Deconstructing Russophobia: Western decline and lessons for Africa's transformation

________________

OPINION

By Michael Kakooza, PhD (Wales)

“Well, I think economic sanctions are a very important step. Identify these kleptocrats and -- look, Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country. Its kleptocracy, its corruption, it's a nation that's really only dependent upon oil and gas for their economy. And so economic sanctions are important.”

Senator John McCain (R-AZ, 1987-2018), State of the Union Interview, CNN, 16 March 2014

"The Western media are in a state that can be described as frenzy, changing into full madness: for three years, they have been reporting that Russia is in isolation, and today they saw the red carpet laid to greet the Russian president in the United States."

Maria Zakharova, Spokeswoman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Russian Federation, on Telegram, 15 August, 2025.

Introduction

Senator McCain’s description of Russia as “a gas station masquerading as a country” may, at the most charitable, be seen as a reluctant acknowledgement of that country’s unique natural resource endowment.

However, the use of the word “masquerade”, quickly disabuses one of the generosity of thought. To further buttress his mocking and condescending approach, McCain resorts to morally-loaded judgments, kleptocracy and corruption, to claim the moral/ ethical superiority of the USA over Russia. 

However, a brief review of Corporate USA’s ethical performance, as seen in the scandals of Enron, the Lehmann Brothers, and the American subprime mortgage crisis, among others, suggests that McCain was only sounding out and projecting the anguish of a guilt-ridden Western civilizational soul.

The psycho-analytic concept of projection, as first introduced by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), describes the defence mechanism that works by distancing negative experiences (feelings of guilt, fear, and anxiety) from oneself and attributing them to others. On the face of it, projection focuses on the externalised other, but is, in fact, about the internal state of psychological imbalance of the suffering individual.  It is a psychotic condition expressed, in its more extreme forms, as a paranoid form of denial of reality.  

Robert S. Robins and Jerrold M. Post (1997) identify the following seven elements of paranoia: extreme suspiciousness—“things are not what they seem to be”. Centrality—“the belief that the paranoid himself is the target of malevolent intent”.

Grandiosity—“he knows the truth and conveys a sense of contempt for those so foolish as to differ”.

Hostility—“generally hostile attitude toward the world”. Fear of loss of autonomy—“constantly wary of attempts by a superior force or by outside individuals to impose their will upon him, and he manifests an exaggerated independence”.

Projection—“to presume that internal states or changes are due to external causes. The paranoid projector is concerned not with the observable obvious but with the hidden motives of others that are behind the observable. The projection is a compromise with reality. . .”. Delusional thinking—“false beliefs held in the presence of strong contradictory evidence”.

It is significant to note that projection is identified as an integral part of paranoia.  It is a type of psychosis that not only operates at the level of an individual, but can be escalated to describe a civilizational pathology, that is, the terminal decline of a civilisation. 

Agnieszka Kasińska-Metryka and Rafał Miernik (2013) broadly define political paranoia as “reaction to events, facts or the way it is seen by individuals or groups.”

Richard Hofstadter (1916-1970) argued a cogent case for an unbroken chain of conspiracy theories in documented US history. He observed the following about what he called the “paranoid spokesman”:

He is always manning the barricades of civilisation. He constantly lives at a turning point. … As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. … Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated-if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention.

This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid's sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.… It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts a projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him.

In this four-part article, I intend to contribute to broadening the focus of the current debate about Africa’s present and future direction by exploring Russophobia as one particular Western paranoid projection of the terminal civilizational condition. It will be argued that Russophobia has nothing to do with the Russians as a people and/ or nation, despite the lexical reference, but rather, that it unmasks the pathological civilizational condition in the West, symptomized by uncertainty, fear, anxiety, cynicism, pessimism and a destructive culturicidal bent. 

Accordingly, Part 1 will focus on challenging the existing Western-centred framing of the African ideological debate, and this will be juxtaposed with definitions of Western Russophobia; Part II will explore critical markers of Western civilizational decline; Part III will explore selected manifestations of Russophobia and how these are expressive of this decline; and Part IV will seek to draw out lessons from Western Russophobia for Africa to consider in order to reframe its attempts positively to construct a fit-for-purpose continental meta-narrative.

