The attempt to destroy Ukraine has become Putin's self-destruction of Russia

The geopolitical maniac captain of the «Putanica» is steering the ship Russia straight towards the inevitable iceberg of complete international isolation, ignoring the alarm signals and leading the entire crew to the bottom for the sake of his imperial ambitions.

Putin’s determination to destroy Ukraine’s statehood goes far beyond rationality and common sense. It seemed that, guided by the logic of preserving his regime, he should avoid reckless decisions that systematically undermine the economy, weaken its defense capabilities in the long term, isolate the country from the most developed countries in the world, and accelerate demographic decline.

But no, the determination of the Russian dictator demonstrates a completely different logic. If, of course, his manic obsession with Ukraine can be called logic at all. Putin considers the destruction of Ukraine to be the main thing in his life.

And in the worldview of the Moscow Fuhrer himself, the existence of an independent Ukraine is viewed as a historical, political and personal problem that requires a radical solution.

Therefore, not only economic or military factors, but also ideology, historical memory, the psychology of power and the peculiarities of Putin’s totalitarian regime are becoming increasingly important in explaining his decisions.

For many years, Putin has consistently formed his own historical concept, according to which Ukrainian statehood is not a full-fledged and natural phenomenon, but arose as a result of historical mistakes, external intervention and the collapse of the Soviet Union.

In his numerous speeches, interviews and program articles, one can trace the belief that Russians and Ukrainians constitute a «single people». And a separate Ukrainian nation is the result of an artificial process and malicious machinations of Russia’s enemies who seek to weaken or dismember the Russian Federation.

Such a revisionist interpretation of history differs significantly from the approaches of modern historical science, which considers the formation of nations as a complex and long-term process with its own political, cultural and social dynamics. However, it was Putin’s pseudo-historical interpretation that became an important component of the Kremlin’s political worldview and determined its attitude towards Ukraine.

The imperial component of this concept is no less important. Putin is convinced that the collapse of the USSR was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, and therefore his historical mission is to restore Russia’s status as a great empire and return the former colonized Soviet territories under its control.

And Ukraine occupies a special place in this system of imperial coordinates. Due to its size, population, economic potential, geographical location and historical significance, it is a key element of any concept of Russian regional hegemony.

That is why the final consolidation of Ukraine as an independent democratic state integrated into European and Euro-Atlantic structures is perceived in the Kremlin not only as a foreign policy defeat, but as the collapse of a broader historical project. Which will cancel out all of Russia’s efforts to restore its imperial status and regain control over the formerly occupied territories.

Another determining factor for the totalitarian Putin regime is that its apologists are panicking about the political example of a successful democratic Ukraine. After all, personalistic totalitarian regimes consider not only military threats, but also alternative models of development to be the most dangerous.

And if a neighboring state with a common past, linguistic and cultural ties demonstrates the possibility of competitive politics, regular changes of power, and integration into a democratic community, this may call into question the official narrative about the lack of alternatives to totalitarian rule.

In this context, Ukraine has a symbolic significance for the Kremlin that goes far beyond the boundaries of ordinary geopolitical competition. The very fact of its independent development can contradict the claim that the totalitarian vertical of power is the only possible model for the states of the post-Soviet space.

It is the combination of historical myths, imperial ideas and the logic of self-preservation of the totalitarian system that helps explain why the Kremlin’s political decisions often seem disproportionate in terms of material costs.

Such “logic” is not unique to history: different regimes in different eras have put ideological or revisionist goals above short-term economic interests. However, in the modern globalized world, the price of such decisions becomes especially high.

After the start of a full-scale war, Putin’s Russia faced a sharp deterioration in relations with a large number of countries in the world. The application of sanctions, restrictions in the financial sphere, a reduction in economic cooperation, the withdrawal of many international companies from the Russian Federation and reduced access to advanced technologies have significantly changed the conditions for the functioning of the Russian economy.

At the same time, Russia has maintained or expanded cooperation with a number of other countries, which has partially mitigated some of the consequences of these processes. Therefore, the long-term challenges associated with Moscow’s access to innovation, investment, and high-tech production remain significant.

