#301: Does Putin Love Russia?

[This post is a modified transcript of a video posted already on January 6, 2025]

Does Putin love Russia? Normally, you would assume that the leader of a country has some kind of positive dedication to their country; although it generally pays to be skeptical. In Putin’s case, the answer is clearly no, and this requires clarification.

After watching Lex Fridman’s interview with Volodymyr Zelensky, I was struck by Fridman’s questions about peace negotiations and whether Putin could be a reliable negotiating partner. While Fridman’s approach might appear naive, his questions provided valuable opportunities for Zelenskyy to respond substantively.

The Democratic Leader Standard

One question particularly stood out: Fridman’s insistence that Putin must love his country—that he must love Russia. This represents a reasonable assumption for normal politicians in democratic countries like the United States, most European nations, and other democracies worldwide.

In democratic systems, political leadership rarely provides peace of mind. Being president, prime minister, or holding any leadership position within democratic structures demands genuine commitment. Democratic leadership requires individuals who truly want to serve, despite the personal costs.

Fridman’s perspective reflects his conditioning by democratic leadership norms. Regardless of disagreements with figures like Donald Trump, it’s clear he would have a quieter life outside the presidency. Trump could enjoy a comfortable existence without the burdens of office. The presidency has complicated rather than simplified his life, and it’s unlikely he profits significantly from the position.

This understanding leads to confidence that Trump loves America, as do most democratic leaders. The immense commitment and self-sacrifice required to seek such positions in democratic systems differs fundamentally from Putin’s situation.

What Love Actually Means

Love cannot be measured through feelings alone. People often deceive themselves about their emotions, believing they love someone or something while their actions demonstrate otherwise.

Actions reveal truth. A country consists of its people—its accumulated population throughout time. While a country includes boundaries, cities, and resources, its people represent the one irreplaceable element.

When asking whether someone loves a country, the question becomes: Does this person love all the people within that country? Otherwise, the emotion represents mere affection for an abstract concept.

If someone loves Russia for its boundaries, trees, or resources, they love an object devoid of human inhabitants. Loving “the notion of being in the biggest country on the planet” reflects attachment to size rather than genuine patriotism.

Why Size Doesn’t Matter

Size proves the least important measurement of any country throughout history. Russian history demonstrates changing territorial boundaries over time. When considering what constitutes a country, nation, or people, Benedict Anderson’s concept of “imagined community” becomes relevant—a community of people moving through time, sharing experiences both positive and negative.

Europeans often characterize the United States as young, founded in 1776. Yet Germany was established in 1871. While German peoples preceded that date, the country itself remains younger than the United States.

Historical examples abound of civilizations preceding current national identities. The United States contains evidence of pre-existing Native American civilizations in archaeological sites throughout the South and Southwest, though this differs from contemporary American identity.

Putin’s Imperial Delusions

Russian historical understanding typically traces statehood to the Kievan Rus, with Kiev serving as a core historical antecedent of modern Russia. Putin references this heritage while ignoring that Kiev is Ukrainian. In his thinking, these territories remain Russian due to their historical connections.

This perspective reveals a fundamental flaw. No European territory belongs permanently to any nation. Historical boundaries remain fluid—perhaps the most stable border exists between France and Spain. Most other European borders have shifted throughout history, with few exceptions like small city-states such as San Marino.

Tying national understanding to geography or political entities proves misleading. Putin apparently believes Russia retains ownership of all territories that were ever Russian. His ideology suggests that wherever Russian speakers live, Russia should extend its sovereignty.

The Language Fallacy

This reasoning leads to absurd conclusions. Having learned Russian in East Germany during my childhood—beginning with words like “doska” and “okno” (blackboard and window)—I appreciate the language’s beauty and logic. However, my residence in Oregon doesn’t make this territory Russian simply because I speak the language.

Hitler employed identical reasoning, arguing that German-speaking regions should belong to Germany. This ideology drove the Anschluss and annexations of Austria, the Sudetenland, and other areas.

Language provides no valid criterion for territorial claims. English speakers in America don’t belong to England. Indians fought for independence despite widespread English usage. The presence of Russian speakers in Ukraine doesn’t justify Russian territorial claims.

