Vilification of Russia not good for peace in Europe.

Written By: - Date published: 1:18 pm, April 1st, 2025 - 26 comments
Categories: Diplomacy, Europe, Peace, Russia, Ukraine, war - Tags:

The Germans have a word for it – as they always do.  Putinversteher – one who “understands” Putin. It is meant as a slur and has recently gained traction in Western IR (international relations) circles but Professor Geoffrey Roberts, a British historian of Russia, embraces the term.  “I think it’s a very good term,” he told me last week. “It’s my professional responsibility to try to understand Putin.”  

He is one of a growing number of ‘free thinkers’ who are rejecting the standard Western propaganda model that frames Putin and Russia as merchants of evil, instead ascribing to them motives that are both pragmatic and commonplace.  This leaves plenty of room to criticize Putin’s regime and its hardball geopolitics.  These academics, however, have shouldered the intellectual’s role to challenge the dominant narrative and expose underlying untruths (“Russia’s totally unprovoked war”, “Russia wants to conquer all of Ukraine”, “If we don’t stop them in Ukraine, the Russians will keep going”, etc). 

“That stuff is absolute nonsense,” Roberts says. “Yeah, Putin does have ambitions; he has ambitions to change the global polity in ways that will suit Russia and Russia’s interests.”

“Putinversteher” and Putin’s vision for a post-war world

Professor Roberts has sat in rooms with Putin, heard him speak at length, and unlike 99% of people in the West has taken the time to study his words unmediated by the various arms of the Western media. He seeks to disrupt the perceptions of a world misinformed by cartoonish good guy/bad guy narratives that make resolving crises all but impossible. 

Screen Shot 2025-03-28 at 7.47.25 PM.png

“Putin is a visionary whose overarching goal is to end American global hegemony”, Roberts says, “and usher in a new, post-Western system of international relations – a multipolar system of sovereign states based on diversity, equality and common security. It is not an empire that Putin is seeking to build, but a new world order that will safeguard the long-term security of Russia and its civilisational values.”

Back in October I wrote an article “US is spending $28 billion to colonise your brain” which outlined the staggering sums of money spent on US disinformation/perception management campaigns which involve owning journalists, editors and entire media outlets, and which seeks to dominate our mental landscape by purging alternative voices. Swimming in this ocean of Russophobic, Sinophobic propaganda makes it all but impossible to assess Russia, the Chinese or, until recently, the Palestinians, in anything approaching a balanced way. 

Former head of the CIA Russia desk George Beebe spoke eloquently recently of the duty of analysts to “empathise” with the Russians, to walk in their shoes – which, he pointed out, is different to “sympathising” with the Russians (accepting their positions). Along with former US Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock, Quincy Institute scholar Anatol Lieven and people like Pascal Lottaz, Professor Glenn Diesen and others, Geoffrey Roberts enriches our thinking at a time when the Western media seems incapable of nuanced dialogue. 

Fellow British historian Robert Skidelsky, a member of the House of Lords, spoke on Neutrality Studies last week about the danger of dragging out the war in Ukraine and having endless hostility with Russia.

“The whole European position is disingenuous. It’s misleading. It’s self-deluding. It’s as though people have had bits of their brains lobotomized so they can’t think about these things any longer. I find it terrifying.”

This is why, for all the madness, dangers and incoherence, the Trump Moment may at least be a circuit breaker, an opportunity for the West to rediscover the lost art of diplomacy. 

Challenging Putin Myths

Geoffrey Roberts has 50 years of scholarship on Russia and the Soviet Union behind him. The author of many books, including Stalin’s General: The Life of Georgy Zhukov (who led the Soviet victory at the Battle of Stalingrad) and The Soviet Union in World Politics: Coexistence, Revolution and Cold War, 1945-1991 (The Making of the Contemporary World), he has also penned innumerable articles trying to build understanding. 

“One of the things I’ve been trying to do all my life is counter this vilification of Russia and, more recently, the demonization of Putin – the complete distortion of Putin’s views.”

Historians like Geoff Roberts prefer the long view, looking at events from a distance, which helps them to be as dispassionate, as objective as possible. But sometimes history calls historians to comment when the smell of cordite is still in the air. 

