Perhaps more devastating, the invasion of Ukraine contradicts the nationalists’ delusion that they are the ones offering a philosophy of strength. Christopher Caldwell’s praise of Putin included the claim that “He restored [Russia’s] military strength.” The debacle of the last six weeks reveals the hollowness behind Putin’s bluster, and more: It demonstrates that it is precisely his authoritarianism that makes him weak. Putin’s penchant for surrounding himself with yes-men and ruling by fear has led to “a clear breakdown in the flow of accurate information to the Russian president.” The result was a poorly planned Russian invasion fought by an unmotivated and uncoordinated army of conscripts.
Meanwhile, it is liberal Europe that has rallied behind Ukraine and helped them defeat the first stage of the Russian attack. The dilemma of the nationalists is best summed up by David Frum: “Everything they wanted to perceive as decadent and weak has proven strong and brave; everything they wanted to represent as fearsome and powerful has revealed itself as brutal and stupid.”
There is one last way in which the war in Ukraine has exposed the creed of the national conservatives: It shows us that they are not even nationalists, not in any ordinary sense.
Claremont’s Caldwell had hailed Putin’s Russia as “a symbol of national self-determination.” But surely, if there is a country that now serves as such a symbol, it is Ukraine. Historically, Russia is not a nationalist power but an imperial one, which has grown over the centuries by absorbing other nations under the rule of a dominant caste of ethnic Russians. Russia’s vague threats against countries like Poland and Kazakhstan show that it still clings to these imperialist ambitions. Ukraine is bravely resisting absorption into this Russian empire. Any genuine “nationalist” should be rallying to its side.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member