Countries behaviour / mentality versus countries ruling class direction; Economic constraints vs Ideas

 

Following Russia’s war against Ukraine, public debate has tended to crystallize into two major narratives—pro-Russian and pro-Ukraine. Some argue that a third, “neutral,” narrative exists. Yet when examined closely, this position often aligns with the pro-Russian stance, framing the invasion as an internal matter that others should not interfere with.

However, this debate is not what struck me most. What deserves attention is how mass media routinely speaks of “countries” as if they were unified actors with singular opinions. In reality, these narratives represent the positions of ruling classes—political elites, governing parties, and decision-makers—who set national direction. If we look at history, we are reminded that large political shifts rarely begin as grand designs. Instead, they often emerge from small actions or failures to act, first by individuals, then by small groups, growing gradually like a snowball until they produce changes that affect the lives of millions.

It becomes clear, then, that a country’s actions never reflect the unanimous will of its people. In democracies, with all their imperfections, citizens truly exert direct influence only once every four or five years during elections. Between those moments, elected officials—sometimes ill-suited for their roles—form alliances, renegotiate priorities, and drift away from the agendas they originally championed. These subtle deviations, accumulated over time, can result in significant shifts in national policy or identity.

Societies can react to these shifts in two ways. They may recognize the danger and mobilize in protest, or they may become distracted, complacent, or numbed, allowing the changes to proceed unchecked. In the latter case, a political “monster” begins to grow—an emergent structure of laws, precedents, and normative shifts that appears harmless at first but becomes increasingly powerful. Once fully formed, it may be too entrenched to stop. History offers many examples: the chain of miscalculations leading to World War I, the incremental rise of totalitarian regimes before World War II, and more recently, the developments that culminated in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

We can observe similar dynamics in contemporary domestic issues as well. For instance, the growing debate over the legitimacy of property taxation within today’s fiscal environment illustrates how seemingly minor administrative or legal decisions can accumulate into systems that many later view as burdensome or unjust. What begins quietly, almost imperceptibly, can evolve into a structure with deep social consequences.

More often than we would like, we hear about economic constraints—usually in the form of sanctions—being used as tools to pressure a state or leader into changing behavior. This is especially relevant today in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine. Consider, for example, the industrial capacity required to produce weapons and sustain a military campaign. The war appears to have been initiated largely for ideological reasons: a clash between the worldview of Russia’s leadership and what they perceive as Western encroachment into what they claim should be their sphere of influence, their “vital space.” That term alone should make us pause; history has shown us where such ideas can lead.

What Russia is attempting to achieve through war—subduing Ukrainians by sheer force—others have pursued through economic coercion. This raises a deeper question: Where does the boundary lie between economic incentives or constraints and the ideas—values, norms, and belief systems—that define a society’s way of life? At what point do economic pressures reveal themselves as another form of wrongdoing, different in method but similar in intent?

This tension is not confined to geopolitics. We see it in the relentless expansion of industry and consumerism, which often undermines traditional or sustainable ways of living. As economies push for growth and production, they frequently do so at the expense of ecological balance and cultural continuity. Environmental destruction, loss of biodiversity, and the disruption of long-standing human–nature relationships all reflect this deeper conflict: the struggle between economic imperatives and foundational ideas about how life should be lived.

Thus, the question becomes: How far can economic mechanisms shape or restrain behavior when they confront ideological convictions or deeply embedded cultural values? Recent history—both geopolitical and environmental—suggests that economics alone cannot redefine a worldview, at least not without profound and often destructive consequences.

Disclaimer: please excuse the inherent mistakes in the text (grammar and/or typing error), as my focus is on expressing the ideas.