the electoral campaign. In return, he allows the well-connected Russian business leaders to acquire majority stakes in some of Russia's most valuable state-owned assets (via the famous “loans-for-share” scheme). Meanwhile, US President Bill Clinton calls for former Warsaw Pact countries (amongst which Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland) and other post-Soviet republics to join NATO and makes NATO enlargement a crucial part of his foreign-policy. Enlarging NATO is seen by Clinton to help the stability in the region, benefiting both Europe and Russia, but Russia obviously does not see it the same way.

1998: George Kennan, American diplomat and historian, whose writings inspired the ‘Truman Doctrine’, expresses himself on the decision to expand NATO: “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. There was no reason for this, whatsoever.”

1998 (July): Yeltsin appoints Putin director of the Federal Security Service (FSB), the primary intelligence and security organization of the Russian Federation and the successor to the KGB and the FSK.

1998 (February) to 1999 (June): tensions between Kosovo's Albanian and Serb communities simmer through the 20th century and occasionally erupt into major violence, culminating in the Kosovo War of 1998 and 1999. After attempts at a diplomatic solution fail, NATO intervenes again, justifying the campaign as a humanitarian war. The NATO bombing campaign proves to be highly controversial and does not gain the approval of the UN Security Council (it ultimately caused at least 488 Yugoslav civilian deaths). The war concluded with the ‘Kumanovo Treaty’, the withdrawal of the Yugoslav army, and the establishment of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo. Note: Kosovo will declare independence from Serbia 9 years later (on 17 February 2008), and will gain diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state by 97 member states of the United Nations, but not from Serbia, which continues (to present day) to claim it as its constituent Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija.

1999 (March): at the alliance’s 50th anniversary, Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland officially join NATO.

1999 (August 7th): political tensions are fueled by the allegedly pro-Chechen terrorist and criminal activity in Russia. The invasion of Dagestan on August 7th, led by Abu Idris (a Chechen separatist), together with the apartment bombings occurring a month later, trigger the start of the “Second Russian-Chechen War”.

1999 (August 9th): two days after the breakout of the war, President Yeltsin appoints Putin as acting Prime Minister of the Government of the Russian Federation and announces that he wants to see Putin as his successor.

1999 (September): a series of explosions hit apartment blocks in major Russian cities killing more than 300, injuring more than 1,000, and spreading a wave of fear across the country. The handling of the crisis by Vladimir Putin, who was prime minister at the time, boosted his popularity and helped him attain the presidency within a few months. It is believed these were potentially FSB false-flag operations to manipulate public opinion.

1999 (December 31st): Boris Yeltsin unexpectedly resigns, and Putin becomes Acting President of the Russian Federation.

2000 (March): elections in Russia are won by Putin, which officially takes office as President.

2000 (April): the major combat phase of the Second Chechen War, concludes with Russia’victory (hence annexation) and an unknown death toll. However, the “insurgency phase” of the conflict will last until April 2009.

2000s: throughout multiple occasions, Putin seems to be wanting to become part of Europe and get closer to the Western world. He also expresses the intent to join NATO, but never officially applies.

2001 (January): George W. Bush is elected 43rd President of the United States, a position held for two mandates, until 2009.

2001 (September): in the hours immediately following the 9/11 attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, Putin is the first foreign leader to call George Bush, offering condolences and support to fight international terrorism. Less than two weeks later, Putin goes on national television and states that he has fought terrorism for a long time and will repeatedly urge the international community, via the UN and the UN Security Council, to join efforts. Putin also outlines a series of measures that Russia would adopt to aid the emergent American-led coalition against the Taliban government of Afghanistan. The Russians will provide intelligence, air space, and support the establishment of US and allied bases in Central Asia.

2002: the “Russia–NATO Council” is established for handling security issues and joint projects. Cooperation between Russia and NATO now develops in several main sectors, including fighting terrorism, military cooperation, cooperation on Afghanistan, industrial cooperation, and weapons non-proliferation.

2003: arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the richest man in Russia. This is only one of the many moves that Putin’s administration carries out to consolidate economic and political power. Note: for those who want to know more about this incredible, I strongly suggest watching “Citizen K” (2019).

2004 (March): Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria as well as Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, join NATO. The last two (Baltic) countries directly border with Russia.

