Global Identity and Leadership
Power is often quantified by the perception of others. That is, a person is only powerful because society sees them as such. This concept it no less true on the global scale. Since the dawn of man the world’s superpowers have been in constant conflict attempting to gain the power that is the reverence of the rest of the world. The leaders of these superpowers act as a spearhead. Their identity and image define them as leaders and ultimately their nations as a legitimate international authority. Therefore understanding the actions of those individuals is essential to understanding the impact of their identities on the world’s perception of them, their power, and leadership as a whole. In this article the Crimea Russia conflict will be the context within which the focal point of leadership is analyzed.
The process of attempting to gain global authority may or may not include bloodshed. WWII for example would be an example of a power struggle with unquantifiable casualties, while the Cold War revolved around the perceived strength of two of the world’s superpowers. Russia and the United States relied on technological, economical, and militaristic intimidation for years to effect the opposite’s perception of them. This conflict made the impact of a nation’s image obvious. The “Space Race” is the pinnacle of that idea. With enough fire power to destroy the planet Russia and the United Stated poor resources into landing a man on the moon. But why spend so much on an achievement which has no direct effect on the opponent. The answer is perception. The country that could land a man on the moon was more technologically superior. They has better scientists, better resources, more motivation, and more power. Or so the everyday citizen and the rest of the world believes. John F. Kennedy and Mikhail Gorbachev defined the strength of their respective nations with their leadership. In the same way that a nation’s ability to land a man on the moon first may or may not reflect the supremacy of that country the leader’s ability to command respect through the facade of a powerful identity does not necessarily make that person a great leader, but I digress. It is evident that whether Kennedy or Gorbachev were quality leaders or not both needed to flourish in the stereotype of leadership to survive the Cold War and protect their countries. Over a period of approximately forty years these two nations flexed their militaristic and technological might. Although this trend came to a standstill with the collapse of the Soviet Union there have been a few occasions when international entities have taken an action that causes global tension with the perceived shift of power.
Recently one such occasion took place with Russia’s annexation of Crimea. To fully understand how the events of the past months relate to the leadership and identity of national figures ones must first understand the Russia Ukrainian conflict itself. An article from the New York Times traces the origins of the conflict to immediately after the Sochi Winter Olympics in February 2014. Reportedly Vladimir Putin began conducting covert military operations in the Crimean Peninsula, an autonomous region in Ukraine with a population of approximately two-million people. The Russian forces began seizing key military bases and blockaded Ukrainian ports throughout Crimea. On March 19th Vladimir Putin declared it was officially annexing Crimea into Russia and simultaneously Ukraine pulled its troops out of Crimea and back into the mainland. Tension rose further as Ukrainian and Russian forces culminated on the eastern border between Ukraine and Russia. Pro-Russian demonstrators appeared in eastern Ukraine demanding a referendum like that of the Crimean Peninsula. NATO then became involved and released satellite images revealing the gathering of nearly 40,000 Russian ground and air troops on the Ukrainian border, which had the ability to mobilize in mere hours. Russian flags rose in Eastern cities with the increased activity of pro-Russian activists. Mariupol, Horlivka and Slovyansk, were centers of conflict between Russian commandos and opposition militants. On April 6th these protesters seized control of Ukrainian government buildings in Kharkiv, Luhansk and Donetsk, which is Ukraine’s most populous city. Two days later Ukrainian troops expelled them from a regional administration building in Kharkiv but the progress of pushing back rebel forces slows. In mid-April Vladimir Putin makes one his first bold public moves. To quote the New York Times,
“In public remarks on Thursday, President Vladimir V. Putin asserted Russia’s historical claim to “Novorossiya,” or “New Russia,” a term that refers to a broad area of modern Ukraine that used to be part of the Russian empire. The territory stretches from the border of Moldova in the west to the Russian border in the east, and includes the port city of Odessa to the south and the industrial center of Dnipropetrovsk in the north.” (Wilson Andrews, Joe Burgess, Hannah Fairfield, Bill March, Sergio Pecanha, Archie Tse, Tim Wallace, Derek Watkins, Jeremy White, Karen Yourish, n. pag.)