The consequences for scientific and technological development are particularly tangible for the Kremlin. The modern economy is increasingly dependent on global cooperation in the field of high technology, research, and the production of complex products. Restrictions on access to individual components, equipment, and international research programs complicate the development of a number of industries in Muscovy.

At the same time, the Russian Federation is trying to adapt through import substitution, reorientation of trade flows and development of cooperation with other partners. However, the full reproduction of global technological chains within one country is extremely difficult and requires significant resources and time.

An equally serious challenge is the demographic situation. Russia has been facing an aging population, low birth rates and a decline in the working-age population for a long time. War, mobilization, emigration of some citizens and human losses significantly exacerbate this complex of problems.

Demographic potential is one of the key resources of any large state, because it determines the possibilities of economic development, the functioning of the labor market, maintaining the social security system and manning the armed forces. Therefore, the deterioration of the demographic situation has consequences that can manifest themselves for decades.

At the same time, a very large part of state resources in the Russian Federation is increasingly directed to military needs. For the economy, this means a redistribution of funding in favor of sectors related to war support, while investments in civilian areas continue to decline rapidly. And this leads to the degradation of human capital, the decline of social infrastructure and technological lag in the long term.

Although in the short term high state spending can support individual industries, in the long term the structure of the economy and the level of productivity remain important factors of its sustainability.

And here it is also important to consider the features of personalistic totalitarian regimes. In such systems, the circle of people who can openly challenge the leader’s decisions is often limited, and the decision-making process is largely concentrated around one person.

This increases the risk that strategic decisions will increasingly depend on individual beliefs, historical perceptions and personal assessments of the ruler, rather than on broad expert discussion or mechanisms of institutional deterrence.

This is precisely what can explain Moscow’s willingness to incur significant costs in order to achieve ephemeral political goals regarding Ukraine. The Kremlin ghoul perceives Ukrainian statehood not as an ordinary foreign policy challenge, but as a fundamental denial of its own historical concept and a potential threat to the stability of the totalitarian system. Therefore, decisions that may seem extremely expensive from an economic point of view acquire a different internal «logic».

This does not mean that such decisions are rational from the standpoint of the long-term interests of the state. Rather, it is about a specific “rationality”, at the center of which is the preservation of Putin’s revisionist political and historical project.

It is difficult to explain Russian policy towards Ukraine solely in terms of security or economic expediency. Historical narratives, imperial legacy, the peculiarities of the functioning of a personalistic totalitarian regime, and the perception of a democratic Ukraine as a political and symbolic challenge play a significant role here.

Within such a worldview, the Ukrainian issue acquires exceptional importance for the Kremlin, and economic, diplomatic, technological, and demographic costs can be considered an acceptable price for an attempt to realize a broader political goal.

And based on such a perspective vision of Putin, no agreements, concessions, or compromises are included in the plans of the Russian dictator. But neither Washington nor Brussels can understand this.

Putin very much hopes that he will be able to keep the social aspect of the life of the Russian population under his control, constantly monitoring the dynamics of public sentiment, the depth of passive support for his regime, or hidden discontent among the population. Although the reality that the Russian Federation has recently begun to enter indicates that it is no longer possible to imitate stability, thanks to the efforts of television propagandists.

But Putin perceives the Kremlin’s self-destructive great-power course as his own historical mission, for the sake of which he is able to sacrifice even the existence of the Russian Federation itself. At the same time, the destruction of the economy, international sanctions and the complete isolation of the country have no meaning for him.

The geopolitical maniac-captain on the “Putanica” directs the ship Russia straight towards the inevitable iceberg of complete international isolation, ignoring the alarm signals and leading the entire crew to the bottom for the sake of his imperial ambitions.

And the dictator does it so fanatically and furiously that sometimes there is a feeling that Putin really has a great historical mission. Which consists in the final destruction of the last fragment of the evolutionarily dead-end empire. Without realizing it, he is consistent in carrying out this mission. And he must bring it to its logical conclusion – the complete collapse and disintegration of the Russian Federation.