2004 (November): in the aftermath of the rigged 2004 Ukrainian presidential election, filled with massive corruption, voter intimidation and electoral fraud, thousands of protesters start demonstrating daily and nationwide. The “Orange Revolution” lasted 3 entire months and concluded with the nullification of the Ukrainian election and a re-vote, where Yanukovych (Putin’s man) lost to Viktor Yushchenko (which was poisoned and permanently disfigured by FSB agents a month earlier). The re-vote is seen by both Russia and Belarus as a fearful of spread of democracy on their borders, and both stating that this is a result of the West’s direct influence.

2007 (February): at the Munich Security Conference with G20 leaders, Vladimir Putin openly criticizes what he calls “the United States' monopolistic dominance in global relations”. He cites a 1990 quote from Manfred Woerner (German politician and Secretary General of NATO from 1988 to 1994) to imply that specific guarantees about NATO’s enlargement were made. Putin said “I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself, or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask ‘against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances of our Western partners made after the dissolutions of the Warsaw Pact?”.

2008 (June): at the Russia-NATO summit in Bucharest, George Bush declares strong support for Ukraine's NATO membership, in defiance of Moscow which adamantly opposes the alliance's eastwards expansion. During the argument Putin tells Bush “You have to understand George… Ukraine is not even a country.”  The meeting ends with sharp disagreements.

2008 (August): following a period of worsening relations between Russia and Georgia (due to Georgia’s pro-Western change of power in 2003) the Russian-backed South Ossetian forces start shelling Georgian villages. The Georgian army responds, and Russia launches a full-scale land, air and sea invasion gaining partial control of the region. The South Ossetians destroy most ethnic Georgian villages in South Ossetia and are responsible for an “ethnic cleansing” (5,500 killed + 200,000 displaced) of Georgians. Nicolas Sarkozy, the President of France, personally negotiates a ceasefire agreement on August 12th (after 12 days of conflict). Russia then recognizes the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia later that month. Consequently, the Georgian government severs diplomatic relations with Russia. Side note: notice any similarities with today’s Donbas?

2009: in January, the democrat Barack Obama officially becomes the 44th president of the United States (for 2 mandates, until 2017). In April, Albania and Croatia join NATO.

2011-2013: hundreds of thousands of people, in every key Russian city, start protesting in what some western media refer to as the “Snow Revolution”. On 6 May 2012, protests take place in Moscow the day before Putin's inauguration as President for his third term. Some call for the inauguration to be scrapped. The protests are marred by violence between the protesters and the police. About 400 protesters were arrested, including Alexei Navalny (poisoned by the FSB in 2020 and jailed in 2021), Boris Nemtsov (killed by Putin’s men in 2015) and Sergei Udaltsov (jailed until 2017).

2013 (December): amongst few other political prisoners, Khodorkovsky is pardoned by Putin prior the Sochi Olympics (starting in February 2014). This highlights Putin’s will to improve his public image and ahead of major sports events (which he deeply cares about).

2014 (February): after 3 long months, the Maidan protests in Ukraine again lead to the ousting and overthrowing of Viktor Yanukovych, Putin’s man in Ukraine. The protests start in November 2013 due to Yanukovych’s sudden decision not to sign a political association and free trade agreement with the European Union (EU). To pressure Yanukovych’s anti-EU decision, Russia promised a 15-billion-euro debt relief and a substantial reduction in Russian gas import prices. Despite the positive outcome, these events obviously caused even more anti-Russian sentiment, as it was clear that Russia did not favor the development of true democracy in Ukraine. The protests even see the participation of exiled Russian oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, which supported the Ukrainians’ democratic transition: “Fight and you will overcome”, he said to the nation’s crowds in Kiev.

2014 (March): immediately following the “Euromaidan” protests, pro-Russian, anti-government separatist groups took place in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine, collectively called the Donbas. These demonstrations began around the same time as Russia's annexation of Crimea in March (which took only 3 weeks), and were part of wider pro-Russian protests across southern and eastern Ukraine. Declaring the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR, respectively), armed Russian-backed separatist groups seized government buildings throughout the Donbas, leading to armed conflict with the Ukrainian government forces. Tensions increase between NATO and Russia.