Essentially through his statement Putin laid claim to a significant portion of Ukraine based on the geopolitical status during the Soviet Era. Rebel demonstration intensified and even with an increased Ukrainian military presence in the East pro-Russian forces slowly began to gain ground. By April 30th twelve cities fell under separatist control. For the next month fighting back and forth continued and the world looked on. International media was soon drawn back to Ukraine with the crash of Malaysian Flight 17. The Ukrainian government stated that several Ukrainian aircraft had been shot down with the continued influx of Russian troops on the border, although Russia discredited any evidence against them and instead blamed international community for not reacting appropriately to the Ukrainian conflict as a whole. As with many news stories the Malaysian flight that was shot down faded out of media circulation and many concluded a rebel soldier shot it down. Over the past four months this conflict has stayed on the backburner of consumer minds, while stories such as Ferguson took precedence. That said, there has not been significant change with the conflict itself since. Rebel forces have continued to gain ground with the help of Russian forces who are still reluctant to admit their involvement. Putin however is eager to congratulate rebels for their progress. A more recent New York Times article states 4,317 citizens and soldiers have been killed since April with a forth of those deaths occurring during the cease fire declared on September 5th. The situation on the ground paints a disorganized and desperate picture for the Ukrainian government which currently relies on a militia comprising of volunteers to withstand the Russian backed rebels. Andrew E. Kramer describes the battleground as being on the “…front lines of a confrontation that carries the potential, at almost any moment, of exploding into a hot new theater in a revived Cold War.” (Kramer, A6) Now that the Ukrainian conflict has been summarized it is easier to see the relevance of how national leaders present themselves to the world in reaction to the explained events. This report will focus on the role of President Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin during the conflict and how they use the public’s understanding of leadership to act in a certain way to maintain power.
The notion of this conflict exploding into a second Cold War only exaggerates the roles of President Obama and Mr. Putin, because as previously discussed the world’s leaders during that era developed an incredible talent for commanding the power of perception. Vladimir Putin very strategically began conducting military operation after the Sochii Winter Olympics when he is known to the world as being welcoming to essentially the rest of the world. He seizes the Crimean Peninsula, which harbors a majority of Russian supporters and only after inciting rebellion in Eastern Ukraine does he begin an open campaign against mainland Ukraine. Putin accomplishes this under the façade that he is protecting the rights of a vulnerable worried Russian speaking people. He also continually rejected the idea that he was aiding the rebellion although a constant flow of Russian munitions and supplies would suggest otherwise. He also quickly shed the blame for Flight 17’s crash when the media began pointing fingers. Vladimir Putin’s strategy is solidify his Identity as the leader of a nation claiming what is rightfully theirs while supporting citizens who want the same. That theory reflects the importance of identity and power on leadership. If society believes in Vladimir Putin’s advertised identity and national power they will likely see him as a valid leader giving him support.
His argument is fairly convincing, although further analyses of Mr. Putin’s reputation and a more realistic motive seems more likely. Many critics would suggest Putin has a broader more sinister goal. One CNN goes as far as to suggest that Russia is attempting to re-instill a new version of the Soviet Union.
“Putin’s broader plan is to recreate some kind of ‘Soviet Union lite,’ a ring of countries under Moscow’s control, with the goal of boosting Russia’s geopolitical standing,” Ulrich Speck, a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Europe think tank in Brussels, writes in an opinion article for CNN.
If Putin gets what he wants in Ukraine, Speck says it augurs badly for other neighboring countries with Russian populations. He points to Moscow’s “de facto-annexation” of the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia after the war between Russia and Georgia in 2008.
“Beyond Ukraine, this conflict is also a defining moment for future Russian foreign policy,” Speck says. “If Moscow succeeds in Ukraine, it will come to the conclusion that it can act like an empire.” (Mullen, n. pag.)
Speck concludes his quote with an unnerving message that if Russia succeeds in conquering Southeastern Ukraine it will become an imperialistic state much like the Soviet Union. Several sources pin Crimea as a key military position because of its naval capabilities in the Black Sea and location in comparison to Europe. An Article from the Global Post suggests that Russia’s motive is to unite the Russian people under a sheet of nationalism from creating Novorossiya. Despite the actual cause for Vladimir Putin’s annexation of Crimea most agree it is not in the best interest of the global population for Russia to take control Ukraine.
