Putin and Russia's greatest 'contribution' to history

Thirty years, or a whole generation, have passed since the Cold War. The post-Cold War generation grew up in a new environment of modern civilisation and thriving global trade, and might be unfamiliar with the Cold War's harrowing history.

At the heart of the Cold War was the ideological and geopolitical rivalry between the East and the West. The West adhered to modern democratic capitalism, while the Soviet Union held fast to traditional centralised socialism.

The geopolitical competition was mostly concentrated in Eurasia and its surrounding areas. A few scattered hot wars also occurred during the Cold War, such as the Korean War, Vietnam War and Afghan War.

The Cold War may have ended, but reflections on its lessons have never ceased, and there remain questions and debates over key issues. For example, was the dissolution of the Soviet Union due to internal or external factors, and was it inevitable or a coincidence?

The Soviet Union lost the Cold War, but does that necessarily mean the US won? Was there a clash of cultures alongside the ideological tussle?

Meanwhile, events did not unfold in a straight line - sometimes it took a detour and sometimes it could even backtrack. Russia and its president Vladimir Putin have started "Cold War 2.0", reviving an all-out confrontation with the West and the modern international community, with the blatant invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine in a localised hot war.

The United Nations (UN) held two votes in March and April, whereby a majority of the countries denounced Russia's invasion and approved suspending Russia's membership in the UN Human Rights Council respectively.

Putin and Russia's greatest "contribution" to history is in answering some major questions and issues of the past, through real action and providing a vivid case study for today's world and the new generation.

After the Cold War, world leaders and observers were optimistic about world peace, because there would be "no war between democracies". Looking at the past 30 years, indeed there have been no large-scale wars between democratic countries. Then how did wars and conflicts come about?

In 1990, Iraq's Saddam Hussein attempted to seize and annex Kuwait; in 2001, Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda launched the September 11 terrorist attacks on the US; in 2014, Putin annexed the Ukrainian territory of the Crimean peninsula by force. Now, Putin outrageously sent troops to invade Ukraine, which proves again that Russia's democratic rule of law exists only in name.

With the separation of powers and checks and balances within a democracy, decisions on war are hardly dictated by individuals or a small circle of people. Instead, there should be ample room for rational debate and space for manoeuvre to correct mistakes.

At the same time, democracies - with their republican and consultative institutions - have become more adept at diplomatic negotiations when faced with foreign disputes and controversies, rather than resorting to force.

Putin has also revealed three truths for the world: Firstly, the development of purely economic and trade relations between states cannot prevent or resolve a war. On the contrary, in the absence of modern values and civilised consensus, economic and trade resources can also be "weaponised", exacerbating the dispute and conflict between countries to the point of bare knives and guns, as Russia is doing today. To put it simply, money alone is far from enough; there has to be a consensus of values and the guarantee of civility in order to achieve peaceful development and peace.

Second, a strong government does not equate to a strong state. Or rather, the strength of a powerful modern state comes from a limited government and a developed civil society. Over the years, Russia has continually elevated Putin and his government, and they have only grown stronger, harshly cracking down on all alternative political views within the country and hitting out strongly in external disputes. However, can such a country truly be considered strong?

Russia's economic performance has been in the doldrums in recent years. The war between Russia and Ukraine has shown that Russia's military and overall strength have fallen to the level of a third-rate country.

Third, civilisations have different levels of development and generational gaps, and this is mainly manifested in their fundamentals and core values. Countries cannot solely focus on the uniqueness and characteristics of their own civilisations while ignoring these gaps at the core level.

For example, in the current Russian society and political culture, no matter how much is said about Eastern Orthodox teachings, the Tsarist tradition, the geopolitical interests of Eurasia, the Third Way, etc., at the end of the day, within its civilisational and institutional core, how much of it is about the people, their rights and their choice? This is the key factor that determines the level of a civilisation, and what divides traditional culture from modern civilisation.

In short, Putin and Russia's current exasperation has jolted the international community out of their comforts, setting them on alert while uniting them to take action, all for the new consensus: modernisation has not yet succeeded, and the whole world still needs to work towards it.

Related: Lessons from Ukraine: Russia might fall into decline by going against global sentiment | Will China condemn Russia over reports of war crimes in Ukraine? | How the Ukraine war will reshape the EU's approach to China and Indo-Pacific | The Russia-Ukraine war has accentuated the democratic-autocratic divide | Lessons from Russia-Ukraine war: The UN of 1945 must be reformed | Neither will submit: Why the Russia-Ukraine war will be the cruellest since World War II | When a country needs to choose between realism and idealism