2014 (April): NATO issues a statement by NATO foreign ministers that announced it had "decided to suspend all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia. Our political dialogue in the NATO-Russia Council can continue, as necessary, at the Ambassadorial level and above, to allow us to exchange views, first and foremost on this crisis". The statement condemned Russia's illegal military intervention in Ukraine and Russia's violation of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

2014 (January to May): clashes between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan demonstrators erupt in the southern Ukrainian city of Odessa, in reaction to Euromaidan. The clashes culminate on May 2nd, when hundreds of armed pro-Russian activists attack a unity march in the city center, resulting in pro-Ukrainian militants setting fire to a Trade Unions House, where pro-Russian militants were forced inside. 46 anti-Maidan and 2 pro-Maidan activists were killed and over 200 people were injured as a result of the confrontations.

2014 (May): following questionable referendums in DPR and LPR, both regions of Ukraine declare their independence.

2014 (June): Petro Poroshenko is elected president of Ukraine (legally). He leads the country through the first phase of the Russo-Ukrainian War, pushing the insurgent rebel forces deeper into the Donbas Region. He begins the process of integration with the European Union by signing the European Union–Ukraine Association Agreement. Poroshenko's domestic policy promoted the Ukrainian language, nationalism, inclusive capitalism, decommunization, and administrative decentralization.

2014 (July to September): the first agreement, known as the Minsk Protocol, is drafted in 2014 by the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine, consisting of Ukraine, Russia, and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), with mediation by the leaders of France and Germany. After extensive talks in Minsk, Belarus, the agreement is signed on 5 September 2014 by representatives of the Trilateral Contact Group and, without recognition of their status, by the then-leaders of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People's Republic (LPR). This agreement follows multiple previous attempts to stop the fighting in the region and aims to implement an immediate ceasefire. Despite its intent, the (Minsk I) agreement fails to stop the fighting.

2015 (February): the Minsk II agreement is signed, featuring 13 revised key points. Amongst these provisions, is the full and immediate ceasefire, release of hostages, pardons forbidding prosecution, establishment of a safe zone through the withdrawal of heavy weapons from the front line, safe access to humanitarian aid, and a constitutional reform in Ukraine granting self-government to certain areas of Donbas (containing the LPR and the DPR) and restoring control of the state border to the Ukrainian government. While fighting subsided following the agreement's signing, it never ends completely, and the agreement's provisions are never fully implemented. Back in Russia (on February 27th) Boris Nemtsov, a leading politician in Russia and outspoken critic of Putin, is publicly assassinated beside his Ukrainian partner. Nemtsov, is shot four times in the back, on a bridge near the Kremlin. This shows that no one is safe in the new tsar’s regime.

2015 (June): the Ukrainian defense minister Stepan Poltorak states that over 100 soldiers and at least 50 civilians had been killed since Minsk II came into effect. According to him, pro-Russian forces have violated the truce more than 4,000 times. Contrary to the agreement, DPR representative Denis Pushilin and LPR representative Vladislav Deinego say on June 10th that their republics "would like to join the Russian Federation" and that they consider Crimea, which was annexed by Russia in March 2014, to be part of Russia. Conflicts and tensions in the region continue to present day.

2015 (September): at the 70th of the United Nations General Assembly in New York, Putin gives a speech criticizing Western foreign policies and interventions, causing the rise of the Islamic State, as well as chaos in Syria and Ukraine. He highlights and blames the West's rampant 'egotism' and arrogance, stating, “I'm urged to ask those who created this situation: do you at least realize now what you’ve done?"

2016 (March): American Defense Department official Michael Carpenter states that at least 430 Ukrainian soldiers have died since the signing of Minsk II, that Russia maintains "command-and-control links" over the DPR and LPR, and that Russia is "pouring heavy weapons" into the Donbas.

2016: over the course of multiple years, Russians interfere with the US presidential elections, with the intent to damage Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Side note: back in 2014, Hillary Clinton compared Putin’s policies in East Ukraine to those of Adolf Hitler. Even if Trump and his administration did not explicitly ask for Russian interference, it is clear that the Russian establishment would favor Donald Trump, a republican, over another democratic. Historically republican presidents, such as Nixon, George Bush junior and senior, Reagan and others, were generally more successful in making Russian-American relations better: the interference was therefore not a surprise. It is also renowned fact that the U.S. intervened in at least 81 foreign elections since 1946 (that’s what global superpowers do). Russia’s attempt was clearly to facilitate the establishment of someone favorable, and not to undermine American democracy (as many western media stated), which is a laughable and utopist objective.