Disclaimer: The author pursued and completed his graduate education in the West, for which he remains ever grateful, is a practising Roman Catholic, and an ardent fan of Victorian English literature.  The article is not informed by hostility or aversion to the West as a complex human and cultural reality, but rather is intellectually engaged and broadly focuses its critical attention on charting the trajectory and influence of Western-originating ideas and ideologies on Africa’s transformation debate in the present and for the future. 

Part 1: Africa’s Ideological Fixation with the West Vs Western Russophobia

Preliminary Observations

The robust rejection of French neo-colonial pretensions by the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), namely, Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali, is the latest in a series of African politico-economic stratagems to chart the way ahead about the future of the African continent, in the ongoing debate about Africa’s Renaissance, or the emergence of the African century. 

This debate first assumed an ideological and structured focus in the emergence of African nationalist and trade unionist movements during the colonial period, to seek to unshackle and free Africa from the stranglehold of Western colonialism (and its neocolonial reconfigurations).

The dominant thrust of the ongoing debate about Africa’s current and future progress, development and transformation continues to engage ideologically with the historical experience of Western-imposed colonialism.  Western colonialism located its moral justification within and drew its ethical compass from a then-uncontested and privileged metanarrative of Western civilisation.

For the purpose of this article, and paraphrasing from François Lyotard (1981) to whom the term’s origin is owed, a metanarrative is defined as an overarching story that provides, contextualizes and legitimizes a comprehensive framework for the propagation of a particular unifying world view, knowledge sources, specifications of culture, moral and ethical standards, and determination of what is foreign, undesirable and evil.

It is important to emphasise that in order for the metanarrative to be credible and sustainable, it must not only suggest within itself a fundamental focus and unity of related narratives, but should also be actively championed by the establishment. The story of Kintu and Nambi may then be interpreted as one culturally-sanctioned metanarrative about the origins of the Ganda society. 

The metanarrative of Western civilisation that informed and directed Western colonial enterprise claimed an ideological and moral consensus based on four pillars.  The first pillar was the ancient Graeco-Roman civilizational legacy as the fundamental basis for the Western politico-legal and cultural order; the second was the Judeo-Christian spiritual heritage; the third was the emergence of rational and humanist philosophies of thought; and the fourth, concerned the articulation of the secular doctrines of human rights.

A sense of what I described above as the uncontested and privileged metanarrative of Western civilisation was captured in the poem, The White Man’s Burden (1899), written by Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936), a celebrated Englishman of letters and the first to be awarded the Nobel Prize for literature in the English language. The following excerpt is the second of the seven-stanza poem:

Take up the White Man's burden—

    In patience to abide

To veil the threat of terror

    And check the show of pride;

By open speech and simple,

    An hundred times made plain,

To seek another's profit,

    And work another's gain.

It is helpful to recall that the poem was written, not only in the actual context of British imperial rule, but also at the precise historical moment when the United States was fighting Spain over the latter’s colony of the Philippines, which the US was soon to be successfully annexe. The lines of the second stanza literally drip with moral sentiments, unmistakably evoking a messianic mission, a call to valour in the face of danger, and self-sacrifice in altruistic service for others.

Though the overwhelming majority of what had been colonial African States gained political independence during the 60s and 70s, Western hegemonic influence continues to dominate the African continent and shape its direction. 

This is evidenced, among others, by directly and’ or indirectly Western masterminded political/ military interventions that determine the acceptability of the ‘democratic’ credentials of the regime in power, the development cooperation framework premised on the policies of the Bretton Woods institutions that perpetuates economic dependency, cultural domination through the soft power exerted by Western universities that contribute to creating a largely conformist African intellectual elite, the heavily-capitalised Hollywood industry that not only proposes and innovates the parameters of artistic endeavour to be upheld and imitated, but also constructs historical fictions, and the media technology infrastructure that develops and disseminates monochromatic narratives about Africa, from which authentic African voices of dissent are more often than not excluded.

Paradoxically, however, during the same time, the privileged metanarrative of Western civilisation, with its concomitant dimensions of Western culture and Western values, was, and continues to be, caught up in a state of ideological subversion and moral freefall.

The historical irony is that at the zenith of Western imperialism during the inter-war period (1918-1939), when most of Africa was in colonial subjugation to Western imperial metropolises, the credibility of the meta-narrative of Western civilization was already exhibiting indicators of a moribund and terminal condition.  

