Countering Putinism: Implications for NATO’s Strategy in Addressing Russia’s Anti-Western Rhetoric
By Francis Stafilopatis
NATO’s failure to accurately characterize Putinism has undermined its ability to recognize and counter the threats posed by Russia. The systemic misinterpretation has led to a history of appeasement and strategies prioritizing coexistence with a regime that derives legitimacy from framing NATO as a threat to Russian sovereignty. Unlike Western democracies, which derive stability from transparent institutions and concrete ideologies, Putinism operates as a flexible, anti-Western system. It eschews a formal ideology, instead adopting contradictory narratives - from Eurasianism to religious conservatism - that collectively serve to differentiate Russia from the West and vilify NATO. At its core, Putinism’s anti-Western rhetoric is designed to justify an authoritarian regime in a global context where NATO and the liberal political systems it embodies represent economic and societal progress. Understanding this dynamic is particularly urgent today. With an incoming U.S. administration posed to lead NATO but at risk of falling into the same traps of mischaracterization and appeasement, the alliance must avoid repeating past mistakes. This essay argues that NATO must expose Putinism’s ideological narratives and strengthen its posture to counter Russian aggression effectively. First, it will define Putinism and explore its narrative adaptations designed to undermine NATO’s legitimacy. Second, it will examine NATO’s historical missteps in failing to counter Putinism, which has emboldened Russian aggression. Finally, it will propose a dual strategy for NATO: rejecting appeasement while actively delegitimizing Putinism’s narratives to ensure the alliance’s security and unity.
Defining and Putinims and Its Narrative Strategy:
NATO and the West have often failed to accurately characterize Putinism, attempting to understand Putin’s regime through the lens of ideology. While this approach was effective in addressing the ideology of the USSR, Putin’s Russia deliberately omitted implementing a state ideology from its constitution. This absence reflects a need for ideological flexibility, enabling Putin to justify an autocratic, illiberal regime in a world dominated by the liberal international order. To maintain legitimacy, Putinism must fundamentally counter the West, both rhetorically and strategically, by portraying Russia as a besieged fortress threatened by NATO. Rather than adhering to a cohesive ideology, Putinism selectively adopts ideological narratives to differentiate Russia from the West and reinforce its anti-Western stance. This article will focus on two narratives that, despite their contradictions, share an anti-Western function: Eurasianism and religious conservatism. These narratives illustrate how Putinism operates as a flexible system designed to vilify NATO and legitimize authoritarian rule.
Putinism adopts religious conservatism as a strategic narrative to differentiate Russia from the West and undermine NATO’s legitimacy. For Putin, NATO represents more than just a military alliance - it embodies the liberal values of its member states, led by the United States, which Putin frames as morally and spiritually bankrupt. By positioning Russia as a bastion of traditional, “God-given” values and the defender of global morality, Putin casts the West, by extension NATO, as a threat to these principles. This contrast is reinforced by reactionary measures like the 2013 “Gay Propaganda Law” and Putin’s declaration that “reasonable conservatism as the foundation for a political course has skyrocketed in Importance.” These actions aim to delegitimize Western societal progress, such as the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling on gay marriage, and portray Russia as a civilizational leader in opposition to NATO’s liberal order. By framing NATO as a force undermining traditional values, Putin strengthens his narrative of Russia as a besieged fortress, mobilizing both domestic and international audiences to view NATO’s actions as a cultural and spiritual threat, rather than a defensive alliance.
Eurasianism is an ideology that emphasizes Russia’s unique civilizational identity as distinct from both Europe and Asia, framing the country as a “third way” that combines Slavic and Turko-Muslim cultural elements into a distinct geopolitical sphere. While it contradicts the exclusionary and inward-looking nature of religious conservatism, Eurasianism remains inherently anti-Western in its narrative.Unlike religious conservatism’s focus on moral purity, Eurasianism is inclusive and expansionary, legitimizing Russia’s imperial ambitions by rejecting Western influence and emphasizing a shared historical destiny with post-Soviet states. This doctrine provides a framework to justify authoritarianism through cultural unity, asserting that civilizations - not social or economic systems - drive history. By promoting the inevitability of an imperial political organization in Eurasia, Putinism uses Eurasianism to validate its expansionist policies and justify opposition to NATO. Like religious conservatism, Eurasianism serves as a tool for crafting narratives that reinforce Russia’s resistance to the Western led-world order. Together, these narratives - religious conservatism and Eurasianism - form the ideological patchwork of Putinism, unified by their purpose of countering NATO’s influence and preserving Putin’s autocratic regime.
