Kaja Kallas, the EU foreign minister, has accused Donald Trump of falling for a Russian narrative by closing the door on Nato membership for Ukraine. “Why are we in Nato? It is because we are afraid of Russia. And the only thing that really works – the only security guarantee that works – is Nato’s umbrella,” she said. Trump said last week of the war that Ukraine potentially joining Nato was “probably the reason the whole thing started”. In an interview published on Thursday by Agence France-Presse, Kallas said: “These accusations are totally untrue. That is the Russian narrative that we should not buy. [1]
This expresses the official narrative. The UK’s Keir Starmer and David Lammy have expressed it recently, as have many other leaders. Essentially, this is the narrative that in February 2022 Russia launched an “unprovoked war of aggression” against Ukraine.
There are a few striking features about this narrative. It is highly simplistic and absolute. It does not allow any sense to or grounds for Russia’s position. It is not, for example, “we understand that Russia had concerns about Ukraine joining NATO, but there is no excuse for military action”. Another feature is that it is just stated. I don’t think I have ever seen a European leader explaining it. If they have it doesn’t seem to have been widely reported. A third feature is that it requires anyone who accepts it to also accept an extremely unlikely explanation for Russia’s actions. There are two stories here. In one version Putin is trying to recreate the Russian Empire; he is motivated by some kind of nostalgia. It is a bloody historical reenactment project. This theory also requires acceptance of a second unlikely proposition; that “Poland is next”. The other theory is that Russia is simply evil and aggressive, and that explains everything. None of these counter theories are even vaguely plausible if we look at the statements and events of recent history. The point I am making is that anyone with any intellectual curiosity at all could not be satisfied with these explanations.
It seems that the line about “unprovoked war of aggression” in any of its variant expressions, for example, “These accusations are totally untrue. That is the Russian narrative that we should not buy”, should not actually be considered as an intellectual statement. They are a policy statement, even a doctrinal position. The key to both policy statements and doctrines is they provide a point for people to rally round. If we find them intellectually ridiculous in a way that is our fault for taking them as if they were supposed to stand up to analysis and consistency with empirical evidence. They aren’t, any more than the Doctrine of Atonement is. This is why they are endlessly repeated and never explained.
The people who express these positions, though often sound as if think they are saying something which is ‘true’ in the sense that it is a historical viewpoint which could be supported by reference to empirical data and historical-political argumentation. Though we never see that argument. It seems reasonable to suppose, in a rather general way, that they are making policy statements and rallying around the flag, but think they are engaged in rational analysis.
The sociologist of religion Ken Wilber has proposed a model of development which sees both the species and each individual developing through the following stages of thinking: magical, mythical, pre-rational, rational and trans-rational, (the latter being non-verbal, higher states of consciousness such as are experienced in meditation). [2] The book is worth reading in its entirety, but, in summary, Stone Age cave paintings reflect the magical modus of thinking where the image is thought to have instrumental connection to the represented. The Ancient civilizations of the Near East were mythic; a world of mythical beliefs. The Enlightenment saw in the rational stage. These stages are encapsulated in each individual. Psychosis, for example, is the magical breaking through into the rational. Doctrinal statements belong to the realm of the mythic. They are rallying points for the tribe and they have some explaining power.
My argument should be clear. European politicians who express the “unprovoked war of aggression” line, and its variant forms are actually operating at the mythic level. This presents a real problem for Russia. How to talk to people who are countering your reason with doctrinal statements? Of course, from their point of view, Russia’s point of view crumbles to dust when confronted with the stronger truth of their doctrine. (Of course, at the same time, they do not allow that their position is a doctrine. They pass it off as something rational).
This raises the question as to how educated people could make this mistake. As far as I can tell all 3 political leaders already mentioned have had somewhat similar careers. Legal studies at University followed by Post-graduate study. Kaja Kallas’ study also seems to have included business or economics. In each case this was followed by a period working as a lawyer. And then politics. Starmer seems to have had a longer legal career preceding his entry into politics. I cannot see any evidence, in my admittedly brief, research into the careers of these people any sign, at all, of study of International Relations. Quite possibly, in each case they had no interest in International Relations; they went into politics for different reasons. Quite possibly, and quite literally, they woke up one day and found themselves managing the brief for conducting their country’s foreign policy in a tense and challenging period of conflict, without any knowledge of International Relations theory or of the relevant history, beyond the crude, big brush stroke narratives of the popular press. And not only without any knowledge, but perhaps without any particular interest. On the other hand, each of these people is a successful politician. They have all 3 reached the pinnacle of a political career. I don’t know how the system works in Estonia, but in Britain, in order to climb to the top of the political tree you have to be a party animal. (Not in the sense of raves). This means following party discipline. You have to nail yourself to whatever the party position of the day is and express it as if it were your sincerely held belief. This is not a training in following intellectual curiosity, wherever that takes you. Quite the opposite. It is a training in prioritising the unity of the party above independent rational thinking. This sounds somewhat like a mythic world. Unlike in the mythic civilizations of the Near East, reason is available, but it is discouraged by the system, in particular in those cases when it might lead an individual to break with the collective. There is a mythic tendency. Given their background, probable lack of prior knowledge of International Affairs, training in ‘following the party line’ and the high stakes of a situation for which they are wholly unprepared it is perhaps not entirely surprising that European political leaders fall back to what they know; stating a policy position and defending it to the death, without too much engagement with reason. But, it is still disappointing, and, given the stakes, extremely dangerous.
Notes
- https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/feb/28/ukraine-war-briefing-trump-panders-to-russia-by-shutting-kyiv-out-of-nato-says-kaja-kallas
- Ken Wilber. Up From Eden. 1981 Anchor Press.