Why Putin Portrays The War In Ukraine As Russia's Struggle For Survival

Russian President Vladimir Putin has increasingly portrayed the war in Ukraine as an epic struggle for Russia’s survival, accusing the West of “using Ukraine as a battering ram against Russia and as a testing ground.”

In his narrative, the West has started the war and Russia has everything to lose – even if all available evidence points to Putin launching an unprovoked invasion to overthrow the Ukrainian government.

According to several analysts, as Russia’s losses mount, Putin is using a psychological tool to get his people behind a conflict with no end in sight.

“It’s nice to imagine Russia confronting the hegemon instead of having invaded a smaller neighbor,” said Kadri Liik, senior fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

She said Putin has “intertwined his own political and potential physical destiny with the war” and is trying to frame the violent conflict in a way that bolsters his support.

In several speeches, the Russian head of state relied on a verbal anti-loss strategy. Given the Kremlin’s broad control of the media, “the Russian people are increasingly interpreting this as a standoff between Russia and the West, which makes it more psychologically palatable,” Liik added.

Putin stressed a threat from the US and the western security alliance NATO before his troops rolled into Ukraine in February 2022. The Russian president delved deeper into the do-or-die message last fall when he announced a partial mobilization that has sent hundreds of thousands of reservists to the front lines.

Addressing the Federal Assembly last month after a year of war, Putin more directly opposed the Russian people to NATO.

He complained that before the war Russia was only looking for guarantees of peace and security and these attempts were rejected by the Western elites. He raged that the West had “enslaved” Ukraine, which he sees as a historic part of Russia, and cried that the US was clamoring for Moscow’s defeat and trying to plunder Russian resources.

“Over the long centuries of colonialism, dictation and hegemony, they got used to being allowed to do anything, they got used to spitting on the whole world,” Putin said. “The threat grew day by day.

“Let me reiterate that they were the ones who started this war while we used and use violence to end the war,” he added. “We defend lives and our common home while the West seeks unlimited power.”

It remains difficult to gauge broader public opinion about the war after Russia last year passed a strict law barring anyone from speaking out “discrediting” the armed forces and authorities have sensed signs of protest. But Putin’s framing appears to be effective.

Sergey Radchenko, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, said February’s speech was “pretty good” for Russian audiences as it portrayed the war in Ukraine as a defensive mission.

“Stories about the decadent West – this stuff sells in Russia,” he said. “After months of fighting in Ukraine, people had problems [seeing] how it all began.”

Charles Kupchan, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the focus on “American hegemony” is influential.

“Russia must stand up to this wayward country that is trying to rule the world,” Kupchan said of Putin’s framing. “It’s a narrative that has gained some traction by evoking a broader unease about Western colonialism.”

“There are kernels of factually correct statements,” he continued, “but what he’s doing is using these as launchpads for twisted, nationalistic narratives that bear no resemblance to reality.”

James Nixey, director of the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House, said the February speech was a “surreal experience”.

“Like living in an alternate reality,” he said. “It’s an absolutely made-up fantasy to ensure Russia’s correctness is understood by everyone and no one wiggles aside.”

Several of Putin’s speeches over the past year have also focused on cultural messages.

The depiction of a neo-Nazi government holding Ukraine hostage was a focus of his public statements. Last month he compared the West to the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the 20th century and said the Western Allies “paved the way” for Nazi Germany.

Putin has also spread the false message of rampant pedophilia in Western countries – mainly in relation to LGBTQ groups – and presented it as another incoming attack on Russian culture should things go West.

“Look what they are doing to their own people,” Putin said in his February speech. “It’s about the destruction of family, cultural and national identity, perversion and abuse of children, including pedophilia, all being made normal in their lives.”

Some of the messages are aimed at those outside Russia who may nod to the cultural issues, analysts said. That could bolster his support with an international audience that disagrees with him in Ukraine but agrees with his cultural critique of liberals and Western power.

Moreover, Putin, now wanted by the International Criminal Court for aiding the kidnapping of Ukrainian children, is trying to maintain enough internal Russian support to ensure his own survival.

According to Liik of the European Council on Foreign Relations, Russian elites are increasingly disenfranchised by the war following backlash in Ukraine, although they recognize the difficulties of retreating so late in the conflict.

Henk Goemans, director of the Peter D. Watson Center for Conflict and Cooperation at the University of Rochester, said Putin has consolidated a lot of power but may end up being threatened by rival power factions.

“It’s a dangerous game,” said Goemans. “I’m not convinced yet [Putin’s power] enough that he is really safe after a significant setback in Ukraine.”

Despite his rhetoric, there are signs that Putin is holding back full isolation with the West.

In last month’s speech, he announced the suspension of the New START treaty, a nuclear pact between the US and Russia that limited the number of weapons of mass destruction available to both nations while allowing inspections of key facilities.

Remarkably, Putin chose to suspend the treaty — not walk away from it entirely.

Michael O’Hanlon, foreign policy research director at the Brookings Institution, said Putin showed “a measure of circumspection and professionalism” in suspending the treaty rather than canceling it.

“Hopefully that means Putin already sees how we can get back to business,” he said, adding that the Russian leader is “starting to realize he’s not going to do it [achieve his original goals] and may have to settle for less.”

But it’s unclear what Putin would accept to end his war. The start of the invasion last year made it clear that he hoped to capture Kiev within weeks and possibly install a puppet government.

After Russian forces were driven out of western Ukraine, troops in the country’s eastern region continue to engage in deadly attrition.

Last fall, Putin illegally annexed four regions in the south and east: Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk and Luhansk, all of which he is unlikely to give up and for which Ukraine says it will continue to fight.

In a compromise difficult to imagine, Putin’s loss framing is helping to ensure support even as his troops in Ukraine continue to falter.

McCaul threatens State Department with subpoena over Afghan documents DeSantis called for Google to be broken up

Unless Russia extends its fight to NATO countries, the threat of an attack from the West is preposterous, according to the analysts The Hill spoke to for this story. But Goemans of the University of Rochester said a loss in Ukraine would be a “real challenge to Russian identity”.

“The social identity is very mixed with Ukraine,” he said. “These things will be incredibly difficult for Russians to accept. That they are two different states and two different nations.”

“A defeat in Ukraine would be a fundamental challenge to fundamental tenets of Russian identity.”