Hysterical war

For a long time, I have been looking for the most accurate answer that would comprehensively characterize Russia's aggression against Ukraine, starting with Putin's first inauguration as the president of the "federation". The fact that this is an invasion campaign is clear cut. This is also not the only hybrid war, as all military conflicts have in one way or another combined the military component, actions aimed at destroying an enemy's economy, as well as increased psychological influence on the enemy and its population (of course, according to the capabilities and resources of that or another era). The worldview component is also multiplied in different wars in different ways, there have been religious conflicts and clashes on the "democracy-totalitarianism" axis.

But the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has its own unique feature. And, strangely enough, none other than Alexander Dugin, the "Russian world" ideologist, a supporter of starting the war's "hot phase", promoter of the "Eurasianity" of Russia and its messianic role, helped me to define this feature.

I am closely following the genesis of this, so to say, "philosopher", especially now, when Putin's "special military operation" has actually become the embodiment of radically different tasks than those that the Kremlin set at its beginning.  So, in his last posts on Telegram, Dugin describes this war as "a war of hysterical personalities", which, I want to highlight, "only emphasizes its democratic (!) character."

And now let's look at the last 20 years of Russian foreign policy. First, they were throwing tantrums about the fate of the "Russian-speaking" people of the former USSR.  Moreover, these tantrums were coming not from ordinary people but were assumed as the political course of officials. Hence, the inadequate rhetoric about the "biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century", Putin's Munich speech, the beginning of the movement towards the revision of the Helsinki Agreements. Then the story of "protecting compatriots" wherever they are. Georgian events with all their geopolitical consequences.

"First they were throwing tantrums about the fate of "Russian-speaking" people of the former USSR.  Moreover, these tantrums were coming not from ordinary people, but were assumed as the political course of officials. Hence, the inadequate rhetoric about the "biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century", Putin's Munich speech, the beginning of the movement towards the revision of the Helsinki Agreements."

This all was accompanied by a leitmotif, which sounded differently, varied in dynamics, rhetoric, and decibels, but boiled down to NATO's threat to Russia, the West's "aggressiveness" toward the "Russian dove of peace," equipped with nuclear and other deadly weapons. "Neo-Nazi Europe", hence "Nazi" Ukraine.

The refrain that sounds constantly is that Russia is humiliated, "insulted", some kind of "Dostoevism", which corresponds neither to the times nor to the supposed "greatness" of the empire.

Latest of the pearls by Dmitry Medvedev: "If it had not been for the strategic nuclear arsenal, we would have been torn apart. It's a huge country, rich, and everyone is glancing here and thinking how to take something or divide it into parts, and then slowly appropriate it all."

And here are literally yesterday's Putin's words: "Our strategy is defense. We consider nuclear weapons as a defense. Our strategy is built around the so-called "reciprocal strike". That is, if we are struck, we will strike back."

And he continued that "Of course, this ("special operation in Ukraine" - Author) is a long process, perhaps, but acquiring new territories is a significant result for Russia; the Sea of ​​Azov has become an internal sea, the access to which has been fought for since Peter I times, and the most important thing is the people who live there, they are now with us, and these are millions of people, this is the most important result." Some kind of hysterical schizophrenia combined with amnesia: in February, the Kremlin "strategist" declared completely different goals of the "special military operation". And again we see the appeal to Peter I, an attempt to bring dubious historical allusions under his own "military doctrine".

"The organizer of the genocide, the main war criminal, is hysterical about the choice of the neighboring people as if it were about some backwoods corner of his feud. He weaves in here the "aggressive West" agenda, in particular Poland, which dreams of "annexing" Western Ukraine."

Some people say that perhaps these tantrums - of Dugin, of Putin, of Medvedev - should not be paid attention to. They say that "tantrums are only effective when someone is watching them." But, in my opinion, what the Moscow strategists said is important in many ways.  First, they let us know who we are dealing with. Secondly, each of their statements is a page in the multi-volume case of war criminals, which will one day be considered by the International Criminal Court in The Hague (or wherever the anti-Putin coalition will determine). And, thirdly, and this is probably the most important thing: when Russia, like post-Nazi Germany, is to be "re-educated" and pacified, specialists (among them also from psychiatry) must know the entire course of the "disease" in order to make an accurate diagnosis and come up with an effective treatment.

About the author: Ihor Hulyk, journalist, editor-in-chief of the Espreso.Zahid website.

Espreso TV does not always share the opinions expressed by the authors of the blogs.