Comment by Evgeny Dainov:
Things are falling into place.
After his triumphant meeting with Trump in Alaska, Vladimir Putin's scenario was more than clear. He planned to turn to India, China, the Philippines, North Africa, Central Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia and tell them: "Have you seen now? I am the strong one. I have established control over the collective West. Come to me."
If it weren't for the subsequent Europe-US meeting in the White House, this message of his could have turned the world upside down to our detriment. Because over the peaceful and orderly civilization in which we are lucky to live, the ominous shadow of a hostile culture, based on violence and arbitrariness and which has come to the conclusion that the time has come to consume us, would hang.
There are no "local specificities", there is a rejection of the Enlightenment
There is a delusion that the main players of this hostile culture, as well as the peoples inhabiting it, are ultimately "like us", although they have some exotic features and "local specificities". And that ultimately, with the way of negotiating inherent in our civilization, we will be able to "understand each other" with them.
However, Margaret Thatcher mocked post-communist regimes that claimed to be building societies like Western ones, albeit with "local specifics". There is no such thing, the Iron Lady snapped, when someone talks to you about "local specifics", he tells you that he intends to rape and rob his own people. Not to mention that things have changed since then and today such figures do not talk about specifics, but about radical difference from us, even - about superiority over us.
The issue does not rest on class, race, religion, gender or occupation. It rests on cultural rules created by people who are radically different from ours, i.e. those of the Enlightenment, of modernity, of peace, of equality and of universal human rights. These rules shape our behavior as societies. The rules that determine their behavior are completely different: rejection of equality, leading to militant nationalism and hatred of others, aggressive religiosity, preference for violence as the main regulator of social relations, and as a result - neglect of the rights and legitimacy of the other side, be it an individual or a sovereign state. Within this culture that opposes us, contempt for human life flourishes, the erasure of women from the public sphere, the persecution of minorities, forced circumcision, cruelty, the extermination of those who are different, "honor" killings, masculine boasting, the right to power above everything else.
Putin flirts with all of them, since he does not hide that at least since 2007 he has set himself the goal of destroying those like "us". He understood even then that as long as there are those like "us", he and those like him will remain heavy marginals, gathering the ridicule and disgust of civilized people. For him and those like him to be great, "us" must not exist. In short, this is the reason why Putin denies Ukraine's right to exist. Ukraine is "us" in Putin's eyes and must be destroyed, lest it set an encouraging example for his own people.
More personal responsibility and control over behavior
In the last half century, we have dozens of studies that - approaching from different angles - reveal the same civilizational picture when it comes to "us". In Europe, the further north we go, the more peaceful, prosperous, supportive and good-natured the societies are. Conversely, moving south brings us to societies that are less peaceful, less benevolent, less trusting, and more hesitant in their development and behavior.
The most serious are the works of Geert Hofstede, who approaches people's behavior from the perspective of the "locus of control" (external or internal), as well as Francis Fukuyama's reflections on the topic of "trust". The conclusions in short: the more the locus of control is internal (self-control) and the more people trust strangers, the more prosperous the respective societies are. In more southern countries, the external locus of control is dominant, it goes with distrust and, accordingly, hostility and unhappiness.
Southern Europe, i.e. we, although we do not particularly trust ourselves and wait for someone else to control our behavior, are still not so different that we fall out of European civilization. At least we know that it is more legitimate to have order than not to have it and to not have violence than to have it.
This is not the case in the countries inhabited by that hostile culture that is Putin's natural audience. To them, all our basic traits - especially equality, trust and solidarity - seem like illusions, invented and maintained by spoiled weaklings. In this culture, they cannot understand why we continue to exist at all, since we are such unfit for manly battles, slobs. Therefore, generation after generation in their circles sincerely expect that we will fall apart and be plundered by them at any moment - tomorrow, at the latest the day after tomorrow.
