Psychologists have coined the term “projection” to describe a concept where someone subconsciously attributes their own faults, guilt or undesirable traits to another person. In a similar vein, the well-known Russian proverb holds that “the thief’s hat is on fire” — implying that a guilty conscience will always give itself away.
For decades, this psychological phenomenon inserted itself into international politics as dictatorships loudly accused democracies of violating human rights and undermining the rule of law. Soviet propaganda was especially known for this, directing righteous criticism at the United States throughout the Cold War and prompting many jokes on the matter inside the Soviet Union itself.
But few have engaged in political projection as openly and shamelessly as Vladimir Putin — and one particular idée fixe that has featured prominently in his speeches gives an idea of what occupies the Russian dictator’s subconscious.
Speaking at this month’s St. Petersburg International Economic Forum ( which opened against the backdrop of thick dark smoke rising from an oil terminal struck by Ukrainian drones), Putin again rejected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s proposal for a face-to-face meeting to discuss a ceasefire and potential peace terms. One of the reasons offered by Putin for his rejection was the supposed “illegitimacy” of the Ukrainian president — a point on which he has focused obsessively, including at his news conferences, official meetings and media interviews. Putin’s claim rests on the fact that Zelensky’s original presidential term expired in May 2024 — and takes no account of the obvious fact that elections in Ukraine are impossible while Russian bombs are raining daily on Ukrainian cities and killing Ukrainian civilians.
Putin’s remarks in St. Petersburg went further than usual, assuming a veritably didactic tone. “One must go to elections, not be afraid to go to elections, and always act within the framework of the Basic Law,” Putin lectured Zelensky. “Because holding on to power outside the framework of the Constitution is called the usurpation of power, and that is a criminal offense.”
Remarkably, Putin was right about the illegitimacy — with the small point of clarification that he was, in fact, describing himself. Don’t take my word for it. In recent years, two of Europe’s main parliamentary bodies — the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, representing lawmakers from 46 European countries and the European Parliament, whose members are directly elected by citizens of 27 E.U. member states — have come to the same conclusion. Their overwhelmingly adopted resolutions described Putin with the very same word — “illegitimate” — he is trying to throw at Zelensky.
To those of us in Russia who were in opposition to Putin since the beginning of his rule, he has been politically illegitimate for a long time — at least since 2003, when he imposed state control over national television and removed meaningful opposition from parliament through tainted elections. But the international community was more patient. Even though no election in Russia after 2000 was assessed as competitive or democratic (again, not my words, but the conclusions of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), Western leaders continued to recognize Putin as a legitimate president of Russia and even congratulate him on his “victories” in pretend elections — as President Barack Obama and President Donald Trump did, among many others.
But the mask came fully off in 2020, when under the cover of the covid pandemic, Putin rammed through a series of constitutional amendments giving himself a personal waiver from presidential term-limits and, with it, a permission to remain in power, essentially for life. Putin had already cheated the constitutional limit on serving two consecutive terms by installing a puppet president (Dmitry Medvedev) between 2008 and 2012 while retaining power as prime minister. That ruse at least had a veneer of legality.
The way constitutional changes were pushed in 2020 violated both Russian and international law — a conclusion confirmed by the Venice Commission, Europe’s top constitutional law body, in its damning opinion. It was this legal ruling that underpinned decisions by European lawmakers to recognize Putin for what he is: an illegitimate usurper.
This recognition does not preclude Western contacts with Putin. In fact, European motions clearly allowed for such contacts in “matters necessary for regional peace as well as humanitarian and human rights purposes, for example prisoner exchanges, the return of deported children to Ukraine or calling on the release of political prisoners.” If it were not for such contacts, I would not be writing this article, as I owe my own freedom to the 2024 prisoner exchange negotiated by Western leaders with the Kremlin.
But there should be clear limits on Western engagement with Putin. And while contacts aimed at reaching a ceasefire in Ukraine or freeing unjustly detained prisoners in Russia are not only acceptable but necessary, there should be no moves toward reestablishing full-fledged relations with, or normalizing an illegitimate usurper and an indicted war criminal.
The time for a full normalization between the West and Russia will come — but it should not come any sooner than when a democratically elected and legitimate government takes power in Moscow.
The post Putin calls Zelensky illegitimate. He’s describing himself. appeared first on Washington Post.