In terms of Russophobic propaganda, Roberts says, the last three years have been more toxic than anything he has seen.  It has compelled him, he says, to eschew some of his scholarly habits – being an “archive rat” – and step into the ring.

Through articles, interviews, YouTube platforms and his own email database he seeks “to provide alternative perspectives and to cut through the propaganda blizzard in respect to Ukraine. I also do it to make sense of it myself.”   

His 2022 article “Now or Never: The Immediate Origins of Putin’s Preventative War on Ukraine” appeared in various outlets, including the Journal of Military and Strategic Studies. It made a significant contribution to the discussion. In June last year Brave New Europe published his “Negotiate Now, or Capitulate Later: Ten Incentives for Ukraine to Make Peace with Russia” which spelt out in crisp and sober terms the stark realities that are increasingly obvious to everyone today: Ukraine faces a crushing defeat if they press on, the West is indifferent to the death of Ukrainians, the demographic crisis is real, and to save Odessa and access to the Black Sea, Ukraine should pursue a settlement now. 

Most Ukrainians, Roberts says, now believe that even a bad peace will be better than the continuation of a disastrous losing war. Delaying and fighting on makes no sense.  As some have argued for years: Ukraine would have a brighter future as a bridge between Russia and the rest of Europe, not as a fortified outpost for either side. 

The courage to oppose a dominant discourse comes at a price. Powerful forces are pressing in on academics and others who dare to express alternative views. Staying silent or parroting the party line is the safer option. Geoff Roberts is made of sterner stuff. 

“I had that option of keeping quiet, keeping my head down. But at a certain moment, I guess in 2014 when the crisis broke, I felt compelled to comment. It’s been easier for me to dissent because I’m retired. I’m loathe to criticise anyone in academia for not speaking out. But there are younger academics who dare to speak truth to the powerless. For me, they are the true heroes of the resistance to Russophobia.”

I admire independent thinkers like Geoffrey Roberts.  They risk vilification in order to foster truth and the understanding that Ukraine is a thorny issue with faults on all the many sides of this disaster.  Without this healthy perspectivism, making peace and moving forward is blocked. Does that make me a Putinversteher? So be it. Ich bin Putinversteher.

Eugene Doyle

Eugene Doyle is a writer based in Wellington. He has written extensively on the Middle East, as well as peace and security issues in the Asia Pacific region. He hosts the public policy platform solidarity.co.nz.

26 comments on “Vilification of Russia not good for peace in Europe. ”

  1. roblogic 1

    This might make sense if you ignore facts and history and Putin’s ongoing warmongering

    Happy April Fools

  2. Ad 2

    OMG proper Tankies still exist.

  3. Drowsy M. Kram 3

    They [independent thinkers] risk vilification in order to foster truth and the understanding that Ukraine is a thorny issue with faults on all the many sides of this disaster.

    This independent thinker agrees “that Ukraine is a thorny issue" – it’s also an independent country. Russia recognised that independence on 2 December 1991. Russian president for life Putin appears to have been having second thoughts about Ukraine's independence for some time – alternatively, those second thoughts may actually be his only thoughts.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War

    Opinion | To Really Get Peace in Ukraine, Consider Why Putin Started the War [18 March 2025]
    My father opposed Putin and was killed. Understanding Putin’s need for domestic repression holds lessons for how to end the war he started.

    Throughout Putin’s quarter-century as Russia’s leader, his main goal has been to stay in power until his death. This addiction to supreme power has always played an outsize role in his decisions. He has worked to eliminate any potential challenge to his position and has stifled dissent at home. Prominent political opponents, including my father, Boris Nemtsov, and Alexei Navalny, were killed. Free media no longer exists.

    Right now, this domestic repression makes it easier for Putin to wage war — and to stay in power. Putin has always seen Ukraine, which has long struggled to separate itself from Russia, as undermining his regime at home. The existence of a democratic and prosperous Ukraine that is allied with Europe could show Russians that there is a better alternative to Putinism. That is why Putin would prefer to eliminate Ukraine as a country.