It was an eye-opener for many returning colonial African war veterans to have witnessed the spectacle of white people fighting among themselves and killing each other, while the same white people laid claims to a messianic calling and moral superiority over the colonised.

In the 21st century, Africa has to grapple with Western mediatised representations of the Continent framed around the ideologically and morally invested catchwords of human rights, corruption, poverty, crime and disease. 

Whether by way of aggressive opposition, calculated resistance or tactical accommodation, Africa’s ideological engagement with what had served as an uncontested and privileged metanarrative of Western civilisation not only imprisons the debate about Africa’s present and future within Western paradigms of thought but, more significantly, serves to centre and perpetuate an alleged credibility, stability and integrity to that metanarrative. 

Russophobia and the Alaska Summit

The Alaska Summit between President Trump of the USA and Putin of the Russian Federation:

A Sample Selection of Western Media Headlines

Before the Summit

New York Times

“When Trump Meets Putin, Anything Could Happen”

The U.S. president is pushing to end the war in Ukraine, but analysts say the Russian leader could turn a hastily planned meeting to his advantage.

By Michael Crowley (12 August 2025)

CNN

“Here’s what Putin really wants from Trump – and it’s not peace in Ukraine”

Analysis by Matthew Chance, CNN Chief Global Affairs Correspondent (14 August 2025)

The Independent (UK)

How Team Trump’s terrifying weaknesses play into Putin’s hands at the Alaska summit

Trump is flying to Anchorage for his meeting with Putin with a team which has no grasp on facts, or truth, and therefore no grasp on reality either, writes world affairs editor Sam Kiley (15 August 2025)

Radio Free Europe

Radio Liberty

“Anxiety Grips Kyiv And Brussels Ahead Of Trump-Putin Summit In Alaska”

By Todd Prince (15 August 2025).

The Washington Post (USA)

“How Putin, ex-KGB officer, will seek to sway Trump at Alaska summit”

By Catherine Belton, Francesca Ebel and Ellen Francis. (15 August 2025)


After the Summit

World News

Trump left the high-stakes meet with little more than a commitment to meet again. Bolton said that Trump "didn't come away with anything, except more meetings," while Putin "has gone a long way to reestablishing the relationship, which I always believed was his key goal."

Edited by: Anushree Jonko, 16 August 2025

TIME

Why Putin must be thrilled with the result of the Alaska summit

(World) Ukraine

By Simon Shuster, Senior Correspondent, 16 August 2025.

Independent (UK)

“Now we know just how useless Trump’s Alaska summit really was ... to everyone but Vladimir Putin"

By Holly Baxter, 16 August 2025

‘Meet the Press’, NBC

“What a Great Day for Russia”

US Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday joined NBC’s Meet the Press with Kristen Welker to discuss President Trump’s disastrous Alaska summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin. (17 August 2025).

Al Jazeera

“The Alaska summit was a spectacular distraction”

Trump needed a break from the infighting in MAGA, so he decided an inconsequential meeting with Putin would do the trick.

Belén Fernández, Al Jazeera columnist, (17 August 2025)


Given the near-maniacal ideological obsessions of the mainstream Western media establishment and its sycophantic servitude to the political establishment, the recently-concluded summit in Anchorage, Alaska, in the USA, between President Trump and President Putin became a mediatised spectacle of overhype and disinformation, emotional manipulation, shrill militarism and thunderous bravado. 

On the face of it, the media reporting circus purported to suggest a unified and credible anti-Russian Western front.  However, beyond the superficialities, what was exposed was fear, uncertainty and powerlessness in the face of the unknown dynamics.   Evidently, the concerns of the mainstream Western media establishment were not for a historically just breakthrough in the Ukraine War, and the opportunity for a secure and lasting peace for humanity. 

Rather, the mainstream Western media's focus was on the achievement of a one-upmanship over President Putin in order to salvage the discredited Western notions of military supremacy, ideological coherence, and moral superiority.  It is no wonder that terms like ‘winning’, ‘deal’ and ‘chess’ were liberally tossed about in the press write-ups. 

What was important for the mainstream Western media was not the welcome revival of what had become the lost art of diplomacy under the Biden Administration, and its satellite governments in the leading European capitals, but the humiliation of Putin and all that he was deemed to embody ideologically.  

