Commentary
Leaning into a multispeed Europe that includes the UK is the way Europeans don’t get relegated to suffering what they must, while the mighty United States and China do what they want.
Rym Momtaz
{
"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": [
"Russia",
"Eastern Europe",
"Ukraine"
],
"topics": [
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
Commentary
Cognitive Dissonance in Russian Politics
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s article on Ukraine demonstrates that the Russian regime is simultaneously making conflicting statements and moving in opposite directions.
Published on Feb 18, 2014
Having observed the Russian regime for a long time, I finally decided to refer to Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance. He describes the mental stress and discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time.
I believe that the theory aptly describes the current policies and pronouncements of the Russian regime, which is simultaneously making conflicting statements and moving in opposite directions. Let me illustrate my point with some comments on the recent Kommersant article written by the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The article, published on February 13, 2014, is titled “As the EU and the United States See It, the ‘Free’ Choice Has Already Been Made for the Ukrainians.” Many interpreted the article as Russia’s ultimatum to the West to leave Ukraine alone.
Let us find some instances of cognitive dissonance in the article. In the very beginning, Lavrov expresses satisfaction with the fact that “principles of democracy and market economics have become generally acceptable in the entire Euro-Atlantic space.” On the other hand, both Lavrov and President Vladimir Putin constantly allude to the decline of Euro-Atlantic nations and the uniqueness of the Russian civilization-state and talk of Russia becoming the beacon of traditional values. This means that the Kremlin excludes itself from the Euro-Atlantic space. In this case it is unclear how these two views can be reconciled? Or, perhaps, Lavrov’s article means that the Kremlin revised its views on values and decided to remain in this space. Why then all the hysterics around Ukraine’s European choice? Why can’t Ukrainians be where everyone else wants to be without asking Russia for its consent?
Sergey Lavrov talks about “respecting Ukraine’s freedom of choice.” But, for some reason, he thinks that the Ukrainians that seek to become part of Europe do not have a right to make this choice, and the demands of the Ukrainian Maidan “cannot be called acceptable (!).” Then, the Russian regime reserves a right to decide what is acceptable for Ukraine what is not. How is that reconciled with the “freedom of choice?”
Lavrov accuses the West of “social engineering” in Ukraine and even in “export of revolutions,” comparing the situation in that country to that of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya. However, all we have seen so far is the activism of the pro-Russian lobby and the attempts by Western leaders to distance themselves from the events in Ukraine.
The most intriguing and quite a daring proposition coming from the Russian foreign minister suggests that “value landmarks should be a product of mutual consent.” He thus urges the West and Russia to sit down at the negotiating table and agree on “value landmarks,” that is on normative principles (!). But how can the states that are built on the supremacy of the rule of law and the state that reasserts the supremacy of the executive power over the rule of law find common values? That is only possible if the West renounces its fundamental civilizational principles…
Leon Festinger wrote that in the case of cognitive dissonance, an individual is trying to narrow the gap between his conflicting aspirations, trying to reach consonance between them. The Russian regime is decimating the Festinger principle and is actually widening cognitive dissonance between its ideas, which may have breathtaking political consequences.
Carnegie 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 Endowment for International Peace
- To Survive, the EU Must Split
- U.S. Peace Mediation in the Middle East: Lessons for the Gaza Peace PlanPaper
As Gaza peace negotiations take center stage, Washington should use the tools that have proven the most effective over the past decades of Middle East mediation.
Amr Hamzawy, Sarah Yerkes, Kathryn Selfe
- Russia’s Unspoken Condition for Ending the War Is Zelensky’s ResignationCommentary
Insisting on Zelensky’s resignation is not just a personal vendetta, but a clear signal that the Kremlin would like to send to all its neighbors: even if you manage to put up some resistance, you will ultimately pay the price—including on a personal level.
Vladislav Gorin
- For Putin, Increasing Russia’s Nuclear Threat Matters More Than the Triad’s ModernizationCommentary
For Putin, upgrading Russia’s nuclear forces was a secondary goal. The main aim was to gain an advantage over the West, including by strengthening the nuclear threat on all fronts. That made growth in missile arsenals and a new arms race inevitable.
Maxim Starchak
- Europolis, Where Europe EndsCommentary
A prophetic Romanian novel about a town at the mouth of the Danube carries a warning: Europe decays when it stops looking outward. In a world of increasing insularity, the EU should heed its warning.
Thomas de Waal
