“Postmodernists would have been delighted...”

On the global scale, the Russian aggression against Ukraine is not only a challenge in regard of military, diplomatic, and economic matters, but also an attack in intellectual, ideological terms. After all, the Russian war, particularly its information component, strikes the most sensitive spot of the Western world – it appeals to moral relativism and elevates it to the highest point. Moscow is trying to “infect” the West with its own principles, or rather the lack of them. This strategy finds its particular embodiment in attempts (sometimes quite successful!) to corrupt European politicians and government officials. On the ideological aggression of Russia against the West, as well as on effective means of countering it, we talked with Andrii Baumeister, doctor of philosophical sciences, associate professor of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Department of Philosophy.

What, in your opinion, is the new intellectual challenge presented by Putin’s Russia to the West?

“The fact that Putin’s Russia poses primarily an intellectual challenge to the West, putting it in a difficult situation, is not only my opinion. For example, German historian Karl Schlegel expressed a similar judgment a year ago in an interview with an influential German newspaper Die Welt (February 25, 2015). In the interview he used the phrase ‘intellectual confusion of the West.’ Putin is able to lie brazenly and cleverly. And he uses these lies for the purpose of domination. He behaves like an aggressor, but pretends to be a victim. He violates the international law and agreements, appealing to the ‘human rights’ and ‘cultural and national identity.’ His management style is overtly dictatorial, but he shamelessly justifies the annexation of Crimea by referring to the ‘democratic decision of the people.’ But ‘where it is necessary,’ Putin has positioned himself as a defender of the rights of a sovereign state (in the case of Syria, or earlier with Iraq and Libya). Schlegel accurately reveals the internal mechanism of this behavior: a strategy of destroying the difference between fact and fiction. There is no evidence to anything, any information from the outset is declared untruthful. And as ‘everybody lies,’ everybody is deprived of ‘the monopoly for truth.’ ‘The Americans are lying – and we also do. Therefore, this is an absolutely normal situation.’ The point is not to argue for some kind of truth, because the truth does not exist (the postmodernists of the past century would have been delighted!), but to skillfully use the weaknesses and mistakes of the opponents. This is a tricky game, and the tactic is to find the ‘weak spots,’ against which one can strike at the right time and in the right situation. Moreover, as we saw it recently, one should aim to deliver the strike first. The effectiveness of this strategy is enhanced by conflicts and disputes in Europe itself. These contradictions can be exploited, and certain political groups (from the radical right to the radical left) can be supported. For example, you can inflate the anti-American sentiment in France or use the ‘historic guilt’ of the Germans. And it works.”

“RUSSIA USES THE ‘WESTERN DICTIONARY’ WITH THE ASIAN AUDACITY”

“In my opinion, the European idea (the idea of the Western world) has been very cleverly ‘broken into.’ It was hacked, like a computer code or a credit card password. Someone writes letter on your behalf, or uses your credit card. At first glance it looks like the same vocabulary ‘human values’ is used (‘human rights,’ ‘cultural rights,’ ‘democracy,’ ‘humanitarian assistance,’ etc.). But The ‘Western dictionary’ is used with the Asian cunning and audacity. You talk about democracy? Then you will have the ‘majority’s decision’ in Crimea. You talk about the human rights? So, don’t you dare closing your eyes to the violations in Donbas. You are opposing the interference in the affairs of a sovereign state? But it was you, the Americans, who have created both Maidans in Kyiv. You defend the principle of state sovereignty? Then why have you, Americans and Europeans, contributed to the fall of ‘legitimate’ regimes in Iraq and Libya and seek to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria? You act for social justice? So take millions of refugees and spend billions of euros on them. Any appeal to facts and common sense is ignored – in our game there is no place for them. Even when you ask Putin directly, does he really care about human rights and social justice, does he really bother to hear the opinion of some social group or of an entire people – he would look at you with a contemptuous smile. After all, should there ‘little things’ be of your concern? And is there any ‘opinion,’ truth, and justice at all?

