Ethicist Christoph Stückelberger has been teaching in Russia and China for many years. In an interview, he talks about Russia’s revisionist visions and Western triumphalism. Neither can succeed in the face of the invasion of Ukraine, says the founder of several ethics foundations.
In your view, what is Russia’s problem with Ukraine? What does “the West” not understand here?
Christoph Stückelberger: First of all, it is important: there is no justification for this war of aggression. If, despite everything, I do not break off my contact with people in Russia or China, it is because I want to maintain a dialogue with people in these great powers. As long as people talk to each other, they don’t shoot at each other. Mutual understanding is a basic ethical principle. It’s about walking in each other’s shoes for a moment.
In this case, of course, it’s very difficult. However, one thing has always become clear to me through my teaching in Moscow: history plays a very big role in Russia. Not as a glorification of war, but again and again as a reminder of past conflicts and also victims. Thus, the victory over Hitler is still very important to the state today; it is understood as Russia’s important contribution to the new post-war world order.
As for Putin’s harshness, it is based on a deep conviction that he must fulfill an almost messianic role for Russia. Unfortunately, this messianism with the ideology of the “Russian world” often leads to blindness. Blindness and madness, however, are not the same thing.
Putin’s rhetoric does not refer to the past Soviet Union, but he reaches back even further to tsarist Russia, including the unity of state and church. He is motivated by the national idea that Russia has an important place in the world, which must be preserved and restored, and that the “Russian world” is a unity. Orthodox theologians from several countries, under the initiative of the Greek Orthodox Volos Academy, in a March 10 statement clearly condemned this doctrine of the “Russian world” as “ethno-phyletist” (the unity of a church with a nation and ethnicity).
We often underestimate that in his eyes Kiev also belongs to a place of origin of this Russia. This is almost a mythical exaggeration of a basic motif that other countries also know. How Berlin was always the capital in the soul of Germans, but could not be for a long time. There is a deep feeling that Kiev is a part of Russia. For the Russian Orthodox Church and many Russians, Kiev, 1000 years ago, is the place of origin of Orthodox Christianity in Eastern Europe. For them, St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev is almost comparable to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, a central, holy place for the Jews. Irony of history: now it is Russian troops who are threatening to damage this church!
The problem: revisionism is never forward-looking. This has been shown in the Counter-Reformation, after the French Revolution and with the former colonial powers. When major changes occur, revisionist forces try to restore the old order. This cannot succeed.
In addition, there is another circumstance. The previous pragmatic arrangement between Russia and Ukraine has shifted. Ukraine has oriented itself toward the West, and Russia’s fear of loss is growing. People do not want to let Ukraine go to the West just like that.
Unfortunately, some governments and populations have little sensitivity to Eastern Europe. The Western triumphalism of the USA after 1989 was very harmful, even if this was more moderate in Europe. This arrogance, which I sense again now, is one reason for the deep-seated distrust of Russians toward the West. A “you must kneel” is not a good basis for de-escalation. Nor is the media rhetoric of “we are free” and “they are dictatorial” helpful.
Friends in Moscow say, “We are clearly against war, but we emphasize that the West has repeatedly broken promises since 1989. The neutral intermediate zone between NATO and Russia does not exist.
What actually are “Western” values? Are they Western or global values? How do they differ from “Russian” values?
Christoph Stückelberger: The concept of “Western values” is coming up again now that we feel threatened and are moving closer together. However, one must state quite clearly: before the Ukraine attack, there were deep rifts in “Western” values between majorities and minorities, on issues of sustainability, environmental rights, and more.
A main point of “Russian” values is concern for unity. There is a deep distrust of liberal pluralism. The unity of culture, religion, state, that is quite deeply rooted in Russia. The concern for unity is also deeply rooted in China.
Pluralism leads to conflict, Putin is sure of that. Western democracy is therefore viewed with scepticism. Unity is fragile there because whoever wins elections calls the shots. What is happening in the U.S. at the moment is grist to Russia’s mill: Democracy is polarized, people are fighting each other, a civil war is threatening in the USA. This is no role model, Russia says. Here Europe would have an important function: the Swiss concordance democracy, in which the majority and the minority are represented in one government, is stable.
Plurality means emphasizing the dignity and respect for the otherness of the other. Now, in the last twenty years, I have come to understand more that this model does not work in all countries. There are already good reasons to say that the unity of the people cannot be implemented only through a pluralistic democracy. China is made up of 55 officially recognised ethnic groups, so the government sees itself as the guardian of a unity that is difficult to maintain. Striving for unity and respecting minorities is a very challenging balancing act.
If one can capture anything at all like shared global values, the UN Sustainable Development Goals lend themselves. Sustainability, equality of nations and people, peace, freedom in the service of the community, sovereignty coupled with solidarity: These values can also dock in Russia.
Which sanctions are necessary in the current situation, and which are harmful and ineffective?
