Russia Is Engaged in the Long Game
Russia Is Engaged in the Long Game
Time horizons differ among different cultures.
Russia’s possible plans for a military invasion of Ukraine have dominated American media outlets for the past two weeks. Each has reported continually on troop movements and positioning, and speculation of an invasion date dominates.
The situation escalated quickly in the past couple days. Russian President Vladimir Putin recognized separatist claims in eastern Ukraine, and, in response, U.S. President Biden announced sanctions intended to cripple the Russian economy.
The speeches themselves revealed distinct styles of communication.
The majority of Putin’s speech included a detailed account of the history of Ukraine and the Soviet Union—from essentially the Russian Revolution of 1917 to the present. He used this context to close with a formal recognition of the sovereignty of two states in Ukraine: the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic.
Biden’s speech focused on the immediate repercussions of these actions, both for Russia and, to some extent, for the United States.
The two presidents spoke from different perspectives. Putin presented a justification for long-term action in the region. Biden issued short-term repercussions.
When explored through a cultural lens, this tracks with existing research.
In his cultural dimensions research, Geert Hofstede explained that cultures have different orientations to time, from long term to short term.1
Long-term orientation reflects the extent to which a society values concepts that relate to the future. These societies tend to be more pragmatic. They believe truth, good, and evil depend on situation, context, and time. Long-term fulfillment is key.
The opposite, short-term orientation, suggests a cultural value for both the past and the present, which results in respecting tradition, fulfilling social obligations, and social hierarchies. Immediate gratification and immediate results are valued over long-term results.
According to this research, Russia is among the most long-term oriented countries in the world. The United States is comparatively short-term.
While Putin focused on the past in his speech, he did so from purely pragmatic reasons.
He did not intend to evoke time-honored traditions related to Ukraine or Russia. He mentioned a common cultural bond among the two nations only in passing.
Instead, he provided a factual, straightforward accounting of history with one intention: to logically justify his current actions.
At times, Putin revealed this orientation to the future.
While reflecting on Stalin’s dictatorship, he said,
“And yet, it is a great pity that the fundamental and formally legal foundations of our state were not promptly cleansed of the odious and utopian fantasies inspired by the revolution, which are absolutely destructive for any normal state. As it often happened in our country before, nobody gave any thought to the future.”
Later, when discussing the platform of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, a platform of citizenship he describes in detail as fatal, he laments, “Wasn’t it clear what these formulas and decisions would lead to?”
Putin uses the past to explain, justify, and prepare for the future.
This approach contrasts with President Biden, whose speech reflects an approach natural for a short-term oriented culture like the United States.
Both in reviewing the actions of Russia, and the resulting sanctions, Biden focuses on a short-time horizon. It is clear that the measures he is announcing are for this moment and subject to change. He even clearly reveals his orientation of a clear concept of truth, good, and evil that is not subject to situation, context, or time, stating, “Who in the Lord’s name does Putin think gives him the right to declare new so-called countries on territory that belonged to his neighbors?”
Biden also speaks to the short-term impact for U.S. citizens, something completely absent from Putin’s speech.
“We are closely monitoring energy supplies for any disruption. We’re executing a plan in coordination with major oil-producing consumers and producers toward a collective investment to secure stability and global energy supplies.
This will be — this will blunt gas prices. I want to limit the pain the American people are feeling at the gas pump. This is critical to me.”
Professional writers crafted both presidents’ speeches carefully to sway audiences in their respective countries. To that end, the speeches reflect the cultural orientations of the citizens.
Given Russia’s strong cultural orientation towards the future, one expects that forecasting Putin’s next moves will require a focus on long-term goals.
It reminds one of chess—a game that Russia has dominated for the past 100 years.
Players position pieces not for the immediate benefit, but for the benefit several moves later. The player who can better anticipate the other’s actions—who can force them into short-term moves—will win.
Now, the world watches.
https://hi.hofstede-insights.com/national-culture
Really insightful commentary on the historical context for their communication styles — thanks Chris!