“Why the recent years had the West demonstrate its intellectual confusion? Because the European diplomacy is accustomed to conversations, discussions, and making informed decisions. And now it is facing a gambler who does not bear any responsibility for his brazen acts. Western politicians are accustomed to the dictionary of ‘values and ideas,’ but their opponent operates different ideas: ideas-shapeshifters, ideas-parasites, and ideas-phantoms. Certainly, the West cannot play by these rules. Of course, there is such a thing as interests. There is also a political expediency. But the western voters would not forgive a daring and sheer lie to their politicians. There is a line that an American, British or German politician may not cross.”

“SANCTIONS ARE A DEMONSTRATION OF A DECISIVE ACTION WITH ONLY A  PARTIAL ACTIVITY”

What, in your opinion, should be a suitable response to this challenge from Europe and Western intellectuals? Can Ukraine protect its national interest and not lose those much needed Western allies, taking into account that the nature of the current Russian regime, as well as the nature of the aggression it wields against our country, remains largely incomprehensible for them?

“So far, the Western world is using the strategy of economic and political pressure. One can hear the opinion that this is the only viable strategy today. Is it so? Is there a more effective strategy? I am convinced that the ‘strategy of sanctions’ rather indicates the weakness of the West. This is a demonstration of a decisive action with only a partial activity. Besides, I’m not sure that the European states are ready for the long-term policy of sanctions. Within these countries, politicians are being subjected to a strong pressure by business groups and ordinary citizens alike. We know it well. And the influx of migrants together with the internal European debate only complicates the situation. It seems to me that the West can and should behave more rigidly, showing more confidence in their abilities and rights. I like the stance the UK have adopted recently. The Litvinenko case has showed that Putin’s policy is a threat to British security. I want to believe that after high-profile allegations on behalf of British politicians, the appropriate steps will be taken: diplomatic contacts will be limited, economic and cultural relations will be frozen, all joint British-Russian projects will be suspended, and the Russian diaspora in Britain will be put under scrutiny. Unfortunately, Germany and France are not ready for such steps. However, it seems that the revaluation is happening in these countries as well. But there is yet another extremely important factor.

“We are used to repeating that economy is the foundation of policy, that economic interests have priority in relations between states. But the current situation calls to reconsider this axiom. At the very least we are expecting from the European leaders that as they make a difficult choice between the economy and the principles, they choose the principles. We think that they are even required to do so. We have things to reprimand the Western partners for, as they are not willing to sacrifice enough. It is evident that, taking into account the economic interests only, the relations with Russia should have been a much higher priority to Europe than the economic relations with Ukraine. And if Europe accepts a certain loss and keeps adhering to the ‘strategy of sanctions’ for almost two years, this shows that the principles still outweigh the economy.”

“THE WEST CAN PROVIDE AN EFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO PUTIN’S STRATEGY ONLY IF THE UKRAINIAN POLITICAL ELITE CHANGE THEIR PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOR”

“But do these principles guide the political elite in Ukraine? I want to say that the West can provide an effective response to Putin’s strategy only if the Ukrainian political elite change their patterns of behavior. For European politicians it will be more difficult to convince their citizens to choose the principles over the economy if the Ukrainian elite continue to reject the principles. The above brings us back to the beginning of our conversation. Putin’s philosophy of ‘everybody lies, therefore to lie is completely normal’ must be countered with a different philosophy, namely: ‘we refuse to lie; therefore the political lie is an unacceptable evil.’ However, our elite are not yet capable of such a philosophy. They play their games – destructive and devoid of common sense. So, back to your question: ‘Can Ukraine protect its national interest and not lose those much needed Western allies?’ I would rephrase it like this: ‘Can the West respond to Putin effectively without the active participation of Ukraine?’ I believe that it cannot. And this is a weighty argument against the widespread thesis that Ukraine today is not an active player, is not a subject in the current events. Just as the actions of the Ukrainian army forced the Western military analysts to revise their forecasts and strategies, the actions of Ukrainian politicians should encourage the Western political establishment for a more decisive action. Then it will be possible to propose a more effective response to Putin’s strategy of ‘foul play.’”