Russia’s demonization undermines Western universalism

“[There is] the possibility of Ukraine splitting in half, a separation which cultural factors would lead one to predict might be more violent than that of Czechoslovakia but far less bloody than that of Yugoslavia.” – Samuel Huntington, “Clash of Civilizations” (1996).

The opening drama of the Ukraine war, involving sweeping drone shots, ant-like convoys and plans so secret that most Russian commanders received orders just 24 hours before the invasion, tended to derail meaningful analysis.

Rather than focus efforts on unpacking Moscow’s motivations and a series of nested conflicts, commentators preferred the more glamorous task of forecasting outcomes and timescales.

In President Vladimir Putin, the West found a scapegoat that united left and right with the latter throwing off the shackles of pacifism and relativism, and the former reveling in the reactionary identity of the opponent. To label Russian security concerns as anything other than sophistry risked being tarred as not only part of a fifth column but a dupe.

In those heady days, there was a tangible catharsis to swerving questions surrounding the casus belli and concentrating on trialing military hardware and tactics. In short, celebrating the destruction – an option not available against less politically acceptable opponents.

Over two years on, less glib narratives might have come to the fore yet Russia’s demonization persists – despite being rooted in precisely the solipsism that channeled fractious interests into a clash of arms in the first place; a conflict that has enabled Moscow to annex four regions, approximately a fifth of Ukraine.

It also leans on several historical accounts that have lost traction with reality. Fantasies include the notion that the