The 77th session of the United Nations General Assembly is entering a period of debate. Foremost on the agenda is the Russian invasion of Ukraine. To date, 5,500 Ukrainian civilians and 9,000 military personnel have died. The Russian military death toll stands at 25,000. Over 6 million Ukrainians are now refugees or individuals who leave their homeland to escape violence and war; 100,000 of which have settled in the United States. Let’s take a few minutes to see how sociology can be used to explain what — or, more accurately, who — is behind this war and, in the process, gain insights into this ongoing geopolitical issue.
The jumping-off point for our analysis is Russian President Vladimir Putin. At 69 years of age, the president, in seeming perpetuity, is the dominant force behind this ongoing war. In 2014, Russia forcefully annexed a region of Ukraine known as Crimea as a rebuff of economic overtures from the European Union (EU). In response, the Ukrainian government leaned into its EU ties and sought a relationship with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO is an alliance of 38 member countries, including the United States, and President Putin found the organization and its mission to protect member states a threat. As the war with Ukraine continues, some have even argued that President Putin’s ultimate goal isn’t simply control over Ukraine but the reestablishment of the Russian Empire. Other countries that Putin has threatened over their relationship with NATO include Finland and Sweden.
So, how does one use sociology to analyze this situation? Arguably, the Thomas Theorem is a good place to start. The Thomas Theorem contends that if we think something is real, then it is indeed real to us. If Putin perceives a threat from the West and the NATO alliance, then it is just as good as an actual threat. With this in mind, political leaders and pundits have begun to question Putin’s sanity. Why else would someone go to war over the choices of another country that they have no claim to or control over? Does he really perceive the choices of sovereign nations like Finland, Sweden, and Ukraine to be a threat to his master status as president, the social position central to his identity, in Russia? Only he (or his therapist!) can answer that question. Lending credence to the questions of sanity, or at the very least paranoia, is his use of incredibly long tables when meeting with members of his own cabinet or foreign leaders. Such images help us understand the larger social context or the environment of the interaction.
Of course, what we see of President Putin must be considered through the lens of dramaturgy, the theory that we are all actors on the stage of life, and as such, we divide our world based on what we let others see or not see of us. Dramaturgy consists of three parts: 1) front stage, a person’s public life that they reveal to the world; 2) back stage, a person’s private world that they choose not to reveal; and 3) impression management, an effort to control the impression others have of us. Putin’s front stage is a carefully curated display of hyper-masculinity. This has included images of him on horseback, working out in the gym, demonstrating martial arts skills, posing with a tiger, and doing other “manly” things. From his perspective, an audience who perceives a leader’s strength is less likely to question the leader’s choices.
