logo
Putin's talk of soldiers' feet puts the lie to Russian nationalist myths

Putin's talk of soldiers' feet puts the lie to Russian nationalist myths

The Hill07-07-2025
Vladimir Putin recently admitted that Russia is an artificial construct created by violence. This is a bombshell, putting to the lie Russian propaganda's longstanding claim that some spiritual entity called Russia has existed since time immemorial.
In fact, Putin reduced Russia to its soldiers' feet — hardly an elevated comparison.
In his address to the plenary session of the Petersburg International Economic Forum on June 20, Putin made the following astounding, and deeply subversive, claim: 'wherever the foot of a Russian soldier steps is ours.' Whereas we apply the word 'Russian' to both the ethnic designation (russkii) and the political designation (rossiiskii), Russians distinguish between the two. Significantly, Putin specifically referred to the ethnically Russian russkii soldier.
In effect if not in intent, Putin reduced Russia (the political entity) to the lands conquered by ethnically russkii soldiers, thereby giving the lie to the claim that Russia is a 'federation' of happily coexisting nations, the largest of which happens to be russkii. This is an admission both of Russia's being (and always having been) an empire, and of the subordinate status of its non-Russian nations, brought into the imperial fold by soldiers — that is, by violence.
Ukrainians, Poles, Finns and scores of other nations know this quite well, and it shouldn't surprise us that they are allergic to the presence of the feet of Mother Russia's children on their lands. Who can blame them for wanting to put as many yards as possible between them and those imperialist Russian feet?
None of this is new or surprising to such leading Sovietologists as Paul Goble, who have spent decades reminding policymakers that the non-Russians of the former Soviet Union are strategically important to the West, because they are the only thing standing between Russia as an expanding empire and the rest of the world. These states possess the wherewithal to maintain Russia as a more or less stable object of containment.
But such ruminations presuppose that Russia exists, whereas Putin, its putative head, unwittingly subverted and reduced it to an artifice of history. The logic is simple.
If Russia is a function of soldiers' feet and where they happen to land, then it's neither imagined by lofty-minded intellectuals determined to reach out to the oppressed masses nor primordially present as a self-identifying agent of history since the dawn of time. And Russia is certainly not the Third Rome or God's gift to humanity. Rather, it's just a bunch of real estate cobbled together by its soldiers' feet. But if so, then the Russia that exists today or that existed in the past is an arbitrary collection of dirt.
Because Muscovite rulers sent the feet in one direction and not another, the resultant 'our' territory is merely the product of the serendipitous whims of autocrats. Had its rulers not embarked on expansion and let the feet stay at home, Russia might have been as tiny as the Kremlin.
This matters because Russian political culture insists, and has insisted, that Russia is a quasi-mystical entity enjoined by the divine to save the world. That culture also insists that Russia was already present in the guise of the state known as Kyivan Rus some 1,000 years ago. Regardless of whether that state was or was not Ukrainian or proto-Ukrainian, it obviously follows from Putin's own claims that it definitely wasn't Russian. How could it be, since russkii soldiers and their land-grabbing feet did not exist in the city called Kyiv a millennium ago? They may have existed in the town called Moskva in the marshy wooded areas north of Kyiv, but that's hardly a grand and glorious way to initiate a divinely ordained state.
So where does Putin's demolition of Russia leave Russians and their feet? Pretty much nowhere. Russia is just a bunch of stuff randomly acquired over the years, Russians are reduced to an accidental agglomeration of folks — akin to the commuters at Grand Central Station during rush hour. Their soldiers' feet are transformed into mere physical appendages without any rooting in a nation or state.
This bodes ill for Putin. If Russia doesn't really exist as a nation, then he becomes little more than a puppet at the mercy of historical forces — and his imperial ambitions are doomed to fail. After all, if he can only ultimately rely on feet, he won't get very far.
Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as 'Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires' and 'Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Sends a New Message to Putin
Trump Sends a New Message to Putin

Wall Street Journal

time7 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

Trump Sends a New Message to Putin

It took six months, but President Trump seems to have concluded that Vladimir Putin doesn't want peace in Ukraine. The Russian will have a 'lovely' talk with the President 'and then the missiles go off that night,' Mr. Trump said in the Oval Office on Monday. This new realism is a welcome change from Mr. Trump's previous strategy of leaning only on Ukraine and has a better chance of getting a cease-fire. The best news from Monday's White House meeting is that the free world will continue to arm Ukraine against Mr. Putin's ravages. 'In a nutshell, we're going to make top of the line weapons, and they'll be sent to NATO' for Ukraine, Mr. Trump said while appearing with alliance Secretary General Mark Rutte. 'That might also mean that countries will move equipment fast into Ukraine and then the U.S. later backfilling it,' Mr. Rutte added, 'because speed is of the essence here.' Some Patriot air-defense missiles could move into Ukraine within days, and they will no doubt be of immediate help. As our Jillian Melchior reported from Kyiv on Monday, Mr. Putin has escalated his aerial assault on Ukraine's cities with ever-more attack drones and missiles. There is no military purpose for this, as Mr. Rutte said at the White House, except killing civilians to break Ukrainian morale.

