When in 2014 the then German Chancellor Angela Merkel, after a conversation with Putin, complained to then US President Barack Obama that "our friend" Vladimir was living in a parallel reality, no one in the West, including here, even thought to examine Merkel's phrase through the prism of "critical thinking".
What has "critical thinking" got to do with it? What is there not to understand? Putin lives in a bunker and his only connection with the outside world is the red folders that are placed on his desk every morning by eager-to-please butlers with stars of generals pinned to their chests, while all of us, who are connected every day via the Internet to the widest possible flow of information, perceive the world realistically and adequately. What is there to doubt?
Let us look at what is happening in the world today at two levels of perception: 1) official level; 2) everyday, individual level; and let us try to determine the adequacy of these perceptions.
The UN, whose declared aim is “to ensure international peace and security”, not only fails to ensure anything, but even fails to call a war a war and uses the phrase “the Ukraine crisis” in all its official documents. The UN is far from alone. On the contrary. The phrase “Russian-Ukrainian war” does not appear in the official documents of any Western country. Nor is it used in the state or, as as they are often called, public media. You will not find it on the BBC. At best, it’s the “Russia-Ukraine conflict” or the “war in Ukraine”.
This verbal caution has enormous symbolic significance, because the Bible may be treated in many different ways, but it is hard to deny that it is the sum of all the accumulated “wisdom” of the first three thousand years of humanity. It says in no uncertain terms: in the beginning was the word. The West's stubborn reluctance to call a war a war is understandable, because it is not ostriches that stick their heads in the sand (which they never really do), but human beings. And this is regardless of their level of education, "media literacy" or "critical thinking". The fact that Russia does not use the word “war” is self-evident, because this kind of "camouflage" is in its interests and it does so with a clear purpose.
What are Macron's regular calls to Putin an indication of? Only that Putin's reality is closer to reality than Macron's. Why? Because Putin had no doubt that, even after February 24, Macron would be calling him, politicians would be chanting that "a diplomatic solution to the conflict must be sought", "a window must be left for negotiations", "a military solution is impossible", "the parties must not be humiliated", "a solution acceptable to all parties must be found", and so on and so forth. Putin's assumptions have mostly come true.
In Macron's "reality", however, a large-scale invasion, i.e. a war in Ukraine, was impossible because "this is the 21st century", "it is not good for Russia", "it does nothing for Russia, so the Russian people will rebel against it", "it is Putin's war, not Russia's", "economic sanctions will force Putin to reconsider his plans", and so on. Hardly any of Macron's (by which, here, is meant a large part of the Western European political class) assumptions have come true.
If one wants to say that Putin has miscalculated too (I wrote so myself shortly after the war started), it is now clear that the main miscalculation has nothing to do with the Western reaction (which is broadly in line with the Putin/Patrushev world view), but with the failure of the army itself. If the Russian army were any more capable of fighting, Putin would have triumphed by now. If not quite with a parade in Kyiv, then with much more territory captured and even more modest Western military support for the rest of Ukraine.
But Putin's biggest miscalculation has to do with his underestimation of Ukraine's defenders. The fact that, after more than a hundred days of war, the Russian army has taken only Kherson out of all the regional centers is precisely to the credit of the Ukrainian troops. Putin did not expect such desperate resistance, but neither did the collective Macron. In this respect, both sides were equally far from reality.
It is not uncommon for the political top to be too detached from the ground and to live in a reality that they have constructed. It happens. Maybe "ordinary" people are closer to the ground, closer to reality? Unfortunately, there are also reasonable doubts about that. Here is a typical and at the same time illustrative observation. It is valuable because it comes from someone who considers herself fully part of Western political culture, recognizes its values and shares its worldview.
Agnese Logina, member of the Riga City Council, member of Progressives (Progresīvie), who once studied in the Netherlands: "I still have some very close friends from my time in Amsterdam. I love them immensely, but now it is difficult even to talk to them about Russia's war in Ukraine, because they would rather talk about any other colonial power and any other genocide, but not what is happening now, in front of their eyes. And I do not know how to talk to them about it. I already cursed about Putin at them 12 years ago, and they called me a Russophobe then. Some people wrote me shy messages after 24/02 saying I was right."
Dita Krauze agrees with her. "The work of explaining is infinitely painful when it has to be done on such fundamental issues with those with whom we have always felt that we were in the same boat. In the West, many people have the idea that colonization was only carried out by the West and that it only applies to non-white people."
These tweets are echoed by many others who, with slight variations, repeat the same thing: "I feel the same way about my Norwegian/Austrian/Italian friends. ‘Let's talk about BLM and US invasions of other countries and what not, but not Ukraine!’"
And here's where it gets interesting. People say with genuine astonishment: all these people are cool, nice, smart, educated and liberal, but for some reason they don't grasp the subject of Ukraine, don't see the whole picture and so on. On all the other points, we are in complete agreement, except for this one small point. Everything else is in complete harmony.
It is not hard to imagine that a young, educated, liberal person from South Africa could say something similar: they’re cool, nice, smart, educated people, but they do not want to hear even a word about the murders by white farmers in my country. We can talk about everything except that.
Note that as soon as something is not "theoretically correct", it is "better not to talk about it". On all other issues, "we are in the same boat", "our views are in complete agreement". But to think for a moment that perhaps all the other issues are equally "up in the air" and, when faced with the stark reality, may turn out to be the same "not seeing the whole picture", does not even occur to them.
Agnese Logina was called a Russophobe 12 years ago, but now some have shyly admitted that she was right. This does not stop Logina's circle from calling those who think otherwise all kinds of "phobes" without the slightest restraint, ascribing evil intentions (hatred) to these "phobes", even though the main motivation of these "phobes" is a clear awareness of reality and not following theoretically abstract flights of thought.
The good news is that there are enough people in Ukraine who were not carried away by airy fantasies and are ready to defend their country and their state on the ground, arms in hand, so that not only Macron, but also the cool, nice people in Amsterdam with whom we are “in the same boat”, can continue to live in their fantasy world where it is so pleasant to fight social media battles with all sorts of “racists”, “right-wingers”, “homophobes” and other such people.
The bad news is that until these cool, nice, "in the same boat" people start to feel the flames licking their heels, they will continue to float in the clouds, but they may start to feel the heat soon enough. From either side, because sooner or later all castles in the air collide with the reality on the ground, and it is clear who is in the best position in this collision.