  4. SPC 4

    I am tempted to write a post using the same argument, as to why the world should allow Israel to do what it wants (because it sees nations on its borders as an existential threat to building its eretz Israel) and how Trump is the circuit breaker to managing us all to acceptance of this

    But I do not want to shill for Netanyahu, or hold the recognised borders of nations in contempt.

    • ianmac 4.1

      Very clever SPC, and without firing a shot.

      • SPC 4.1.1

        I am sympathetic to the George Kennan perspective as to 1990's policy formulation – but Putin-mind-adjustment-setting is not my thing.

        No one who restores the Orthodox Church to a state church role, and who wants the name “Valdimor RasPutin” on the head of state throne for life is to be trusted.

        Whatever his Russian doll Tsarina krasnyy i krasivyy at Mar-a-Lago says.

      • Phillip ure 4.1.2

        There are strong echoes of the English/American elites/academics who pimped for Hitler..

    • Psycho Milt 4.2

      If you were to write such a post, it would be as much of an April Fool's joke as this one is.

  5. Jono 6

    Cuba was a sovereign nation in 1961…as was iraq in 2003…but funny.. was there an endless stream of articles why nz taxpayers should get involved and provide weapons to Castro or Hussein?

    • SPC 6.1
      1. The Bay of Pigs op was developed prior to the 1960 election.

      Gossip – Chicago ballot boxes and JFK allows this to proceed, so some people get to return to casino ownership in Havana. He then allows the operation to fail (by not providing air support, it was not part of their plan to have open involvement). Mafia gets angry – I'll sick the AG on you and maybe someone else, wanna go missing like Hoffa?

      Outcome, no nukes in Cuba nor in Turkey.

      2. Iraq had invaded Kuwait and was under UN cease-fire terms.

      Gossip – Iraq's government needed to be seen as powerful to keep the Shia and Kurds in line (and also Iran), so arms WMD inspections were blocked. So after waiting years for a domestic regime change, the western intell XYZ decided on believing he was actually hiding WMD, so they could justify as acting in self-defence against a known aggressor (means and form).

    • SPC 7.1

      The nations occupying another's territory (and or annexation) are

      1.Israel

      2.Russia

      The one person supporting both appears to be the Tsarina of Krasnodar who belongs to Valdimor RasPutin. The Krasnodar region supplies the bridge to Crimea.

      Rostov to the north faces Mariupol, it is the region of the oldest or source of a certain male line DNA of the R1a1 line (also held by one Benjamin Netanyahu)

      By this Caucasus area is Stavropol, early Gorbachev locale.

      3.I would mention Kashmir, but Indians have already suffered enough in their war with Grok3. And they would just mention places no one knows and point at China.

  6. Jono 8

    SPC..all that info is all well and prob correct..but at some point the Reality of the Now must kick in.

    Right now..Ukraine is losing and will lose even more..including Odessa.. unless diplomatic efforts take priority.

    If giving more weapons to young Ukrainian lives to fight is such a solution..why don't you join them?

    But that's not the real point..the real point is the for us or against us logic of Brainwashington DC.

    In the context of March 20th 2003..that means 2 positions only..either weapons to saddam to kill the invaders..OR..weapons provided to the invaders.

    Here's a history lesson for you..before kiwis and aussies died on a Turkish peninsular..Britain DEBATED getting involved in the Great War developing on the continent. Of course..the great irony is another certain country had an isolationist view of getting involved in conflicts..the Great War and WW2.

    • Scud 8.1

      You should actually read on British Government Policy of that period or even go back as far as post Waterloo and start from there until WW1?

      The UK between Post Waterloo until WW1 was to avoid getting involved in another Europe Conflict.

      Even though it guaranteed Belgium's Security if a European Power breach it's Neutrality and this is also the same for Portugal as well.

      The UK at the time didn't see itself as an European Power ie European Continental Power & such it's Army wasn't structure for European Expeditionary Army. But to protect the Empire along with the Navy ie protect the UK & Empire's Sea Lanes Of Communications.

      So I wouldn't call the UK & Empire Isolationist IRT to the Europe as it had other priorities instead.

      It's European Foreign Policy was to be friends with all, until little Willy got on the throne.