2018: hosted by the president of Finland, Trump and Putin meet at a summit in Helsinki. Trump tweets on the morning of the summit that the relationship between Russia and the U.S. has "never been worse". He blames this on "foolishness and stupidity" on the part of the U.S., and references the ongoing Special Counsel investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections, calling it a "witch-hunt". The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs retweets Trump's message, adding "We agree". In a Fox News interview the next day, Putin indicates that the two had agreed to disagree about Crimea. Putin also said he wanted acceptance of the disputed 2014 referendum in which Crimeans “voted” to become part of Russia, and insisted that Ukraine must never become part of NATO. He said they had agreed to hold talks on extension of the START treaty, which expires in 2021, but wants to see evidence that the U.S. has lived up to the terms of the treaty.

2017 (February): the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov says he supports the resumption of military cooperation with the NATO alliance. In late March 2017, the Council meets in advance of a NATO Foreign Ministers conference in Brussels, Belgium.

2017 (June): Montenegro joins NATO.

2019 (February): the United States provides its six-month notice of withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty due to the Russian Federation’s continuing violation of the treaty. The US first raised its concerns with Russia in 2013. Russia subsequently and systematically rebuffed six years of US efforts, seeking Russia’s return to compliance.

2019 (May): the anti-corruption and anti-establishment Volodymyr Zelenskyy, wins the election in Ukraine with 73% of the votes, defeating Poroshenko. Zelenskyy promises to end Ukraine's protracted conflict with Russia as part of his presidential campaign, and attempts to engage in dialogue with Russian president Vladimir Putin.

2020 (March): North Macedonia joins NATO.

2020 (July): Putin changes the Russian Constitution, allowing him to act as President until 2036. The amendments also ban same sex marriage and enable him to remove federal judges.

2021 (January): Joe Biden, member of the Democratic Party, becomes the 46th president of the United States.

2021 (April): in response to Russian military build-up at the Ukrainian borders, Zelenskyy speaks to American president Joe Biden and urges NATO members to speed up Ukraine's request for membership.

2021 (June): at the Brussels Summit, NATO leaders reiterate the decision taken at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine would become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process and Ukraine's right to determine its own future and foreign policy. On November 30th 2021, Vladimir Putin states that an expansion of NATO's presence in Ukraine, especially the deployment of any long-range missiles capable of striking Russian cities or missile defense systems similar to those in Romania and Poland, would be a "red line" issue for Russia. Putin asks Joe Biden for legal guarantees that NATO would not expand eastward or put "weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory." NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg replied that "It's only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence to try to control their neighbors.”

2021 (October): following the expulsion of 8 Russian officials from its Brussels headquarters (as they are found to be undeclared Russian intelligence officers), Russia suspends its mission to NATO and orders the closure of NATO's office in Moscow.

2021 (November): Zelenskyy accuses Russia and the Ukrainian oligarch Rinat Akhmetov of backing a plan to overthrow his government.

2021 (December): President Joe Biden holds a secure video call with President Vladimir Putin to discuss a range of issues on the US-Russia agenda. President Biden voices the deep concerns of the United States and European Allies about Russia’s escalation of forces surrounding Ukraine and makes clear that the US and the Allies would respond with strong economic measures (and potentially others) in the event of military escalation. Biden reiterates his support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and calls for de-escalation and return to diplomacy. The two presidents task their teams to follow up, and the US will do so in close coordination with allies and partners. The presidents also discuss the US-Russia dialogue on Strategic Stability, a separate dialogue on ransomware, as well as joint work on regional issues such as Iran. 

2022 (Jan-Feb): tensions gradually rise between Russia and Ukraine. Russians and Belarussians supposedly start “military drills”, amassing 190,000 troops, as well as armored vehicles, along the borders with Ukraine and the Russian-occupied region of Crimea.

2022 (February 15th): at a press conference Sergey Lavrov (Russian Foreign Minister) declares that the Russian troops are returning to their permanent bases in accordance with the approved schedule regardless of the West’s “hysteria” over Russia’s alleged preparations for an invasion of Ukraine.

