Lilia Shevtsova
{
"authors": [
"Lilia Shevtsova"
],
"type": "commentary",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"Russia",
"Eastern Europe",
"Ukraine",
"Western Europe"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
On the Western Narrative on the Post-Post Cold War Époque
Those who believe that the Kremlin will be satisfied with Crimea and will agree to return to a new “reset” do not understand the nature of the Russian personalized power and its logic that tries to prolong its life at the expense of breaking the rules and even destroying the world order.
I have to admit that I am perplexed. I am less perplexed by the reality of the unfolding international crisis, than what is being written about it. One can’t help but notice that quite a few Western politicians and analysts are engaged in creating new myths and illusions. Why do they do it? Perhaps, it is done to justify their lack of vision and inadequate response to the latest events. Or is it an attempt to explain their failure to predict the dramatic developments? Anyway, this myth-making ultimately complicates the search for a real, not imitational this time, resolution of the most serious crisis in the 21st century.
“The Kremlin is reacting to the chaos in Ukraine, as well as to the strengthening of Ukrainian nationalists and the threat of Ukraine’s joining NATO. It is also responding to Kiev’s attempt to sign the Association Agreement with the EU, the desires of the Russian-speaking population to return to Russia, and the humiliation Moscow suffered at the hands of the West and the United States; the Crimean status had a tenuous character.”
I would argue that these explanations all but mirror the Kremlin’s rhetoric.
True, there are a growing number of Western experts and politicians who acknowledge the gravity of the situation. But they try to concentrate on one issue—the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea. As if this is just a paranoid deviation of the Kremlin’s policy, or the result of President Vladimir Putin becoming delusional. Let’s deal with this annexation and return to the business as usual, say the new Realists.
I agree with Philip Zelikow who in his recent Financial Times article (“We Require a Strategy Not Just a Reaction to Russia”) writes, “In the West, the conversation is dominated by discussion of how to punish and isolate Russia for its role in the invasion and annexation of Crimea. That is a reaction not a strategy.” Exactly! But what strategy does Zelikow suggest? A “new international agreement” that will aim “to protect a new status quo.” This means that the West has to agree to the Russian annexation and think about how to prevent further Russian incursions. This is exactly what the Kremlin would expect from the West—to endorse the current status quo, which the Kremlin will see as an invitation for new adventures.
Those who believe that the Kremlin will be satisfied with Crimea and will agree to return to a new “reset” do not understand the nature of the Russian personalized power and its logic.
Let me explain: what the Kremlin is doing on the global stage today does not reflect Putin’s venom, or aggressiveness, or him being “delusional.” This is the result of the Iron Logic of the Russian Matrix that tries to prolong its life into perpetuity at the expense of breaking the rules and even destroying the world order. Thus, “international agreement” on the new status quo will not solve anything if the political regime has decided to survive by turning to the War Paradigm and will be looking for a pretext to keep the nation in the War mood.
About the Author
Former Senior Associate, Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program, Moscow Center
Shevtsova chaired the Russian Domestic Politics and Political Institutions Program at the Carnegie Moscow Center, dividing her time between Carnegie’s offices in Washington, DC, and Moscow. She had been with Carnegie since 1995.
- Putin Has Fought His Way Into a CornerIn The Media
- How Long Russians Will Believe in Fairy Tale?Commentary
Lilia Shevtsova
Recent Work
Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie India
- Threading the Needle: India’s Path Forward with ChinaPaper
After the chill in ties between 2020 and 2024 that brought India–China relations to their lowest point in several decades, the two countries have engaged each other afresh. This paper argues that there are predominantly four imperatives guiding India’s approach to China, and they exist in an order of priority.
Saheb Singh Chadha
- Managing Divergence: India’s BRICS Presidency in 2026Article
This piece argues that India’s central challenge is not managing a single flashpoint but resolving the underlying tension between expansion and institutional coherency of the BRICS grouping.
Vrinda Sahai
- India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible PathwaysArticle
A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.
Rajiv Bhatia
- Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTACommentary
The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead
Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki
- India’s Oil Security Strategy: Structural Vulnerabilities and Strategic ChoicesArticle
This piece argues that the present Indian strategy, based on opportunistic diversification and utilization of limited strategic reserves, remains inadequate when confronting supply disruptions. It evaluates India’s options in the short, medium, and long terms.
Vrinda Sahai