The Memo: Trump adopts new aggressive stance on Russia
The Memo: Trump adopts new aggressive stance on Russia

The Hill

time22 minutes ago

  • The Hill

The Memo: Trump adopts new aggressive stance on Russia

President Trump moved to a more aggressive footing with Russia on Monday, promising to funnel weapons through NATO allies to Ukraine and threatening to hammer Moscow's trading partners with sanctions. Even though there is a lengthy hiatus of 50 days before those sanctions would take effect, it's still a notable shift from the president. Trump had long been skeptical of the pace and scale of U.S. aid to Ukraine. It is only a little more than four months since he and Vice President Vance had a famously fractious meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office. In the aftermath of that meeting, where Zelensky was assailed for his supposed ingratitude and the weakness of his bargaining position, it seemed like the choking off of U.S. military aid to Kyiv was near-certain. That, in turn, would make a Russian victory in the war begun by President Vladimir Putin's February 2022 invasion equally inevitable. Now, the picture looks very different. Trump – for reasons that appear personal as much as strategic – has become increasingly irritated with Putin's refusal to bring the war to an end. On Monday, meeting at the White House with NATO General Secretary Mark Rutte, Trump complained that he enjoys 'very pleasant' phone calls with Putin only to see Russian 'missiles go off that night.' The accusation of double-dealing or disingenuousness on the part of Putin has become more of a centerpiece of Trump's rhetoric recently. On Monday he contended that Putin 'didn't fool me,' even as he held that the Russian leader had pulled the wool over the eyes of past Presidents Biden, Obama and George W. Bush. Just last week, Trump made a similar point in even more pointed terms, saying, 'We get a lot of bulls— thrown at us by Putin, if you want to know the truth. He's very nice all the time but it turns out to be meaningless.' Now, of course, the question is how meaningful Trump's own shift will be. The most obviously substantive move is the provision of weapons – notably Patriot air defense systems. The deal by which those, and other weapons, will be bought by European NATO members and then transferred on to Ukraine seems to resolve one central tension in the conflict. It enables Trump to vastly reduce the cost to the U.S. treasury – and thus to U.S. taxpayers – of military aid to Ukraine, while bolstering Ukraine's defenses and ameliorating the panic from U.S. allies in Europe that Trump's isolation would invite greater Russian expansionism. Referring to NATO allies, Trump said on Monday, 'We are going to be sending them weapons and they're going to be paying for them. We're not buying it but we will manufacture it, and they're going to be paying for them.' The Wall Street Journal, citing two unnamed sources familiar with the upcoming weapons transfers, reported that the package could be worth about $10 billion. The Department of State says the United States has provided almost $67 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since Russia's invasion. The sanctions element of Monday's proposal was a bit more vague. Trump initially used the word 'tariffs' to describe what he had in mind as a tactic to deepen Russia's economic isolation. But it fell to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick to clarify that Trump was in fact suggesting the imposition of economic sanctions on Moscow's trading partners. Those sanctions are supposedly going to take effect if a peace deal is not arrived at within Trump's 50-day timeframe. There are a few obvious caveats. The most obvious is whether Trump will follow through given his propensity to move in unpredictable ways. A second is whether Putin would try to persuade the president, during that period, that it is actually Ukraine that is being the more stubborn party. A third mixed signal came even on Monday, when Trump appeared lukewarm about the proposed congressional legislation that would ramp up sanctions on Russia directly. Even so, it's notable that the more hawkish members of the GOP, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), have been vocally enthusiastic about Trump's apparent shift. There are, too, some in Republican circles who believe Trump's instinctive isolationism has been diluted somewhat by the perceived success of the recent U.S. airstrikes against targets in Iran – strikes that resulted neither in any casualties for the U.S., nor created any serious danger of getting sucked into a longer war. The American public also seems to have an appetite for tougher economic measures against Russia. An Economist/YouGov poll last month found that 44 percent of Americans favored increasing sanctions on Russia and 19 percent want to maintain sanctions at their current level, while only 15 percent wanted to reduce or eliminate sanctions. Much remains uncertain, including how Putin will react to Monday's announcements. And, of course, the biggest vexing question is how many concessions either Russia or Ukraine are willing to make to end the war. But Trump, long derided by critics for his softness on Putin, is this time taking a harder line than he ever has before.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store