2022 (February 20th): Russian Ambassador to the US, Anatoly Antonov, tells on CBS Face the Nation that, "there is no invasion and there is no such plan."

2022 (February 21st): Russia officially recognizes the Luhansk and Donetsk people's republics.

2022 (February 22nd): Vladimir Putin declares that the Minsk agreements "no longer exist", and that Ukraine, not Russia, was to blame for their collapse. Meanwhile, Antony Blinken (US Secretary of State) cancels the planned meeting with Sergey Lavrov in Geneva for the 24th, stating “Now that we see the invasion is beginning and Russia has made clear its wholesale rejection of diplomacy, it does not make sense to go forward with that meeting at this time."

2022 (February 24th): addressing his nation in a televised speech broadcast just before 6 am, Vladimir Putin announces the start of the ‘Special Military Operation’ against Ukraine with the goal to “demilitarize and de-nazify” but not occupy the country. Minutes later, large explosions occur near Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, and blasts are reported in Kyiv and other parts of the country. Ukraine’s Interior Ministry states, “The invasion has begun”.

So… what can we observe?

Apart from the horrors in Chechnya and within Russia’s borders, we can see Russia’s failed attempt at democracy and westernization, resulting in the decreasing weight in global geopolitics between the 1990s and 2000s; a series of verbal warranties made to Russia about NATO’s expansion eastward; Putin rapidly consolidating power and attempting to maintain pro-Russian governments around him; NATO’s steady and reckless expansion (excluding Russia and including ex-USSR countries) and bloody interventions in the Balkans; Putin showing interest in EU and NATO membership and support towards the West’s new fight against terrorism (early 2000s); the snobbish behavior of the Western powers that do not see Russia as a current superpower (and fail to see its future potential); multiple reminders by two Russian leaders for NATO not to cross the “red line”; a gradual democratization of ex-USSR countries and increase in anti-Russian sentiment… all culminating with Putin’s speech at the G20 in Munich (2007), denouncing the “the United States' monopolistic dominance in global relations” and the promises made and broken by the West. From that point, relations between Russia and Western powers deteriorate and provide the base for a new Russian fascism. While these promises were never written down in a treaty, the charge of betrayal does indeed have a psychological truth, and therefore justify Russia’s distrust of international law and distrust of the West.

We have to understand that for many Russians, and most importantly Vladimir Putin, the 1990s were a decade of humiliation, as the United States imposed its vision of order on Europe (including in Kosovo in 1999) while the Russians could do nothing but stand by and watch. In 2008 in Georgia and in 2014 in Ukraine, Putin made clear there were red lines he would not allow NATO and the European Union to cross. On several key disputes dominating the international agenda, Putin came out in flat opposition to the Americans. Russia was supplying Iran with air defense equipment, for example, so that Tehran did not feel surrounded by enemies. Before the invasion of Ukraine, Putin had demanded that NATO promise to stop expanding east (to countries such as Ukraine, Georgia or Moldova), a condition that NATO refused. He reserved his bitterest complaints, however, for the US drive to deploy parts of the missile shield in central Europe: “Why do you need to move your military infrastructure to our borders?”

What becomes clearer from 2007, is that the country’s narrative (which Putin controls) starts populating with more examples of the unjustified aggressions of the West. An example of that was the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, justified by the search of weapons of mass destruction (which were never found) and to end Saddam Hussein’s alleged support for the Al-Qaeda terrorist group (which is still unconfirmed): an invasion that Russia strongly opposed and where multiple crimes of war were committed, as proven by the documents later released by the famous Julian Assange. More anti-US and anti-NATO propaganda also found easy ground with the interventions in Kosovo, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria: interventions that were not always “clean” and that seldom resulted in stable governments, social progress or liberation. Russian propaganda, censorship and misinformation has exacerbated these events, but they are indeed based on true happenings. The events outlined by our previous timeline (and many others) show, amongst many things, that global superpowers do, at times, employ unethical tactics (including false flag operations), to assert control over certain regions or manipulate the course of events. But we can also detect an overall position or common thought behind western policy, something that Yeltsin, Putin and the Russians perceived very well: “you (Russia) have lost the Cold War and you’re going to pay for it. You are not a superpower anymore, nor the great Soviet Union and are only a third-world country in early development… a banana republic that cannot manage itself. The United States must remain THE superior country, as it rightfully cannot trust anyone else to supervise world peace. The US (and NATO) have the right to interfere, to maintain the superpower status and to watch out for Russia”. This is precisely the “Wolfowitz Doctrine”, which later became the “Bush Doctrine”.

