Russian propaganda often echoes the claim that the behaviour of the Western world threatens Russia, which is why the latter must defend itself and sometimes attack proactively. According to this narrative, Russia’s behaviour has never been aggressive, but it is an attempt to preserve its state order and culture. Also, the war in Ukraine is only due to self-defence
, and it is actually against the entire Western world, which is trying to attack Russia through it.
How did this narrative come about?
Its roots date back to the end of the 15th century when the idea of Moscow as the third Rome (the second Rome was Byzantine-era Constantinople), the successor of the ancient Roman Empire, and its rulers as defenders of Orthodox Christianity began to spread. As such, Russia had to fight all the surrounding barbarians.
This narrative has also been supported by Russia’s dominant approach to history, starting with Nikolay Karamzin (1766–1826), who has been called the father of Russian history, and who largely laid the foundation for it.
The story itself has undergone various changes over the centuries, but in its main features, it has remained the same – Russia as a fortress surrounded by hostile forces. By the 19th century, not only Muslim neighbours but also the Enlightenment ideas that had arisen with the French Revolution joined the ranks of opponents.
After the October Coup, Russia became an exporter of revolution, surrounded by hostile capitalist countries whose goal was to suffocate the paradise of the working people.
The current propaganda narrative of Russia as a country under constant attack by foreign forces, which the West tries to subjugate by imposing its own rules on it, is a further development of these historical ideas. Liberal democracy and other globalist forces have simply replaced Islamists, revolutionaries and capitalist bloodsuckers.
What story does it tell us?
This narrative tells us about Russia, whose independence is constantly threatened by external forces, especially the West. This is how the pro-Russian ex-president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, was overthrown twice at the behest of the West. The same forces tried to overthrow the Belarusian leader Alyaksandr Lukashenka and organize a coup in Russia after the 2012 presidential elections. And of course they have to support Ukraine in the war against Russia – which, of course, cannot be called a war.
Daniel Tamm, a PhD student at the University of Tartu, in his article on antithetical identity creation, which deals with the creation of one’s self-image through opposition, brings out five narratives that Russia tells within its framework. These are stories about Russia as a besieged fortress, the Russophobic West, the Russian world, Ukraine as a fascist state, and the European Union decaying under separatism. At least the first four of them are directly related to the narrative that portrays Russia as a victim of other countries.
As a besieged fortress, Russia must defend itself against threats from the outside world – primarily from the West, of course. The West cannot understand Russia and simply suffers from Russophobia, constantly attacking both Russia and neighboring countries. As a result, part of the Russian world was separated from Russia and moved to other countries. In other words, this civilization, centered on Russia, actually extends beyond the country’s borders, which gives Russia the right to interfere in the affairs of other countries.
Since Ukraine is said to be a fascist-ruled country where the current war, which cannot be called a war, has been started to liberate the people living there, Russia is in fact simply continuing the mission familiar from the Second World War. This is to eradicate fascism and National Socialism from the entire world. Russia has been spreading a similar narrative long before the outbreak of full-scale war in Ukraine, and even before the annexation of Crimea in 2014. This story is conveyed both by the Russian national rhetoric, but it is also spread in culture, be it in the form of history books or, for example, films or TV series.
A striking example of this is Karen Shahnazarov’s 2012 film White Tiger, in which the main character, World War II Soviet tank commander Naidenov, pursues a mysterious all-white German Tiger tank capable of destroying all its opponents. According to Naidenov himself, there is no more mysticism in all of this than in Darwin’s theory of evolution. A man who understands the language of tanks knows that this Tiger is feared even by other German tanks. After the end of the war, the White Tiger remains missing, but Naidenov believes that he is just hiding and biding his time. That’s what he is waiting for.
Who is it aimed at?
The main audience of this narrative is Russia’s own population, to whom it tells the story of why the regime behaves the way it does. At the same time, it is worth noting that it is not only aimed at Russians, but also at other representatives of peoples living in Russia.
As discussed in the Narrative X-ray about the situation of small nations, processes are taking place with them in Russia, which in the postcolonial discourse is called self-colonization. Minorities take over the Russian language and way of thinking. Most of them are Russian citizens and are ready to fight for Russia.