Killing the People You Claim to Love

Many Ukrainians, including President Zelensky, grew up speaking Russian. Yet Putin kills Russian speakers in Kiev, Luhansk, Donetsk, and Kherson. These individuals face death, forced relocation, child abduction, rape, and torture. Putin forces residents of these areas to fight against other Ukrainians.

These populations wanted to remain part of Ukraine. When Ukraine gained independence after the Soviet Union’s collapse, referenda results were clear: all regions, including Russian-speaking areas and Crimea, chose Ukraine over Russia. Citizens declared themselves Ukrainian regardless of their native language.

If Putin claims “this is not Ukraine, this is Russia” while destroying these areas and killing their Russian-speaking residents, where is his professed love for Russia?

A Pattern of Destruction

Putin’s actions demonstrate his true nature. As Zelenskyy pointed out, Putin waged war against Chechnya under false pretenses. Chechnya belonged to the Russian Federal state within the Soviet Union, not to the independent republics. Putin destroyed Chechnya, leveling Grozny as he later devastated Aleppo, Mariupol, and Bucha.

Putin extended his “love” to Syria, Georgia, Moldova, and several African countries. If this represents love, it mirrors an abuser’s twisted affection.

This war represents Putin’s deliberate choice. His invasions of Crimea and the Donbas were wars of choice, as was the expanded invasion of Ukraine. When his assault on Hostomel Airport failed, he could have acknowledged Ukrainian self-determination and ended the violence.

Genuine love would have demanded such restraint.

Imperial Ambitions vs. Love

Ukraine posed no threat to Putin personally, only to his tyranny and imperial designs. Zelenskyy correctly identifies Putin’s ambitions toward the entire Soviet space and beyond.

Putin advances two claims: the Soviet claim and the Third Rome doctrine. When the Byzantine Empire fell, Orthodox church leaders moved first to Kiev, then to Moscow. After the Soviet Union’s collapse, Russia reintroduced the Byzantine double eagle, claiming succession from Rome. While ideologically questionable, this thinking appears in propagandist rhetoric.

Putin’s territorial designs extend to any area once belonging to Russia, plus regions he might claim under imperial pretensions. Syria’s warm water port represented one such desired asset.

These ambitions reflect greed rather than love.

What Real Love Would Look Like

If Putin loved Russians, he would never have initiated wars against Chechnya or Ukraine in 2014. He would focus on ensuring every Russian has running water, gas, and electricity. Russian streets would resemble other European streets. Russian industry would produce rather than merely extract resources. Retirement benefits would exceed subsistence levels. Citizens would envision a future in their country.

Loving one’s people means granting them democracy, recognizing them as true sovereigns. Otherwise, they become slaves, which describes Russians’ relationship to Putin.

The Cost of Putin’s “Love”

Putin kills his own people, sending them into senseless war. He imports North Korean soldiers for the same purpose. His policies invited sanctions that harm the Russian economy—imported goods become unavailable or expensive. The war economy cannot sustain long-term growth.

Putin jeopardizes his people’s economic future and destroys Russia’s international reputation. The only reason nations consider appeasing Russia is fear of a country perceived as dangerously unpredictable with nuclear weapons.

Nuclear threats serve Putin poorly. Using nuclear weapons against Kiev would only increase anger and resistance. Threatening London, Paris, Berlin, or Washington would invite destruction. Putin threatens his own people with annihilation through these policies, demonstrating his lack of love for them.

The Damage to Russian Culture

Putin’s actions damage Russian culture significantly. Among my favorite composers—following Bruckner—are Shostakovich, Prokofiev, and Tchaikovsky. The destruction of Donetsk’s Prokofiev Airport represented a grave insult to Russian culture. Prokofiev was Ukrainian-born but deeply embedded in Russian cultural tradition, as was Tchaikovsky.

Conductor Valery Gergiev’s interpretations of Shostakovich symphonies demonstrate profound understanding of Russian musical heritage. Yet seeing Gergiev conduct in Aleppo’s ruins while supporting Putin creates cognitive dissonance. His collection of Shostakovich symphonies, the war symphonies, where he narrates them and shows deep understanding—is magnificent in my view.