However, among the many studies, there is a lack of a sufficiently clear understanding of the reasons why we do not fall apart, but on the contrary - we have the habit of defeating the various dictators and authoritarians who periodically attack us. The Europe-US meeting at the White House illustrates one of the main reasons why this is happening: In short, our ability to act institutionally, not personally.
We mobilize organizations and institutions
The attacks against us by the leaders of the culture hostile to us are, in most cases, a repetition of the battles of barbarian times - heroic attacks by heroic types. We do not respond with the same. Our secret weapon is that we are organized. We respond to the raids of the heroes by mobilizing organizations and institutions. Within these impersonal, heroless structures, thousands of competent and responsible people conduct millions of hours of analysis and discussion, reach agreement on the main conclusions and subsequently organize themselves to carry out the activities necessary to achieve the agreed goals.
A constantly forgotten fact is that during the Second World War, the most mobilized country was Great Britain. That is to say: the largest share of its population, economy and resources worked for victory. Although in a total war, totalitarian regimes did not manage to achieve such organization. The Soviet, Italian and Japanese dictatorships were not even close. Even otherwise effective Germans were not as organized as the British.
A degree of mobilization similar to the British is achievable only in a democratic environment - where equal citizens have built institutions that quietly and peacefully ensure their peaceful life every day, as well as organize its defense against external threats. Once set in motion, institutions cannot be stopped. They work relentlessly, day after day, and there is no force that can stop them - once they are set in motion, they must produce papers describing some results and setting future goals. This distinguishes us from the various dictatorships and autocracies that work on the principle of the idea, the heroic leap and the suppression of any order and any initiative "from below": only the heroes "from above" have the right to set the direction.
This is precisely the difference between the meeting in Alaska and the meeting in the White House.
How European leaders tamed Trump
In Alaska, Vladimir Putin made the usual heroic foray for his culture. Since, to our shame, Donald Trump is just like him, the Russian autocrat was convinced that he had done the job: that he had recruited the American into his camp, left Europe out in the cold, and could now go on a tour to receive applause from his peers in the so-called global South. However, when days later Europe - that is, the civilization of organizations, analyses, institutions, planning, discussions - invaded Trump's house, things turned around.
In the White House, European leaders not only tamed Trump, that is, they took him out of the hypnosis of heroic leaps, but also put him in a regime of procedures - precisely in the world of those organizations and institutions that are the strength of our civilization. Even before this meeting, the institutional mechanisms were activated to push forward the resistance against Putin. Working groups of military personnel, strategists, and analysts have been meeting practically without a break since then and are currently meeting. The machine is in motion, and the more it accelerates, the harder it is to stop.
Our other strength is that we can form alliances. Our opponents cannot. Russia, China, Iran, all the other BRICS countries are not good at forming alliances because they are not looking for allies. They are looking for vassals and subordinates because - unlike us - they do not understand the concept of equality. They live in a hierarchy where, if they are not superiors, they are subordinates.
So, while our opponents are busy clarifying who is superior to whom and making heroic leaps, institutions that include the "coalition of the willing" are quietly and meekly working with us. To date, its allies are the most developed, civilized and powerful countries - from Canada, Australia and Japan to Europe and the USA. They all know how to live in a regime of working groups, unions, organizations and institutions. And although slowly, although centimeter by centimeter, although devoid of heroism, they still achieve victory. It takes an awful lot of time. But this is how democracy works.
Because we are good, not "bad"
Why haven't the "willing" acted this way before? Because along with all its pluses, our civilization also has a big minus. It is always late in defending itself, because it sincerely believes that with all its exoticism and "local specificities" our opponents still want what we want - to live in peace and prosperity. And that negotiating on a reasonable basis is possible. Our representatives need a big war to understand that they are not like us, never will be, and dream of our destruction.
The tendency to negotiate instead of fight is not because we are weak. On the contrary - it is because we are good. We do not understand why some people who have the choice to be good decide to be, as my grandmother used to say - "bad". But in the end, since our goodness stems not from weakness, but from our strength as equal citizens, we still achieve a result. We win without gloating, because even during war we do not become like them - "bad".