.jpeg)
Redactor: Luca Cavallioti
Tehnoredactor: Daria Toma
Grafician: Silvia Preotescu
(from a psychological point of view)
In the recent years, the whole world has noticed how Russia led by Putin has become more and more hostile towards certain states of the former USSR and NATO. This hostility reached its peak at the time of the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, which still has occupied territories, although it managed to obtain important victories in the North and East.
Opinions are divided regarding Putin's level of rational thinking, as follows: Some have suggested Putin’s thinking is entirely rational, the product of a calculated, harsh realism about global politics, or an attempt to gain domestic strength. Others believe the moves are desperate, wild and overreaching evidence of deep, psychological flaws.
But what exactly is the psychology behind Putin’s leadership?
At the first sight, everyone can easily deduce that Putin has a “strong man” attitude. He displays an apparent lack of regret or remorse for his unethical decisions and the negative effect they have on innocent people. He also fails to accept responsibility for negative outcomes, and typically blames others when something goes wrong.
What does this tell us about his personality?
While the media is not in a position to “diagnose” political leaders without asking them to take a personality test, psychologists can evaluate them through behavioural observations by looking at speeches, decision-making or interviews over time.
Putin is an autocratic and authoritarian political leader. Decades of studies in the field of organisational psychology show that such leaders are more prone to take important decisions themselves. They also tend to be more task-oriented than interested in the general welfare of their people. Another telling sign is that they maintain a distance between themselves and others – partly through the use of punishments and threats.
One recent study of 14 authoritarian state leaders, including Putin, found they were less agreeable (in terms of being trustful and altruistic) and less emotionally stable compared with less autocratic leaders. They also scored higher on antisocial, “dark personality traits”, such as machiavellianism (manipulation and deception), narcissism (grandiosity, superiority and entitlement) and psychopathy (low empathy, aggression and impulsivity).
Research also suggests that these traits make them less competent and less easily understood by others.
Viewing Putin from this perspective, leads to the conclusion that he has worrisome antisocial tendencies, this being visible in his behaviour towards political rivals and international leaders.
One of the most famous examples is the first meeting with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, when he deliberately brought a large dog, despite or perhaps because he knew that she was afraid of dogs.
Another example is the poisoning and imprisonment of the opposition leader Alexei Navalny. The callous disregard for due process and Navalny’s human rights is consistent with dark personality traits.
The role of his early life
Putin’s background and beliefs also play a unique role in the reasoning behind his actual decisions. Putin was part of the KGB and had military training but never saw combat. Evidence suggests that leaders with such military and agency backgrounds are more likely to start a war than leaders who have had military combat experience.
Being a part of such an agency will install certain qualities, beliefs, and behaviors in an individual, one being extreme patriotism and ultra-nationalism. Nationalism is the most dominant layer of Putin’s identity, which allows us to understand his motivations. Part of the KGB’s motto was “loyalty to the motherland”. Putin believes Ukraine is a part of the „motherland”, and therefore, he is merely taking back Russia’s land. Putin once stated that modern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia, more precisely, communist Russia. This process in his mind began immediately after the Bolshevik revolution and thus Ukraine never had a tradition of genuine statehood. He told to the Russian soldiers that the motherland is sacred and that “today you are fighting for our people in Donbas, for the security of Russia, our homeland.”
The comparison with one of the greatest emperors of Russia
Essentially, Putin aspires for geopolitical and potentially territorial dominance within Eastern Europe. Putin discussed how Peter regained territories in Sweden: “he seized nothing, he reclaimed it.” He elaborated on Ukraine, “It seems it has fallen to us, too, to reclaim and strengthen.” Putin uses such parallels and analogies that are without qualifying conditions. By drawing on analogies of Peter the Great’s expansionism and Putin’s own invasion of Ukraine, there is little attention paid to the difference between the two leaders and the historical time differentiation. By situating himself in an existing frame of Peter, Putin was able to justify and validate his course of action. After all, Putin believes Ukraine is a part of Russia.
Conclusion
Expansion equates strength in Putin’s eyes, which helps solidify and shape not only his identity, but also the Russian identity and, more importantly, helps create his legacy that would make him unforgettable.