This really follows on from my recent post about ‘Europe not being ready to face reality‘. There are a never ending series of European leaders saying the most delusional things on Ukraine. This is Dutch Defence Minister joining the “ship of fools”;
Putin has made very clear that Ukraine is not his final stop on his campaign to the imperial past.
He will continue his aggressive, aggressive [sic] efforts to increase the influence and the territory of the Russian Empire towards his dream to reestablish a Russkiy Mir, or a Russian world.
It’s a dream for Putin, and it’s a nightmare for the rest of Europe.
It’s time we let Putin wake up to the fact that his dreams do not match reality. [1]
The fool also says:
President Zelensky should not have to agree to a deal that would result in some sort of interbellum, with aggression constantly looming on the horizon.
He needs to negotiate from a position of strength.
Why does the Guardian just carry this? Why do no journalists ever ask these people to justify their statements? When has Putin “made very clear that Ukraine is not his final stop”? This is going to an even further degree of stupidity that those who claim to detect a secret Imperial motivation in Russian actions, despite the fact that, for the last 16 years, Russia has been saying nothing about rebuilding an imperial past while frequently saying that NATO in Ukraine and Georgia is a red-line. Here, the Dutch minister seems to be saying that Putin has said openly he is trying to rebuild an Imperial Russia. When? Where?!!! (Professor John Mearsheimer commented at one forum that he was surprised that no one had challenged him, and his view that Russia is not at all imperialistic, with the moment when Putin made a remark likening himself to Peter the First who made sure Russia had a Baltic Sea port by fighting wars with Sweden. I did find one Guardian article where the Guardian and, of course, a Ukrainian government spokesman, seized on the comments. [2] If the Guardian’s reporting of the comments is accurate it seems that Putin’s key point lies in the claim to be “taking not something which belongs to someone else, but something which is already really ours”. This is consistent with the line that the 4 Ukrainian provinces plus Crimea are “historically part of Russia”. There are two points to make here. Firstly; the statement, while it certainly does not respect the 1991 borders, and does not claim to, is arguable in historical terms. Russia, that is the Russian Empire, occupied this part of modern Ukraine from the mid-17th century. This relates to the contested Pereiaslav Agreement. In the Russian version, which is accepted as being a reasonable interpretation by Western historians I have read, the Cossacks in Eastern Ukraine asked to be part of Russia to protect them against Poland-Lithuania. [3] In the Soviet period large numbers of Russians settled in Eastern Ukraine, at a time before Ukraine existed as a sovereign nation. The ethnic make-up of Crimea is majority Russian. The second point is that this argument about “our historical lands” has only emerged after the war started. By “war started” I am being specific; I mean after the response by the West meant that Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine which had specific and limited objectives turned into a full-scale war. So; this one comment is explainable without recourse to a “Putin is trying to rebuild the Russian Empire” explanation. It is a post-hoc narrative to support what they are trying to do specifically in relation to Eastern Ukraine). And, I really don’t think there is any other evidence which can be put forwards for this claim.
The claim that Putin is trying to rebuild the Russian Empire is not supported by any facts and is inherently extremely unlikely. Even if you have not followed Russian political discourse and understood the trajectory it has taken under Putin, – defensive but assertive about their national ‘rights’ – Russia is not strong enough to take on and defeat NATO, which would be a necessary part of such a project, (nuclear war aside). The necessary corollary for the claim that Putin is trying to recreate the Russian Empire is that he is completely irrational, that he is incapable of doing the most basic force calculations.
We can tell that Minister Ruben Brekelmans has opened his mouth without listening or paying attention to reality when he says: that Zelensky should not have to accept “some sort of interbellum, with aggression constantly looming on the horizon”. This is precisely the Russian position, frequently aired completely clearly by Putin and Lavrov. There is no danger of Zelensky having to accept this, because Russia has already excluded it. Ruben Brekelmans’ lips are moving but the gears in his brain are not operating. Like so many European politicians.
I was listening to the Daniel Davis podcast the other day and a speaker made the terrifying suggestion that the explanation for European politicians, (and Biden), wrapping themselves in the Ukrainian flag is that it is part of their populism. Certainly this site, (when it was more focussed on the UK), has noted that UK politicians are desperate to connect with the public. The key work here is The Triumph of the Political Class by Peter Oborne. [4] (This book focusses on the UK, but it seems to be a European wide phenomenon). In the past politicians came to power after previous careers in the the Trade Unions or in business. They had a constituency, which they represented. Now they go straight from “Uni” to the House of Commons, (after a very brief stint in the media or a think-tank or sometimes a safe corporate). They are a rootless political class with allegiance to nothing apart from their own careers. Hence they are always trying to jump onto popular causes, to make people believe in them. This might be some social issue which happens to have gathered a bit of media momentum. They don’t really care about these issues; they just latch on to them because doing so can create the appearance that they have values beyond themselves, that they stand for something. Possibly, we can understand the wrapping themselves in the Ukrainian flag, the lauding of Zelensky as the second coming of Churchill, and so on in these terms. They haven’t even tried to analyse the situation. In Ukraine’s plight they have just seen an opportunity to link themselves to a popular cause and make it look like they are principled people, with values. It is just another media game of appearances, another set of headlines. The tens of thousands of deaths are being sacrificed for their careers. A really terrifying possibility. But it might explain why Ursula von der Leyen is always grinning from ear to ear, even on her visits to Ukraine, a country torn apart by war. At least she is in the news.
Notes
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/mar/11/ukraine-russia-us-peace-talks-moscow-war-latest-live-news-europe?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-67d026bf8f08778856c4a985#block-67d026bf8f08778856c4a985
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/10/putin-compares-himself-to-peter-the-great-in-quest-to-take-back-russian-lands
- For Moscow, of course, this co-operation was conceivable only if it entailed Cossack recognition of the tsar’s sovereignty, and Khmelnitskii duly complied, taking a unilateral vow of loyalty in Pereiaslavl on 8 January 1654. Russian and Soviet historians subsequently portrayed this oath as a merger of Ukraine with Muscovy, even a ‘reunification’ of Muscovy with Kiev Rus. By contrast, Ukrainian historiography depicts this oath as the beginning of an independent ‘hetman state’, which lasted until the time of Catherine the Great. In reality however, the oath merely signified nominal subordination and guaranteed the hetman and his followers a social and legal order with a considerable autonomy, even in foreign affairs (except for relations with Poland and the Ottomans). Although Alexis henceforth proclaimed himself ‘Autocrat of All Great and Little Rus’, incorporation of Ukraine into the Russian Empire did not actually come until the eighteenth century. Freeze, Gregory L.. Russia: A History (p. 85). OUP Oxford. Kindle Edition. This version is more favourable to the Ukrainian side but still notes the Russian position and one which long predated the current war. And, as Mearsheimer would say, the key point is to understand the Russian perception if we want to understand their actions.
- The Triumph of the Political Class by Peter Oborne. 2008 Pocket books