    • Scud 8.2

      Please explain why Ukraine is losing?

      Given Tsar Poots 3 Day Special Military Operation has stalled and haven't really moved on the Strategic Front since the Ukrainian Winter Offence some ago. Tactical Battles mean jack shit unless the Attacking Force can achieve breakout into an all out offensive & thereby changing the Strategic Picture for Russia & putting Ukraine on the back Foot.

      So far Ukraine is making Tsar Poots Forces react to Ukraine's probes & Targetting of Russian Strategic Economic Military Tgts which it's seems to have no Idea how to prevent these attacks nor Ukrainian Special Forces Direct Action Attacks behind the Russian Frontlines or in Russia itself nor Ukrainian Guerrilla Warfare attacks but under take Terror attacks on Ukrainian Population Tgts.

      And that Ukraine is hitting Russian Strategic Economic &. Military Tgts well inside Russian Territory.

      Where as Tsar Poots has resorted to hitting the Civil Population Tgts in violation of International law which came about post WW2.

      Yes the Ukrainian Summer was a cluster fuck & in opinion shouldn't have happened because it didn't have Air Superiority over the Battlefield & the leaking of its Concept of Operations/ Battle Plans by some drongo in the US.

      My Concept of Operations would've been to attack Russia's weaker Sectors like a Flanking Attack or on the Defensive over the Summer IOT build up the Ukrainian Reserve's and Airpower for the following Winter or summer while attacking Russian Strategic Economic & Military Tgts.

    • SPC 8.3

      Right now..Ukraine is losing and will lose even more..including Odessa.. unless diplomatic efforts take priority.

      They are the focus.

      And Russia would have to go through Kherson first and it is not a front atm. Any effort at it would require a large increase in Russian forces (presumably this time Moscow and St Petersburg), signal a withdrawal from diplomacy.

      In the context of March 20th 2003..that means 2 positions only..either weapons to saddam to kill the invaders..OR..weapons provided to the invaders.

      The UN had sanctions on Iraq (no arms sales, no importing their oil).

      Britain DEBATED getting involved in the Great War developing on the continent.

      They were part of the Triple Entente with France and Russia. And had a security guarantee to Belgium.

      • Scud 8.3.1

        Currently reading a book on & off atm, on how Europe Ghost walked to WW1.

        UK wasn't even part of the Triple Entente initially & in fact it was more inline with Germany or a neutral position until Little Willy pissed off everyone just not his royal cuzzie bro's.

        But in saying the then UK Govt's Foreign Secretary old mate Gray was quite duplicate with has under hand tactics leading up to WW1 who was acting like a drunk punter at Royal Ascot!

  7. Psycho Milt 9

    Congrats, you had me fooled for a while there but eventually I noticed it had been posted on 1 April. Well played.

  8. joe90 10

    Of course he ran poot's lines.

    /

    An academic linked to University College Cork (UCC) has been criticised for participating in a Russian Embassy-produced film which has been labelled “pro-Putin”.

    UCC emeritus professor Geoffrey ­Roberts took part in a recorded discussion with Russian ambassador to the UK, Andrei Kelin, where the pair largely discussed the war in Ukraine.

    In the 30-minute video, recently published on a Russian Embassy YouTube channel, Prof Roberts predicted the war may end on terms similar to those discussed by Vladimir Putin last June when the Russian president said Ukrainian troops must withdraw from four provinces annexed by Russia for peace talks to start.

    Fianna Fáil MEP Billy Kelleher called the video “soft Russian propaganda”.

    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/history-professor-linked-to-ucc-criticised-for-appearance-in-pro-putin-video-labelled-soft-russian-propaganda/a1645835211.html

    https://archive.li/oWwdm

  9. mikesh 11

    Fianna Fáil MEP Billy Kelleher called the video “soft Russian propaganda”.

    Well, to quote Mandy Rice Davies, they would say that, wouldn't they.

  10. Belladonna 12

    The date on this post says it all, really.

  11. mikesh 13

    The date on this post says it all, really.

    Do you think so? Well, they say there's one born every minute.

  12. Richard 14

    Tankies gonna tank I guess.

Leave a Comment