We have heard a thousand times from commentators, analysts and politicians that Vladimir Putin has gone mad. Is he really acting like a madman? Wouldn’t you rather expect a madman to run around the Kremlin naked, start a new religion, make speeches about space creatures, order the bombing of the Moscow Zoo, and maybe foam at the mouth. We don’t see any of that.
On the other hand, if Putin has gone mad and is acting completely irrationally, then missiles with nuclear warheads could be coming at us any minute. We should therefore evacuate the Czech Republic immediately and move the population to somewhere in Latin America. It would also mean that Putin cannot be judged because he is acting in a deranged manner.
Note that none of the Putin madness theorists are calling for any such thing. They may not be entirely serious about his insanity.
After all, the motif of insanity is not new among progressivist intellectuals. We hear about mental problems every time a jihadist carries out an attack…
After all, the motif of insanity is not new among progressivist intellectuals. We hear about mental problems every time a jihadist carries out an attack, murders someone, and the intellectuals or judges don’t want to admit that the jihadist acted in a perfectly rational way (the goal was to instill terror among the infidels, change social conditions, and create pressure for conversions to Islam).
So the question logically arises. Isn’t this a similar case? Isn’t there some rationality behind the actions of the leadership of the Russian Federation that we don’t want to admit?
Because it is quite clear from the statements of Vladimir Putin and his colleagues that they have got the impression that:
- The West hates Russia and wants to destroy it at any cost.
- Existing treaties, agreements, promises and rules are not being respected. Whatever the West promises, it breaks. Nothing can be relied on.
- Ukraine’s military readiness is growing faster than the capabilities of the Russian army. Although the current war is highly risky, postponing it would mean more risk and more deaths for Russia.
Perhaps he got it all wrong. Perhaps no such thing is happening.
Surely no one can think that the Americans would enter into an utterly devastating war just because of a nuclear attack on some central European city.
But when an independent sociologist gets something wrong, it’s not a disaster. When something is misunderstood by a belligerent czar equipped with hundreds of nuclear missiles and determined to use military force, it is not just his problem. It is the problem of the whole world, and it is especially the problem of the small countries within range. Surely no one can think that the Americans would enter into an utterly devastating war just because of a nuclear attack on some central European city. As Curtis Yarvin put it a few days ago, “We have no interest on the banks of the Dnieper to counterbalance the risk of all-out nuclear war.” What interest do the Americans have on the banks of the Vltava?
Isn’t it time to behave so that such misunderstandings do not arise? By the way, who is acting like a madman here?
