**So many negative value judgments have already been issued about Russia that it is difficult to find any positive words that would convey the truth about this country, about its development aspirations, and about its real impact on international relations.**
Ascribing to Putin the desire to rebuild the empire, aspirations to a new division of the world into spheres of influence, longing for the “new Yalta”, hatred of the West, etc. is the order of the day. Virtually no one wonders whether these are the conclusions drawn from reliable analyzes of Russia’s existential interests, or whether they are a derivative of the widely propagated disinformation, or even the diffusion typical of Russophobic propaganda.
**Rusocentrism**
Paradoxically, a peculiar Russocentrism has become a derivative of Russophobia. Not a day goes by without the threats from Russia and Putin being pointed out. The West can be seen, it has no other worries, only whether Russia will start a new war for Ukraine or not. **It is a pity that you do not remember about the so-called Western wars, such as the defeat and defamation of American troops in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and recently in Afghanistan, and leaving millions of innocent people to the prey of religious extremists**. Somehow, you do not hear in the Polish media about the misfortunes caused by the Islamization of this country and about your own participation in this disgraceful humanitarian catastrophe. Hardly anyone also remembers what was the root cause of the mass escapes of people from the turned to ashes, who also reached the Polish border. As you can see, everything can be relativized and exaggerated. It is also a perfect disguise, such as the plunder of Ukraine by foreign capital taking place in front of our eyes, under the guise of fighting for its democratization and liberation from the influence of the cruel dictator and autocrat from the Kremlin.
**A long time ago it was accepted, and it was confirmed by the American political scientist Samuel Huntington** at the end of the 20th century in his arguments , that Russia does not belong to the European civilization. That she is following a separate path and thus is doomed to an inevitable conflict with Western civilization. That he hates his values and patterns of behavior. In this way, hostile images based on negative attitudes, prejudices and stereotypes were formed. **The rest is completed by daily propaganda and thoughtless chatter of Russophobic politicians who do not understand the essence of the “great geopolitical game” between the powers of the West and East, Sea and Land.**
**Zbigniew Brzeziński** has mixed up a lot in this matter , arguing that the “great chessboard” after the defeat of the USSR in the “Cold War” naturally opens up to the expansion of Western, or more precisely, American civilization. It has become an absurd phenomenon to adopt a one-sided view that the expansion of the West into the post-Soviet areas is a natural, even missionary phenomenon, but Russia’s firm defense against this expansion is automatically associated with the reconstruction of its imperial power. There is some asymmetry, not fully realized by critics of Russia, which is inconsistent with the rules of the balance of power policy promoted for centuries by Western powers, especially France and Anglo-Saxons .
Most analysts follow the ideological fashion of treating Russia as a state that threatens international peace and the hegemonic international order established by the United States after the Cold War. Hardly anyone penetrates the nature of this country’s arguments, especially eloquently and emphatically by the Russian president, who – whatever not to say – impresses not only with the length of time in power, but also with the logic of argumentation and the power of persuasion. It is worth considering what other state with superpower status has a leader who, for a generation, shapes the awareness of its citizens and consistently influences international opinion. Western countries may, of course, hide behind the democratic adherence to the terms of office of their leaders, but otherwise they cannot – with the possible exception ofAngela Merkel – to boast about the long-term influence of a strong personality of leaders in shaping the patterns of the diplomatic order. Nor can they admit that they have any coherent concept of dealing with Russia in the name of a well-understood order, in which coexistence values are more important – cooperation, peace and preserving the ownership of each side, than destroying what constitutes the basis of the geopolitical balance of power.
**The worst thing about it is that the West collectively denies Russia the right to defend her case.** As he wrote in the book “Quo vadis, Russia?” **Rüdiger von Fritsch** , former German ambassador to Russia, “everyone is guided by their truth, does not listen to the other or does not try to understand him” (p. 20). Understanding does not necessarily mean acceptance, but it can help to find convergence points. Meanwhile, since the war in Ukraine and Russia’s seizure of Crimea in virtually all environments in the West – from political and media to analytical and academic – Russia has started to be attributed, and especially to **Vladimir Putin personally.** only evil and aggressive intentions, without taking into account the conditions and cause-effect relationships of his actions. Without noticing even a hint of guilt on her worsening relationship with him. Hardly anyone thought about an alternative relationship between the West and Russia.
