The West's Image Of Vladimir Putin As An Untrustworthy 'Monster' Is Getting In The Way Of Peace In Ukraine

(MENAFN- The Conversation) Ukraine and its western allies are losing ground in the war against Russia. A possible Russian victory will be costly and is likely to be followed by years of exhausting low-intensity conflict while the country remains ostracised from the western economic system.

So, all parties fighting in Ukraine need badly a diplomatic solution. The meeting between Trump and Putin in Alaska has reopened this possibility. Yet many in the west remain wary that a viable solution can be reached. What motivates this scepticism? An important reason is that many western leaders simply don't trust the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. They believe that whatever agreement is reached to end the fighting in Ukraine, Putin will breach it when this suits his interests.

Many western analysts fear that stopping the fight in Ukraine will allow Russia to replenish its offensive capabilities to be better placed to relaunch an attack soon. Meanwhile, many reason that continuing the war will weaken Russia while giving European countries the time to rearm , boosting their deterrent power and – in the eventuality that Russia launches attacks on other European countries – allowing Europe to react energetically.

These strategic considerations are important. Yet there are also profound emotional factors that lead many politicians and journalists – backed by big chunks of public opinion – to be wary or sceptical of any deal with Putin.

This attitude stems from the moral principle that compromising with an evil person is deeply wrong. Putin is perceived by many in the west as the quintessential incarnation of a bloodthirsty tyrant. The former USA president Joe Biden repeatedly referred to Putin in these terms, calling him variously a “monster” , a “crazy SOB” , and – even before the Russian invasion of Ukraine – a “killer” with“no soul” . European leaders have often echoed this judgement, like the French president, Emmanuel Macron, who recently called Putin a “predator” and an“ogre at our doorsteps” .

As psychological research has shown , the prospect of striking a deal with people deemed to be evil often triggers strong moral repulsion. Any potential compromise is perceived as morally disgusting, since it signals that appeasers are willing to sacrifice their moral integrity in exchange for material benefits. Most recently, this moral stance has driven various commentators to blame the US president, Donald Trump, for giving Putin a red-carpet welcome to their recent summit in Alaska.

It is common to draw a historical parallel between Vladimir Putin and Adolf Hitler . The option of compromising with Hitler, as Europe's leading statesmen did in the now notorious Munich conference in 1938 , is regarded today not only as strategically naïve, but also as morally deplorable.

Incarnations of evil such as Hitler, the argument goes, do not leave space for compromise – only for complete destruction and unconditional surrender. Since, according to this view, Putin and Hitler are of the same stock, the only acceptable result for the war in Ukraine is Putin's unconditional surrender – or something as close as possible to this outcome.

Both sides need to listen

The moral drive to avoid compromises with evil people is part of human nature. Yet rigidly applying this principle to geopolitical conflicts like the war in Ukraine is dangerous. A well-established rule in the conflict resolution literature is that the path to peace requires that the opposing parties abandon rigid views of good and evil and accept that the adversary's perspective is at least worth listening to. So far, the west has made little effort in this direction when it comes to Russia's motives for making war on Ukraine.

Will Donald Trump's diplomatic efforts be more useful in securing a peace deal in Ukraine than ostracising the Russian leader? EPA/Sergey Bobylev/Sputnik/Kremlin pool

It's hard to see what the west expect by continuing to paint Putin as some kind of devil, while Russian elites, for their part, express similar views about western leaders . Something akin to the endemic conflict between Palestinians and Israeli is a worrying, but not unrealistic, scenario. In that case, too, many view the enemy as an incarnation of evil to be annihilated, portraying any compromise as morally intolerable .

The west's stance on this, to some extent, may even be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Depicting Putin as Hitler risks being interpreted by Russians as signalling that, for westerners, destroying Putin is the only option available. This may lead Russians to conclude that the west is not serious about diplomacy and that, if an agreement is struck, the west will continue to harbour the desire to smash Putin, thus being ready to breach the agreement at will.

Russian leaders may in turn downplay diplomacy and be ready to cheat if any agreement emerges. So, it cannot be ruled out that, in part, Putin is devious on Ukraine because he sees how the west is accustomed to portraying him.

The west can rightly blame Putin for his intransigent approach. But if Putin has left little room for reconciliation, the west has not done much in this respect either. Western leaders should consider whether adopting a more nuanced portrayal of Putin in their public discourse could help. Abandoning an excessively moralistic attitude towards Putin would signal to Russians that the west believes that an agreement is possible and is committed to respect it.

This, in turn, may encourage Russians to follow the same path. While building mutual trust is going to be hard and take time, it may be the only viable solution for an enduring peace in Ukraine and Europe. Building mutual trust will require to acknowledge that reaching an agreement with Putin is not morally wrong.

MENAFN02092025000199003603ID1110008204