Professors from the Croft Institute for International Studies and the department of political science explained Russian President Vladimir Putin’s motivation behind the invasion of Ukraine during a panel discussion on Wednesday evening at the Croft Institute.
“I guess the question is, what drove Putin to do this? Well, I think it’s not entirely clear yet. But in a sense, Putin prefaced the invasion with a historical narrative, with his vision of history,” said Joshua First, Croft associate professor of history and international studies. “And one thing we should always understand about Putin is that he’s a bit of a history buff. History was one of his favorite subjects in school.”
The event, “Making Sense of Events in Ukraine,” was open to the public and attended by a crowd of roughly 70 people both in person and virtually.
Sponsored by the University of Mississippi College of Liberal Arts, the history and political science departments and the Croft Institute, the panel was moderated by Laura Huber, an assistant professor of political science.
Volleying through a number of topics central to the conflict, the panelists used their expertise to examine in great detail several parts of the invasion.
First opened by explaining that Putin’s love for history is also what drove him to pursue a career in public service in the 1970s.
“Fundamental to Putin’s vision of history, Russian history in particular, is a denial of Ukrainian history. That is fundamental to a certain brand of Russian state history more generally,” First said.
Ben Jones, associate professor of political science, zeroed in on the use of public diplomacy campaigns during conflicts, specifically Ukraine’s. Jones explained that public diplomacy is used by governments to engage with foreign publics directly.
“One narrative that stuck out was a Tweet from the Ukrainian official account and it said, we stand for things like democracy, human rights, freedom, equality, the rule of law, on and on listing these western buzzwords — tweeting in English, by the way. This is very clearly designed to appeal to foreign audiences to send a message: We want democracy, we like human rights,” he said. “And implicit in those messages is that Russia doesn’t, though Russia’s never explicitly mentioned.”
He further explained that the Russian narratives being pushed are cultivated for an internal, Russian audience. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s have been generated to resonate with the general public in western countries.
“It creates this image of Russia as aggressive as targeting civilians, versus Ukrainian as peaceful, as democratic as valuing human rights. And all of this, it’s designed to generate public support abroad, to hopefully put pressure on foreign governments to increase in bolster support for Ukraine, to make sure that what’s happening in Ukraine remains a salient political issue in countries like the U.S. and Canada and Britain and elsewhere,” Jones said.
Susan Allen is also an associate professor in the department of political science. Over the past 15 years, her research has focused mainly on airstrikes, the UN Security Council and economic sanctions. All of which, she says, proved to be key parts of this conflict within its first weeks. Speaking specifically about the Security Council, Allen explained that she doesn’t believe a solution will be found there.
“We’ve seen relatively clear evidence that while the Security Council is going to continue to be a great place for international diplomatic theater…it’s unlikely that the conflict solutions are going to be found there,” she said. “I’m happy to talk more about that if folks have questions, but the UN system isn’t really set up to resolve conflicts involving great powers.”
Allen then focused on the prevalence and efficacy of economic sanctions in this conflict.
“Whether or not these sanctions work continues to be a topic of debate. And we won’t know for a while, but the Western Allies have banded together to create a pretty intense sanction regime, probably more intense than Putin would have predicted based on previous events,” she said, referring to Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014. “We’re now at a point where sanctions seem to be destabilizing the value of the ruble. And there’s a real effort to deny Russians access to the global economic system. The big question, though, is whether or not this will be sufficient to pressure Putin to change course, and whether or not the pressure will be felt in the right places.”
After hearing the professors introductions, many students asked questions ranging from speculation about Ukraine’s recovery if they emerge victorious, the likelihood of Ukraine emerging victorious and how the war in Ukraine is being weaponized in American political spheres.
Samantha Case, a freshman history major, attended the panel because of her desire to keep up with current events as well as her personal connections to someone who has called Ukraine home. She mentioned the historical aspect of the evening’s conversation.
“I took away a lot of the historical stuff that they talked about — like why Putin is even motivated to invade Ukraine in the first place and how important it is to use correct language when talking about this,” she said. “Not just calling it a conflict, but referring to it as a militaristic invasion.”
The day Russia invaded Ukraine, Case described being shocked. She likened her feelings about the invasion to what she felt during the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the United States Capitol, in that she couldn’t believe it was happening.
“I was very flabbergasted because we’ve all been living through historical events for the past three years, but I wouldn’t think this is something that could happen — It’s very jarring,” she said.
Today, it has been a month since Russia’s full scale invasion of Ukraine on Feb. 24 captured the attention of the world. The conflict has resulted in 3.5 million refugees fleeing Ukraine. As of March 20, it was estimated that the Ukrainian civilian death toll had surpassed 900 individuals.
“I wish I thought this was the last conversation we were gonna have about this. But I think there are a lot more conversations to be had on this topic. I don’t see a conclusion coming swiftly or decisively in the near future,” Allen said.
First’s parting words encouraged attendees to remain engaged and continue to support Ukraine.
“I would only say stay interested. It’s so easy to let these big events just sort of fade into the background,” he said. “But stay involved and keep supporting Ukraine.”