Now, relooking at the Russian-Ukrainian situation, what would happen if suddenly a pro-Russian government emerges in Mexico and applies to become member of the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization, aka “the Russian NATO”)? The United States’ response would be clear, as it was during the 1962 Cuban Crisis, and that response would be surely aggravated if the US’ history was somewhat interlaced with that of Mexico. In 2014, Henry Kissinger (US Secretary of State from 1973 to 1977) said “the West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country” as their history is greatly intertwined. Hence, this hypothetical scenario between Mexico and US would not even be comparable to the motives behind today’s Ukraine and Russia. This gives us a further glimpse on the Russian’s perspective.

Understanding Putin’s current “de-Nazification” claims:

Ukraine is geographically the biggest country in Europe and holds a population of over 40 million. At least 10-20% of these are of Russian ethnicity… ratios that obviously increase closer to the Eastern borders. Russian was spoken openly across the country prior 2014 and, since then, 2 million Russians living in Ukraine left the country. Multiple polls conducted in the early 2000s clearly show that there are substantial parts of the population that are pro-Russia, although usually concentrated in specific regions. While we can only condemn the actions leading to the occupation of Crimea, and the creation of DPR and LPR, we can surely not ignore the rise of Ukrainian nationalism that emerged from it as defense, which has both positive and negative connotations. Western media, in fact, has often closed an eye on multiple acts made by questionable groups in Donbas during the past 8 years.

In the recent months, Putin has been increasingly speaking about Ukraine’s government being openly neo-Nazi or pro-Nazi, a puzzling assertion about a country whose president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is Jewish. What Putin means is obviously an “anti-Russian Nazism”, which he is somewhat to blame for. Putin is using stereotypes and WW2 traumas to justify the invasion of Ukraine, where the Kremlin wants to appear as fighting the evil in a great patriotic war, lingering over Russian pride in the victory over Nazi Germany. So, on what basis is he making these claims? Very weak, but real ones. Jewish groups and others have, in fact, criticized Ukraine since its pro-Western revolution in 2014 for allowing Ukrainian independence fighters, who at one point sided with Nazi Germany, to be venerated as national heroes. Some fringe nationalist groups, who have no representation in Parliament, use racist rhetoric and symbolism associated with Nazi Germany. Eduard Dolinsky, director general of the Ukrainian Jewish Committee, said that some in the country do derisively refer to those far-right groups as “little Nazis” — as Putin does. On social media, Mr. Dolinsky in recent years has frequently called attention to things like the renaming of a major stadium in western Ukraine for Roman Shukhevych, a Ukrainian nationalist leader. He commanded troops that were implicated in mass killings of Jews and Poles during World War II. “This problem did exist and continues to,” Mr. Dolinsky said in a phone interview from western Ukraine, a few days after fleeing Kyiv. “But it has of course receded 10 times in importance compared to the threat posed by Russia in its alleged fight against Nazism.”

Like in all cases, from the smallest city protest to an international armed conflict, “rotten apples” join one side or the other, in pursuit of other goals or in simple search for violence or revenge. This has potentially happened also in Donbas, but is surely not representative of Ukrainian patriotism. Putin is nevertheless, as always, manipulating the narrative, using it as a continuation of the Soviet Union’s unfinished business. As a matter of fact, Putin’s “denazification” mission increasingly means that he is determined to destroy Ukrainians and what it means to be Ukrainian. This is something that is way worse than Nazism, and luckily, he appears to be failing at that. Putin is now blaming the alleged “Ukrainian extremists” for the atrocities that are happening in Ukraine and against Russian soldiers. He is also portraying the West as a supporter of “Ukrainian Nazism”, happily leveraging the videoclip where Nancy Pelosi greeted Zelensky with “Slava Ukraini!” (Glory to Ukraine!), slogans also used by ultranationalists during the 19th century.