A bizarrely self-righteous abhorrence of Putin, recreated as a dark phantom of Western Russophobic imagination, provides the key to understanding the type and tenor of mainstream Western media.  The extreme media Russophobic build-up to the Summit was to be swiftly followed by the health-shattering anticlimactic outcome of a diplomatic triumph of mutual esteem between the two leaders.

Russophobia: A Diagnosis

Oleg Borisovich Nemensky has described Russophobia as follows:

“Russophobia is an ideology of Western origin, asserting the evil nature of the Russian people, which is endowed with some unique properties that determine its craving for everything vile. Russians seem incapable of everything that constitutes human dignity among other peoples, and this is explained genetically and culturally and historically.

The logic of Russophobia is based on the opposition of Russian and European as bad and good. In connection with these properties, Russians as a people are seen as fundamentally hostile to the West, and Russia as an essentially different, alien civilization.

It appears to be an existential enemy of the West and everything that is perceived in Western culture as specifically ‘Western’ — freedom, democracy, human rights, etc. From this, conclusions are drawn about the need to fight Russia and destroy everything that constitutes Russianness — physical or cultural, depending on specific interpretations”.

Anticipating the objection that the above definition is from an evidently partisan Russian source, I also reproduce the following description of Russophobia from a respected Norwegian scholar and media personality, Glenn Diesen, in good standing within the Western academic establishment:

“Russophobia is largely the result of propaganda. There are enough rational reasons to be afraid of Russia, although Russophobia is understood exclusively as an irrational fear of Russia and Russians”

Though the above two definitions of Russophobia tell us much about Western ideological thinking, they are bewilderingly bereft of factual information on Russia or the Russians. The fluidity of perceptions are alleged to substitute for the solidity of empirical anthropological knowledge. 

Another facet of the non-factual basis of Russophobia is in negative stereotyping.  Researching this topic, the Danish Peter Ulf Moller (1999) identified the following eight negative stereotypical portrayals of the Russians, namely:

1) the Russians are strong and resistant; 2) they are ignorant and backward; 3) they are superstitious and believe superficially; 4) they are coarse and have no manners; 5) they are submissive and live like slaves; 6) they are Semantics and Anti-Russian Newspeak corrupters and liars; 7) they are dirty and stink; and 8) they have a penchant for immoderate drinking.

Regarding the scope of Russophobia engaged in by the Western media, Srdja Trifković (2014) argues that it seeks to be all-comprehensive about aspects of Russian public life:

But the Western press does not limit itself to geopolitics or issues of war and peace, in its effort to warp the public image of Russia. Rather, concurrently, it carries on a disparaging discussion of a wide gamut of Russian policies. Not a single aspect of public life escapes the caustic attention of the media: education is necessarily “ethnocentric,” immigration “restrictive,” religion “discriminating” vis-à-vis the non-Orthodox, corruption “rampant,” the condition of homosexuals “appalling,” the legal system “inefficient and corrupt.”

Taking all the above into consideration, Russophobia, as argued above, is not simply that it is of Western origin, but, even more significantly, it is my argument that it is a paranoid projection of the Western ideological and moral condition. 

Russophobia highlights the debilitating situation of a narcissistic and destructive culture of self-absorption, negative judgmentalism, oppression from moral anxiety and guilt, erosion of trust in public institutions, and failure to meaningfully engage with difference and the other. 

Russophobia provides the ideologized West with a distancing mechanism with which to live out cultural myths that have been emptied of substance and context. Russophobia constitutes a projection of the collapse of the stabilities and certainties of what had been, for a historical time, and certainly throughout the period of its imperial dominance, the uncontested and privileged metanarrative of Western civilisation.

Russophobia is really about Western self-exposure, rather than with the description or condition of the Russians and their society. The West unmasks itself through Russophobia, via a technique that cultural critics have described as the use of an enabling negative.  This means that the West has been reduced to describing itself negatively, that is, in terms of what it claims not to be.  The West claims to be Western because it is not Russian. 

Rather than articulate an affirming and credible description of Western ideological and moral stabilities and certainties, a projected rejection of or hatred for the ideological phantoms called Russia and the Russians becomes the moral and ideological basis for Western civilizational pretensions. 

This, I argue, is not a positively argued position of moral strength, rather, it is one grounded negatively in an existential crisis.  In its quest for Continental transformation, Africa should clearly recognise this and critically take note accordingly.

The writer is a consultant/trainer in strategic management

Read Part 2 of this four-part series on Monday - You won't want to miss it!