As the conflict intensifies President Obama, Like Putin, immediately attempts to create an identity that shapes his leadership. In an article from The Guardian President Obama is quoted saying he discourages military action and plans to solve any issues with political diplomacy while still condemning Russia’s actions.
Putin’s decision to redraw his region’s borders had caused “a moment of testing”, Obama said in a 40-minute speech on his first visit in office to Brussels.”Bigger nations can bully smaller ones to get their way,” he said. “We must never take for granted the progress that has been won here in Europe and advanced around the world, because the contest of ideas continues. And that’s what’s at stake in Ukraine today. Russia’s leadership is challenging truths that only a few weeks ago seemed self-evident, that in the 21st century the borders of Europe cannot be redrawn with force, that international law matters, that people and nations can make their own decisions about their future.” (Traynor, n. pag.)
Obama says in a separate interview that Russia’s actions are illegal and will take political action. He then initiated several sanctions against Russia frustrating Vladimir Putin. Continuing with the theme of Identity and its co-construction with power in leadership President Obama very clearly wants the public to perceive him as a voice for the free world, but does not wish to escalate tensions with Russia militarily. By placing sanctions on Russia it shows the United States’ disapproval without moving from diplomacy to military action. Because of President Obama’s strong identity and power as President of the United States the world sees him as a strong leader, at least in the respect of foreign affairs.
Far from Putin’s or Obama’s strong identity and power co-constructed leadership, Ukraine’s government exemplifies the importance of both. Because the government is still new and developing it has no real identity and the current economic state leaves it without much influence or power. The stereotype of leadership is not met and therefore a leader hasn’t risen to lead the Ukrainian people in an inspiring way. Whether wrong or right both President Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin know how to present themselves in a way that demands respect to meet the stereotype of leadership.
It is evident that the co-construction of identity and power are what create the perception of a quality leader in the eyes of the public. In most cases this stereotype of leadership may be countered with numerous important leadership qualities such as sociability, or charisma. However on the global scale because public perception is essentially power the stereotype of leadership unfortunately is what is most effective in foreign policy. A leader of that caliber’s power is defined by their nation’s power (economic, political, military) while they define their identity themselves. This combination is what creates an effective international leader. In a situation like the Cold War or the Crimean Conflict the presence to two powerful leaders who have differing identities can create a dangerous situation. From a Christian prospective the United States should encourage peace among the Ukrainians and Russians, although that outcome seems near to impossible. In a time when such a large amount of responsibility is placed in the hands of a few the collectives’ opinion of their leadership is ever important. Understanding how these leaders shape their Identities and manage the power entrusted in them can not only give insight into the geopolitical spectrum but also leadership as a whole. The struggle in Crimea and the actions of involved countries in years to come is a prime example of how leadership affects the world and how the world affects leadership.
Works Cited
Andrews Wilson, Burgess Joe, Fairfield Hannah, March Bill, Pecanha Sergio, Tse Archie, Wallace Tim, Watkins Derek, White Jeremy, Yourish Karen. “Ukraine Crisis in Maps A visual guide to the continuing conflict.” The New York Post Online-Only. n.d. n.pag. Web. 12 November 2014
Fiefer, Gregory. “Why Russia really wants Crimea.” Global Post Online-Only. n.d. n.pag. Web. 9 March 2014
Harness, Tiffany. “Explaining the Crimea disagreement” The Washington Post Online Only. n.d. n.pag. Web. 24 March 2014
Kramer, Andrew E. “On Ukraine Front Line, Sniper Fire and Shelling Leave Cease-Fire in Tatters.” Europe: The New York Times Company (2014): A6. Web. 27 November 2014
Mullen, Jethro. “Up to Speed: What you need to know about the Russia-Ukraine standoff” CNN Online-Only (2014): n. pag. Web. 4 March 2014
Traynor, Ian. “Barack Obama: no cold war over Crimea.” The Guardian Online-Only. n.d. n.pag. Web. 26 March 2014