NATO’s Missteps in Reinforcing Putinist Narratives
NATO’s failure to accurately characterize Putinism as inherently anti-Western has led to strategic missteps, including appeasement and inadequate deterrence, which have emboldened Russian aggression. This section examines how NATO’s misinterpretation of Putin’s regime facilitated Russia’s assertive actions, particularly in Ukraine. An example of this mischaracterization was the adoption of Putin’s narrative that NATO’s enlargement provoked Russian aggression. Despite evidence to the contrary, some Western policymakers echoed this claim, failing to recognize that Putnism’s anti-Western stance is intrinsic, not reactive. This narrative was increasingly adopted during Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia when NATO hesitated to respond decisively. The conflict arose after years of tension over Georgia’s aspirations to join NATO, a prospect Russia framed as a direct threat to its sphere of influence. Instead of confronting Russia’s aggression head-on, NATO offered only a symbolic condemnation and failed to impose meaningful consequences. This restraint allowed Putin to portray NATO’s actions as encroachment, further justifying his aggression and emboldening his belief that the alliance was unwilling to act decisively. Similarly, NATO’s limited response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 highlighted its misjudgment of Putinism’s nature. While Russia violated international law and disregarded its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum, NATO refrained from deploying substantial forces in Eastern Europe or enacting immediate and severe sanctions. Instead, the alliance pursued dialogue through the NATO-Russia Council and imposed modest economic penalties. This further reinforced Putin’s narrative of Russia as a besieged fortress, whilst at the same time signaling to Moscow that further aggression wouldn’t provoke a robust NATO reaction. NATO’s responses, or rather lack of sufficient responses, exhibited that the alliance underestimated the ideological consistency of Putin’s anti-Western rhetoric. Without a clear understanding of Putinism as a system rooted in opposition to the West, NATO failed to recognize that restraint only reinforced the Kremlin’s strategy and undermined the security of Eastern Europe.
Implications for NATO’s Strategy in Countering Putinism
The systemic failure to accurately characterize Putinism has not only emboldened Russian aggression but also left NATO ill-prepared to address the challenges posed by Putin’s regime. To effectively counter Putinism, NATO must reject appeasement and dismantle the ideological narratives that sustain its anti-Western agenda. Nearly three years into Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, NATO and its members remain internally divided on whether or not to incorporate Ukraine into the alliance and how to proceed.8 This division stems from a failure to clearly define Putinism and fears of escalation that have stalled more substantial support for Ukraine’s defenses. NATO now stands at a critical crossroads as the incoming U.S. administration, under President Trump, has promised to negotiate with Putin and end the war, despite Ukraine’s determination to defend its sovereignty. Such negotiations risk becoming another concession; engaging with a leader whose political system is fundamentally designed to undermine the West only serves to legitimize his aggression. Similarly, conceding Ukrainian territory - against Ukraine’s desire - would undermine NATO’s mission of stability, NATO must officially define and counter Putinism, ensuring that his narratives are discredited and recognizing that its security cannot be assured as long as Putin’s regime remains in power. To contain Russia, NATO must recognize Ukraine as the critical theater in reversing decades of appeasement and testing its resolve as the defender of the Western order. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine represents not just a geopolitical challenge but a direct assault on NATO’s purpose and credibility. If Russia succeeds in its aggression, it risks proving NATO to be a paper tiger, undermining the alliance’s deterrent power and creating a far more dangerous world where authoritarian regimes feel emboldened. However, countering Putinism requires more than military strength; NATO must address the dual nature of Putin’s strategy, which combines military aggression with rhetorical narratives aimed at undermining the West’s unity and values. This means adopting hybrid warfare strategies, supporting democratic movements within Russia, and exposing the contradictions and emptiness of Putin’s narratives to both Russian citizens and the global community. An all-encompassing strategy, recognizing that Putin’s Russia is fundamentally anti-Western, demands fighting Putin’s aggression in Ukraine while simultaneously revealing the true objectives of Putinism to dismantle its influence at home and abroad.
Conclusions
After nearly three years of war, waning support for Ukraine reflects the West’s struggle to justify the immense costs of the conflict. This essay has argued that NATO’s failure to accurately characterize Putinism—an anti-Western system that legitimizes itself by opposing NATO and Western values—has emboldened Russian aggression and sowed divisions within the alliance. Through narratives like religious conservatism and Eurasianism, Putin has portrayed the West as immoral and NATO as an existential threat, deceiving both Russian citizens and segments of the West into questioning the morality of defending Ukraine. This mischaracterization has undermined NATO’s ability to confront Putinism effectively and has emboldened authoritarian narratives worldwide. With the incoming Trump administration likely to adopt a more conciliatory approach to Putin, NATO faces a critical moment. To preserve its credibility and ensure the security of its members, the alliance must expose the ideological emptiness of Putinism and recommit to supporting Ukraine as the frontline in defending the liberal world order. Failure to act decisively risks not only validating Putin’s aggression but also undermining the principles of freedom and unity that NATO was established to uphold.
