the sentiments of the people who “elected” him by enunciating their beliefs, like anti-Americanism, even though that sentiment has been manipulated by him. Anti-Americanism also distracts the two pillar segments of society from forming common by helping to hide the underlying problems associated with Putin’s regime.
This thesis shall also demonstrate that the level of the Russian public’s hostility toward America tends to increase or decrease in conjunction with an increasing or decreasing level of anti-American vehemence displayed by Putin’s Kremlin. Putin can sway his nation’s moods as he deems prudent. A perpetual relationship developed between Vladimir Putin’s anti-Americanism and the Russian populace’s anti-Americanism, to include the public and elite sectors. Putin’s anti-Americanism, by means of his authoritarian mechanisms, sufficiently arouses the public’s anti-Americanism, thereby allowing Putin and the political elites to feed off of that public temperament. A positive feedback relationship between Putin and his polity has developed, and the state machine powers that loop, all for the political benefit of Putin.
B. IMPORTANCE
A roller-coaster metaphor could easily be used to describe ongoing Russian-American relations on the global scene. Since the disintegration of the Soviet Union, relations between the surviving superpower, the United States, and the dominant Soviet successor state, the Russian Federation, have fluctuated wildly between open friendship, cold-war like intransigence, and anything in between. Anti-American rhetoric and policy actions have emanated from the Kremlin for decades, but hostile words and quarrelsome policies cannot force the United States into a standoffish position toward Russia. Under the leadership of Vladimir Putin, Russia’s continued vital importance on the geostrategic scene need only be demonstrated by its actions. Such actions include Putin’s baptism of fire in the Chechen Caucasus crisis upon ascending to the presidency in 1999, a revitalized Russian economic might hinged on mineral resources, an invasion of Georgia in 2008, their bilateral relations with several of the most potentially de-stabilizing regimes like those in Syria and Iran, and their permanent leverage within the United Nations Security Council. America must interact with Russia one way or another in this ever-shrinking world. Understanding the nature and impetuses of Russian/Putinist anti-Americanism could go a long way in aiding American policy-makers’ perception of just why Putin and Russia do what they do.
As the USSR dissolved, Boris Yeltsin took the reins of the Russian Federation, the largest country on the globe, and the most powerful of the post-Soviet successor states. Many in the West harbored dreams that Russia would transform into a democracy on the Western model and adopt foreign policies compatible with the current Western democratic states. When Putin came to the forefront in 1999, many hoped he, too, would continue down a path toward liberalization; it was not to be. Putin has steered the Russian political system’s development closer toward an authoritarian model, but not a total one; Russia has become what many in the broader literature refer to as a “hybrid,” or “electoral authoritarian,” or “competitive authoritarian” regime.1 Since the spread of Western democracy stagnated beyond former Soviet Eastern Europe in the 1990s, hybrid regimes that combine aspects of authoritarianism and institutional democracy have become ever-more commonplace as a result of what some call a “democratic rollback.”2
Putin must operate in a hybrid authoritarian political system in which actors within the state maintain degrees of political leverage over their government and leader. An understanding of such a system, therefore, shall be necessary to gauge any domestic political implications and potential benefits of Putin’s anti-Americanism. By better understanding Putin’s political situation within his state and the potential political benefits accrued by Putin for anti-American rhetoric and policy, Western entities might be better able to interact with Putin rather than discounting his actions as only the whims of a Russian strong-man.
1 Nikolai Petrov, Masha Lipman, and Henry Hale, “Overmanaged Democracy in Russia: Governance Implications of Hybrid Regimes,” Carnegie Papers, no 106 (February 2010): 1; Grigorii Golosov, “The Regional Roots of Electoral Authoritarianism in Russia,” Europe-Asia Studies 63, no. 4 (June 2011): 623; Timothy Colton and Henry Hale, “The Putin Vote: Presidential Electorates in a Hybrid Regime,” Slavic Review 68, no. 3 (Fall 2009): 503.
2 Larry Diamond, “The Democratic Rollback: The Resurgence of the Predatory State,” in Essential Readings in Comparative Politics, 3rd ed., eds Patrick O’Neil and Ronald Rogowski (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2010), 235.
C. HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY
One major issue investigated in this thesis is the connection between Vladimir Putin’s anti-Americanism and the anti-Americanism of the Russian population. That population includes the general public and Putinist elites. The thesis shall also attempt to gauge the domestic political benefits garnered by Putin’s anti-Americanism within the authoritarian system that he has created.
Peter Katzenstein and Robert Keohane define anti-Americanism as a “psychological tendency to hold negative views of the United States and of American society in general…an attitude.”1 Ivan Krastev comes to a similar definition: “anti-Americanism is a systemic opposition to America as a whole. It is a critique of the United States that transcends mere disagreement over specific policy questions or government decisions.”2 Anti-Americanism, therefore, cannot be reduced to an isolated incident of criticism or opposition to a single U.S. policy or action. An extended pattern of animosity in rhetoric and actions must be observable.
Regarding Vladimir Putin, it is hypothesized that the roots of his anti-Americanism long pre-date his rise to power. His anti-Americanism fits the Katzenstein/Keohane narrative of a psychological animosity toward America independent of reactions to the circumstances of any one instance in time. Putin did not suddenly become anti-American due to the Iraq War, a falling-out with George W. Bush, or long-term trends in American foreign policy deemed antagonistic to Russia; he has always been anti-American at heart, and the aforementioned issues simply exacerbated a cognitive condition that already existed. He possesses a “cognitive predisposition,” as Robert Jervis would say. Putin’s negative perceptions of America became engrained in his psyche during the Cold War, only to remain long past the collapse of the Soviet state.3
A second hypothesis is that Vladimir Putin, though not responsible for seeding an anti-American psyche within his populace, has utilized the means inherently available within his authoritarian system to effectively fan the flames. Such means include media manipulation, exploitation of public fears of instability, and overtly discrediting anything American/Western. Many people in Russia are or have been inherently hostile toward the United States for decades. It is further hypothesized, nevertheless, that any widespread anti-Americanism within the Russian populace, as portrayed in decades of polling data, is directly related to increases in the Putinist regime’s anti-American vehemence. Putinist anti-Americanism when projected from the hierarchy of authoritarian power, therefore, positively influences public anti-Americanism. In light of the aforementioned definitions of anti-Americanism, gauging the level of Putin/Kremlin anti-Americanism over time will not be based on any one single-incident example of anti-Americanism,