Christoph Stückelberger: We have reached a level where there are only losers. Within 10 days Russia became the most sanctioned country in the world, with 5530 sanctions (Castellum.ai database). Putin is under great pressure, but that is not enough to bring him to his knees. There are sanctions with economic costs that we must be prepared to pay. Temporary tough sanctions can be a remedy, but where the population is suffering – including in the West with energy price explosion and arguably increased unemployment – and the conflict is escalating unbearably and academic ties to Russian universities are to be severed, for example, isolation is encouraged. This also drives those into Putin’s arms who until now were still in dialogue with the West.
Bringing Russia to its knees now cannot go well. We have to keep Russia as part of the world order, as difficult as that is for us. Right now, there is a double standard. When Russia invades Ukraine, the world cries out. When the U.S. invaded Afghanistan, when dictators in the Congo, South America and elsewhere came to power through the CIA – it was seen as a victory for the free world. In 2005, even the German Federal Administrative Court called the U.S. war in Iraq illegal under international law. Who had issued sanctions against the USA then? Nobody. Behind it were very aggressive claims to power by a world power. Once again, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine cannot be justified. From an ethical point of view, however, sanctions should also be applied to other aggressors.
What are the approaches to de-escalation from an ethical point of view?
Christoph Stückelberger: The channels of communication must be kept open, that is the most important thing. That includes Russia and the Russians. Where journalists are kicked out and media are stopped, that is of course very difficult.
At the political level, opportunities for concessions must be sought. Simply orienting Ukraine to the West will not bring a solution. Sovereignty is not an isolated value but must be put in relation with other values. Sovereignty must be linked to peace and world community. It must be weighed against other values. It is right not to accept Ukraine into NATO or the EU. A neutral Ukraine would be the better way to peace at the moment and would not exclude an economic orientation towards the West.
Another question is Crimea. It may be better, in the service of cooperation, to accept with resentment that Crimea remains Russian. Ultimately, the question is what is the greater harm. Peace needs substantial concessions on both sides. Russia, of course, must then immediately withdraw from Ukraine.
What role can religions play, and what role can the UN play?
Christoph Stückelberger: Churches must play a role independent of the state. The mediation service of the churches can only be credible if they do not simply adopt state positions uncritically. That is the problem of the Russian Orthodox Church at the moment. There again the idea of unity is difficult. A partnership between state and church means cooperation and, at the same time, critical distance. But this is difficult in the Russian Orthodox Church when it is anchored in the Russian soul. Nevertheless, we must demand what, for example, the World Council of Churches recently did with its critical letter to Patriarch Kirill, in which the WCC clearly rejects Patriarch Kirill’s justification of the invasion. In his response to the WCC, Patriarch Kirill rightly recalls Russia’s security needs, but does not distance himself from the invasion.
On the political level, the Security Council would have to be overhauled with the current system of veto power. If one of the veto powers becomes the aggressor, it should be possible to suspend the veto right for that state. The Security Council would now have to be able to decide without Russia. Otherwise, it will remain blocked. The Vatican and the WCC together could bring such a proposal to the UN. The WCC would then also have to be able to make such a statement without the consent of the local churches, here in Russia, at best, which is almost as difficult in the current rules as blocking in the UN Security Council.
A look into the future: If you look at the conflict in the broader context of the Russia-China connection and the “new era” that China is talking about: Is this a turning point in world politics?
Christoph Stückelberger: I am sceptical about the term “new era.” It is justified for concrete German policy, just as Chancellor Scholz meant it for German policy on Russia. As a general term, it could be a signal back to the Cold War, to a great polarization with an arms race. That, of course, would divert money from sustainability goals to armaments. This polarization must not be allowed to increase further.
China wants to position itself as a mediator; it is not simply taking the Russian side. There are major differences between the two countries. From China’s point of view, the cooperation is a partnership of convenience because China needs Russian raw materials.
The political goals of the two countries are far apart. Russia is revisionist and China talks about ‘Socialism with Chinese Characteristics’. Chinese values are at least as important there as socialist ones. If Russia and China join forces, it will be primarily as a geopolitical alliance against the U.S.
What does that mean ethically? If we want to establish a balance of power in the world, we must take Russia’s and China’s legitimate roles and interests seriously. A stable world order in dynamic balance will only exist with the respect for and involvement of China, Russia, the Middle East, Turkey, but also Europe, the U.S., Africa, the Middle East and South America.
It is ethically not acceptable that power prevails over right. From an ethical perspective, law must limit claims to power. This can work together. The EU also needs strong common values in order not to fall apart. Every community needs common values, and that applies just as much to the global balance. The idea of unity and multilateralism are not mutually exclusive. The idea of unity is directed inward, while multilateralism enables cooperation with the outside world.
Globalization is not egalitarianism. This Western world view from the nineties was bound to fail. Globalization also means recognizing that individual countries can have less pluralism. We have to encourage Russia to stand for unity, but in a fair way in dealing with minorities and abstaining from imperialist and revisionist dreams.
The interview was conducted by journalist Thomas Flügge. Reference: Christoph Stückelberger: Globalance. Ethics Handbook for a World Post-Covid, Geneva, Globethics.net, 2020, free download.