Every time I see Gergiev, I must acknowledge he’s godfather to one of Putin’s children or grandchildren. He’s probably in Putin’s camp because he’s Ossetian and Putin led South Ossetia back into Russia to unify with North Ossetia. I understand that. Gergiev became conductor of the Mariinsky Theater, and the Mariinsky is fantastic.

But every time I hear these recordings, I can’t think about anything else than Gergiev conducting in Aleppo’s ruins and not being willing to oppose Putin. He’s consistent, but consistently wrong.

The Cultural Question

How can one appreciate Russian music and literature without confronting what followed? Did Pushkin’s nationalism and the celebrated defeatist attitudes in Russian literature contribute to Putin’s rise? Did these cultural elements help Russians accept this tyrant?

As a German, I face similar questions about German culture’s relationship to 1933. When encountering Goethe, Schiller, or Bruckner, do echoes of Hitler emerge? The Nazis claimed Beethoven, Bruckner, and Wagner. Bruckner’s Seventh Symphony was performed at Hitler’s funeral. Karajan, despite his talent, held Nazi Party membership.

Germans cannot consider their culture without acknowledging National Socialism’s legacy.

Historical Parallels

World War II began with German-Soviet cooperation. Germany attacked Poland, followed weeks later by Soviet invasion from the east. The two powers divided Polish territory, continuing their historical pattern of cooperation. Hitler and Stalin maintained their alliance until Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union transformed Soviets into allies aided by American support.

Should I focus on Soviet/Russian culture that defeated Hitler, or examine Putin through the trajectory from the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the Holodomor, Stalin’s purges, and Soviet system evils? The pattern seems historically predictable, suggesting Russian culture bears this taint.

I resist this conclusion. I shop in Russian food stores for specific products. I don’t want Russian culture damaged by current events. However, preventing such damage requires Russians to oppose Putin. While some individuals speak out privately, political action remains necessary despite the risks of imprisonment or death.

Putin: The Greatest Russophobe

Putin and his associates complain about Russophobia while Putin himself remains its primary cause. His actions create the very prejudice he claims to oppose.

Examining Russia’s future beyond Moscow and St. Petersburg reveals the reality. YouTube channels document living conditions throughout regional Russia. Despite Western poverty and discrimination, the poorest Americans live better than average Russians. Russian pensioners receive far less than their Western counterparts.

These comparisons pale beside the lives lost in this unnecessary war.

Russia Has Already Lost

Russia cannot win—it has already lost, merely prolonging the inevitable. Putin’s actions definitively created Ukrainian identity. The Russian tyrant and butcher ironically enabled all Ukrainians to reject any connection with Russia for a long time.

As Zelenskyy mentioned, Fridman speaks from the position of someone born Ukrainian but raised in America. His desire for peace and an end to killing is understandable but misses the larger context. Facing such danger and brutality, what choice exists?

Ukraine needs protections, NATO membership, and full territorial restoration. This tyranny cannot be rewarded. Putin requires punishment. Ordinary Russians must ask themselves: What can I do to take responsibility for Russia’s future in a post-Putin world?

How can people identifying as Russian or part of the Russian world create pathways for a Russia not permanently tainted by current events?

The Answer is Clear

The question “Does Putin love Russia?” answers itself. Putin loves his own conception of what Russia should be—the size it could achieve, the megalomaniacal notion of being the world’s largest country. He doesn’t even command the world’s largest population. Russia might lose territory to China in the future, including Vladivostok.

This isn’t love—it’s abuse. This represents the rapist’s “love” for his victim, necrophilia, love of death, love of control over people as objects.

Putin’s emotion isn’t love but hatred. He hates Russia, hates Russians, and hates Ukrainians for revealing his true nature.

Conclusion

Ukraine must win. Putin’s Russia requires defeat. Russia must improve after his departure.

Thank you to Lex Fridman for conducting this interview. Thank you to Volodymyr Zelenskyy for showing people that leadership—true moral leadership—still remains possible in this world.

Otherwise, Ukraine must win. Putin’s Russia needs to be defeated. And Russia has to do better after him.

Ceterum censeo Ucrainam esse defendam. Слава Україні!

[This was originally posted to YouTube as a video. This post is a slightly abbreviated transcript, preserving the oral style of the video.]