However, another target is to spread their point of view to other parts of the world. There, it is primarily aimed at potential Russian sympathizers, mainly in the Western world. They are usually distrustful of democracy in the Western world. They think that state power is very similar everywhere. However, since the USA is the dominant country in the world, opposing it is justified in their opinion. Therefore, in their opinion, Russia is also automatically on the right side, while Ukraine, supported by the USA, is fighting for the preservation of the current world order.
What are its goals?
It is directly linked to many other Russian propaganda narratives.
The domestic goal is to create a unified Russian identity that would oppose the Western world. To this end, state propaganda paints the most derogatory picture of the West. Comically reflecting the propaganda machine of the Soviet era, the stories that are officially distributed by Russia portray the West as a vital danger to Russia on the one hand and, on the other hand, as so degenerate and rotten that it should immediately collapse under its own weight.
According to this narrative, the difficulties and problems that Russian people face in their daily lives, such as material deprivation, are caused primarily by the rest of the world.
In the case of antithetical identity creation, the self-image is mainly held together by the image of a threatening opponent, who is described as one’s “reverse mirror image, i.e. opposite.” Opponents are portrayed in the worst possible light, they aim to destroy Russia and its culture.
Consequently, it is necessary to fight against this opponent, his foreign world, this legitimizes the regime currently ruling in Russia, which, according to its own words, is doing just that. The goal is to restore Russia’s former greatness as a world power, which was lost at the end of the Cold War.
It also helps to fend off accusations of aggressive behavior because, according to this story, every move by Russia is preceded by an attack or provocation from outside. Thus, Western countries are trying to change the ruling order both in Russia and in its neighboring countries.
Anyone who criticizes Russia, be they foreigners or Russians themselves, can simply be accused of Russophobia. However, labeling Ukraine as fascist helps to tie this narrative to the story of the heroic victory in World War II.
One of the features of antithetical identity creation is also the reduction of contradictions to a moral level, to a black-and-white confrontation of good and evil, of the self and the other. Since all kinds of adversaries are evil and life-threatening, there is not a single justification for their actions. The Russian leadership, on the other hand, is good because it fights against the evil around it.
In this way, Russia is never guilty of anything, because it is only a victim trying to fend off the onslaught of evil forces. This, in turn, helps to justify any aggression as only self-defence or, in extreme cases, a pre-emptive attack.
And since the borders of Russian civilization are much wider than the borders of Russia, the latter has the right to try to expand its sphere of influence in neighbouring countries.
How is it going at the moment?
In domestic propaganda, this is now one of the main stories bombarding the Russians from every possible channel. According to this, Russia is only a victim of the Western attack, with whom the conflict is going on in Ukraine. Ukraine, where a fascist regime is in power (under the leadership of a Jewish president, but a decent Russian propagandist does not allow himself to be disturbed by such trifles), is said to be nothing more than a pawn in the West’s offensive and attempt to contain Russia.
As with much of Russian propaganda, there is something paradoxical about this narrative. Although Russia positions itself as a defender of conservative, traditional values and true, orthodox Christianity against the degenerate West, where men are no longer men and women are not women, where the cult of homosexuality and other sins prevails, a significant proportion of Russia’s supporters belong to the left., who promote the rights of minorities in every way.
On the one hand, the leftist movement’s support for Russia is a habit dating back to the Soviet era. On the other hand, it is still a country opposed to the hegemonic West and especially the USA, which gives Russia additional credibility in the eyes of the left.
The narrative of Russia as a victim fits well with these beliefs. It can also be adapted to fashionable theories in many parts of the Western scientific world, such as postcolonialism. Placed in such a framework, Russia is a peripheral region subjugated by a hegemonic power. For example, Alexander Etkind, professor of history at the European University Institute, has written about the internal colonization of Russia – the cultural gap between the European-like elite and the common people.
Vyacheslav Morozov, now a former professor at the University of Tartu, who is suspected of spying for Russia, is also based on this theory. His writings often reflect a note explaining the activities of the eastern neighbour in the post-colonial framework, while trying to emphasize that this does not mean justifying it. Of course, it is worth noting that for Western leftists, whoever is colonized is automatically a victim and therefore someone to be supported. Whether and to what extent Morozov’s research was prepared based on propagandistic considerations or out of serious conviction, who can say so precisely at the moment?
The used images are screenshots from the referenced pages.