In any case, it is Putin’s behavior that is deepening the anti-Russian sentiment in Ukraine (and in most of Eastern Europe). Nationalism and patriotism are, after all, a manifestation of love and devotion for our own countries, democracies, values and history. Any threat to a country’s existence can only make that sentiment stronger. Russian aggression is transforming even the most devoted pacifist in Ukraine into a warrior. Strangely, Putin, which is a master of manipulation and strategy, does not recognize that his current actions are having the exact opposite effect to what he desired. As outlined recently by the journalist Andrey Kurkov, “Putin is destroying not only Ukraine but Russia too. He is destroying the Russian language. During this terrible war, at a time when the Russians are bombing schools, universities, and hospitals, the Russian language is one of the least significant victims. Many times over, I have been ashamed of my Russian origins, of the fact that my native language is Russian. I have come up with different ways of explaining that the language is not to blame. That Putin does not own the Russian language. That many defenders of Ukraine are Russian-speaking, that many civilian victims in the south and east of Ukraine are also Russian-speaking and ethnic Russians. But now I just want to be quiet. […] After the war, the ruins of dozens of cities and thousands of villages will remain; millions of homeless Ukrainians will remain. There will be bitterness and hatred.”

And this, summarized, is the legacy of Putin’s war in Ukraine… one that is already expanding beyond the borders of this conflict… one that will only build on the global anti-Russian sentiment, potentially causing further escalations and future conflicts in decades from now… one which will cause an even quicker ethnic separation in the region. Stories create motives for new stories, and history repeats.

A pit-bull cornered in a dead-end street:

The International Space Station (ISS) in the recent days has reminded us once again of the value of friendship and cooperation. The value of science, knowledge and humanity, above all. All our global leaders should see the Earth from space at least once… and realize that we are nothing but a small blue marble, floating in an infinite void. But this “enlightenment” is still today a rare thing, and because of the short sightedness of western policy, focused on a penny today rather than a gold mine tomorrow, we now face a bloody war with more civilian than military deaths, as well as the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe since WW2 (right after a global pandemic). We face an instable character armed with nuclear weapons, which distrusts the West and was bullied into becoming a 21st century Stalin. We face the consolidation of the Chinese-Russian economic and political friendship, where each side supports each other… also when lying. We face increased defense budgets worldwide, hence less money the governments can spend towards sustainable development or to promote societal progress. We face war crimes, injustice and parents burying their sons and daughters. We face rises in nationalism and conflict, at a time where our only priority should be fixing our climate and the injustices of this world…

While aspiring dictators cannot be constantly pleased, the best way to “defeat” a potential antagonist is to befriend him. We should have seized the opportunity to get closer and show him the path of truth and freedom, which he tempted to pursue in the early 2000s. Instead, what messages did the West send him? What happens when you seclude a bully into a corner instead of gently showing him the value of moral integrity?

The answer is simple: Putin happens.

As a confirmation that relations with Russia are at an all-time low, Joe Biden recently labeled Putin as “a butcher” and that he must be removed from power (after seeing the horrors Putin’s men have caused in Bucha, we can only agree). Later clarifications from the Secretary of State aimed to dilute Biden’s label stating that Russia’s future is obviously a choice of the Russian people. But at this stage, how can we rely on the rectitude of Russians? What we see today are still very few acts of bravery (Russia is a country of 144 million and few thousand people saying “no” are not enough to make a mark), where some common citizens have the guts to publicly denounce Putin’s regime and potentially deal with 15 years of jailtime. We also see a considerable number of Russians temporarily (and some permanently) fleeing the country (towards ex-USSR states, Dubai, the UK, and Asia) as they are afraid of how things may evolve next, with the Russian press freedom index becoming worse than Venezuela’s and Burundi’s. But the answer to our question ultimately is found in the 3rd and most substantial segment, that of most Russians: those that do not have the means to leave the country… those that know this “special military operation” is Putin’s massacre of the Ukrainians but are not crazy enough to stand in a square and protest… those who suffer from a 21st century Stockholm syndrome and are in love with their oppressor… and those who simply support Putin, no matter what he does, because of the effective state propaganda machine. Despite more frequent resignations and events of protest, there is still a vast majority in Russia that appears to approve Putin’s regime, or that considers opposing it too much of a personal risk. Unfortunately, not everyone is a “Khodorkovsky”, a “Nemtsov”, a “Navalny”, a “Kara-Murza”… but hopefully the thousands of Ukrainian civilians murdered by the Russian army in their own homes, will open the eyes of the world to Putin’s true face. Hopefully… the thousands of mothers in Russia which will not see their sons again, sent to Ukraine by Putin to die in war they do not understand, sent to fight with rusty equipment, expired food, unencrypted radio communications, and no strategy… just as pawns in a table game… hopefully, those poor souls will start having a weight and a voice.

