The speed with which a country can be taken over by someone like Putin, and the example of Donald Trump in the US, a supposedly robust democracy, are cautionary tales for other countries that view themselves as democracies.
By Nirvikar Singh
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine marks a potential watershed in the economic and political order that has survived for 75 years since World War 2. These arrangements have repeatedly come under strain—during the Cold War especially—but the integration of China into these arrangements, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, seemed to herald a new era of peace and prosperity. There have been significant disturbances, particularly the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003, but Putin’s invasion of Ukraine represents something that has not been seen since the Nazis in 1938 and 1939. What is happening is a swift, brutal, full-scale invasion of a small, democratic country by a larger neighbour that is run by a ruthless dictator.
Calling it Putin’s invasion seems more accurate than associating it with Russia, since that country is now completely dominated by someone who kills and imprisons domestic political opponents with impunity, uses cyberwarfare and misinformation to undermine democratic regimes, and lies to his people in a manner reminiscent of George Orwell’s novel, 1984. Indeed, Putin had a role in enabling the election of Donald Trump as US president in 2016. Trump continues to praise Putin, and he himself tried to overturn a free and fair election in 2020. He continues to enjoy significant support among the US population, showing that this is not just a Russian problem. Dictators and despots are back on the world stage, in a big way.
It seems clear that, whatever the incompetence and arrogance of George W Bush and his secretary of state in 2008, in pushing for eastward expansion of NATO, that was only a minor trigger for a man who claims that Ukraine—despite a referendum held decades ago, in which over 90% of the population voted for independence—is an integral part of Russia, and who distorts history and lies about the present to the citizens of his country to achieve his goal, which seems to be personal power and control. In the novel, “the lie became the truth,” and both Putin and Trump have sought that goal, persistently and with significant success.
On the whole, in the US and most other countries, there has been open condemnation of Putin’s actions. Kenya’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Martin Kimani, eloquently condemned Putin’s aggression, even before the full-scale invasion, recalling the terrible legacy of empire and colonialism in doing so. What is at stake now is the entire post-World-War-II political order, with consequences for economic stability, and even more so for human life and dignity. That is not to say that violations over the decades have been trivial—many countries have seen great death and destruction, but an unchecked rogue state the size of Russia, led by someone who respects no boundaries, can lead to something much, much worse. Not many people who experienced the horrors of the last World War are alive now, but the historical record is clear enough, unless it is ignored, distorted or buried by people like Putin.
Looking over two decades of Putin’s rule, one can see all the warning signs, and the acceleration of paranoia and megalomania. His intervention in Syria was a strong signal of what he is capable of, but most world leaders seemed to think he had some limits to his behaviour—in reality, there are none. What is chilling is that he probably does not see anything wrong in all that he has done and is doing. The speed with and extent to which a country can be taken over by someone like Putin, and the example of Donald Trump in the US, a supposedly more robust democracy, provide cautionary tales for the citizens of other countries that view themselves as democracies.
The extent to which Putin’s behaviour violates international norms, and the likely death and destruction that will result from his unprovoked attack on Ukraine, call for a strong and forthright response from other countries. One might understand, if not excuse, the manner in which China, itself an authoritarian state, has responded, but the weak Indian response to Putin’s aggression is surprising and disappointing. No amount of strategic closeness should get in the way of condemning what is essentially criminal behaviour. Nor does this kind of condemnation mean siding with or excusing past abuses of international norms, like the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Indian democracy is facing its own crossroads, with a nibbling away at citizens’ freedoms to express themselves and to preserve differences that they cherish. The Russian example, even without the invasion of Ukraine, illustrates how things can change quickly and dramatically. When Putin took over, Russia was a fledgling democracy, with an abundance of natural resources and human capital. Putin has overseen its becoming a predatory state, almost as bad as that of Stalin’s era. Russia is dominated by corrupt oligarchs, and only high oil and gas prices keep the country going. Russia has nothing to offer India, either materially or by way of an example, except as an illustration of how badly things can go wrong.
(The author is Professor of economics, University of California, Santa Cruz. Views expressed are personal and not necessarily that of Financial Express Online.)