1 comment
Google translation:
**So many negative value judgments have already been issued about Russia that it is difficult to find any positive words that would convey the truth about this country, about its development aspirations, and about its real impact on international relations.**
Ascribing to Putin the desire to rebuild the empire, aspirations to a new division of the world into spheres of influence, longing for the “new Yalta”, hatred of the West, etc. is the order of the day. Virtually no one wonders whether these are the conclusions drawn from reliable analyzes of Russia’s existential interests, or whether they are a derivative of the widely propagated disinformation, or even the diffusion typical of Russophobic propaganda.
**Rusocentrism**
Paradoxically, a peculiar Russocentrism has become a derivative of Russophobia. Not a day goes by without the threats from Russia and Putin being pointed out. The West can be seen, it has no other worries, only whether Russia will start a new war for Ukraine or not. **It is a pity that you do not remember about the so-called Western wars, such as the defeat and defamation of American troops in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, and recently in Afghanistan, and leaving millions of innocent people to the prey of religious extremists**. Somehow, you do not hear in the Polish media about the misfortunes caused by the Islamization of this country and about your own participation in this disgraceful humanitarian catastrophe. Hardly anyone also remembers what was the root cause of the mass escapes of people from the turned to ashes, who also reached the Polish border. As you can see, everything can be relativized and exaggerated. It is also a perfect disguise, such as the plunder of Ukraine by foreign capital taking place in front of our eyes, under the guise of fighting for its democratization and liberation from the influence of the cruel dictator and autocrat from the Kremlin.
**A long time ago it was accepted, and it was confirmed by the American political scientist Samuel Huntington** at the end of the 20th century in his arguments , that Russia does not belong to the European civilization. That she is following a separate path and thus is doomed to an inevitable conflict with Western civilization. That he hates his values and patterns of behavior. In this way, hostile images based on negative attitudes, prejudices and stereotypes were formed. **The rest is completed by daily propaganda and thoughtless chatter of Russophobic politicians who do not understand the essence of the “great geopolitical game” between the powers of the West and East, Sea and Land.**
**Zbigniew Brzeziński** has mixed up a lot in this matter , arguing that the “great chessboard” after the defeat of the USSR in the “Cold War” naturally opens up to the expansion of Western, or more precisely, American civilization. It has become an absurd phenomenon to adopt a one-sided view that the expansion of the West into the post-Soviet areas is a natural, even missionary phenomenon, but Russia’s firm defense against this expansion is automatically associated with the reconstruction of its imperial power. There is some asymmetry, not fully realized by critics of Russia, which is inconsistent with the rules of the balance of power policy promoted for centuries by Western powers, especially France and Anglo-Saxons .
Most analysts follow the ideological fashion of treating Russia as a state that threatens international peace and the hegemonic international order established by the United States after the Cold War. Hardly anyone penetrates the nature of this country’s arguments, especially eloquently and emphatically by the Russian president, who – whatever not to say – impresses not only with the length of time in power, but also with the logic of argumentation and the power of persuasion. It is worth considering what other state with superpower status has a leader who, for a generation, shapes the awareness of its citizens and consistently influences international opinion. Western countries may, of course, hide behind the democratic adherence to the terms of office of their leaders, but otherwise they cannot – with the possible exception ofAngela Merkel – to boast about the long-term influence of a strong personality of leaders in shaping the patterns of the diplomatic order. Nor can they admit that they have any coherent concept of dealing with Russia in the name of a well-understood order, in which coexistence values are more important – cooperation, peace and preserving the ownership of each side, than destroying what constitutes the basis of the geopolitical balance of power.
**The worst thing about it is that the West collectively denies Russia the right to defend her case.** As he wrote in the book “Quo vadis, Russia?” **Rüdiger von Fritsch** , former German ambassador to Russia, “everyone is guided by their truth, does not listen to the other or does not try to understand him” (p. 20). Understanding does not necessarily mean acceptance, but it can help to find convergence points. Meanwhile, since the war in Ukraine and Russia’s seizure of Crimea in virtually all environments in the West – from political and media to analytical and academic – Russia has started to be attributed, and especially to **Vladimir Putin personally.** only evil and aggressive intentions, without taking into account the conditions and cause-effect relationships of his actions. Without noticing even a hint of guilt on her worsening relationship with him. Hardly anyone thought about an alternative relationship between the West and Russia.