It is your time to flourish, progress and embrace democracy dear Russian friends. “Silence in the face of injustice… is complicity with the oppressor”, as Ginetta Sagan said. Understanding the reasons behind your distrust of the west, you must realize the danger Putin poses to your future. The only way to handle this ethically is to fight the system or leave Russia. If you stay there without doing anything about it, you are no different than Putin. You live in a country where political leaders and journalists opposing the regime are assassinated and where those who try to tell the truth are thrown in jail. Is this a country where you want to see your kids grow?

No provocation can justify the horrors happening in Ukraine today, and each day you wait, Ukrainian hatred against Russia keeps building up. It increases with each child your army kills. Each father your army tortures and mutilates. Each mother your army rapes. Each home your army destroys. Each hospital your army bombards.

How will it end?

After more than a month since the start of the invasion, I have no doubts Ukraine will win. Truth always wins. Russian “Z” forces continue to suffer heavy losses, have made minimal progress on land, sea or air, and are retreating in many key areas. The crippled and disorganized Russian army will definitely not be able to overcome Ukraine's stiff defense, nor will not be able to hold onto the country because Putin doesn't have sufficient forces in theater to occupy large swaths of Ukraine indefinitely. As of the latest negotiations in Turkey, it seems like the Russians are starting to acknowledge their lack of military progress and evident economic vulnerability. What we will probably see, if there are no surprises, is an agreement where the Russians retreat to the areas previously occupied (as of Jan 2022), but maintain control of the Mariupol region, strategically connecting Crimea to Donbas and closing the Sea of Azov. And while Ukrainian NATO membership is still a “no go”, Putin seems to be open to allow for Ukraine to enter the EU. Many, like myself, obviously hope the final outcome will be better, with Ukraine finally regaining its full territorial integrity but, despite some developments, we may still be at the beginning of a very long conflict.

What has become clear is that Putin is not as strong as we thought a month ago. The billions Putin has spent to modernize and expand his army have not fully materialized. Putin has become a victim of his own system: one where all army officials handling funds and weapons steal whatever they can, so that equipment is not maintained, so that ammunitions and fuel are half delivered, so that only cheap and obsolete replacement parts are sourced. The regime of terror, as it often already occurred in human history, is causing Putin’s best men to lie to him… and bad information is the source of bad decisions. To add to that, companies and governments worldwide are adjusting together and re-evaluating their dependencies. Sanctions coming from all directions are starting to impact Russia’s economy, which will soon not be any more amongst the top 20 in the world. In short, Putin has bitten off more than he can chew, and while he was attempting to weaken the West, he has actually caused the exact opposite: NATO is stronger than ever, Europe is more compact than ever, Germany is not ashamed anymore of being a military leader, and even Switzerland took an active stand. People all around the world protest against the war and even “Anonymous” stepped in to give Putin’s regime a considerable lesson. Meanwhile, the conditions that are emerging back home are similar to those when Gorbachev received his coup d'état. Once this system, and the people leading it, realize that Putin is bringing his whole country down with him, (in true Russian fashion) he will probably not live another day. As most of the Russian population still seems to support him, the only ones that can potentially overthrow him are those standing closest. Regardless, waiting and hoping is definitely not a viable strategy.

Above all, while experts, critics and simple people like me debate about how Putin was provoked, how the West has sometimes failed, or how we fear putting a child into this world crippled by injustice, pandemics, idiotic wars and biodiversity loss… let’s not forget about the holiness of democracy, ethics and territorial integrity. Ukraine is not simply a reason for debate over geopolitical strategy. It is not a buffer state… it is a country of its own. As the Ukrainian people set an example of leadership and heroism, the world must respect the values they are willing to die for.

“You can kill a man, but you cannot kill an idea”, someone once said.

Glory to Ukraine, and to the indestructible courage of the Ukrainians. Glory to the brave Russians opposing their regime. Glory to democracy… and truth.