The Pursuit of National Greatness: A Comparison of Charles de Gaulle and Vladimir Putin
Introduction
The desire for national greatness is a deeply ingrained characteristic of many leaders throughout history. In this article, we will explore the contrasting approaches of two prominent figures in pursuit of this vision: Charles de Gaulle and Vladimir Putin. While both leaders sought to restore their respective nations’ status on the world stage, their strategies and ideologies diverge significantly. By examining their choices and consequences, we can gain valuable insights into the complexities of geopolitics and the pursuit of greatness.
De Gaulle: Defining Greatness through Peace and Independence
Charles de Gaulle, the former President of France, held a unique perspective on national greatness. His belief was not centered on subjugating others but rather on fostering independence and promoting peace. This approach is evident in his decision to end the French-led Algerian War and accept Algerian independence in 1962. By making peace, de Gaulle released France from the burdens of a dishonoring war and allowed it to embark on a new future free from the shackles of colonialism.
De Gaulle’s wisdom in understanding that fighting a lost colonial conflict would destroy French greatness rather than rebuild it highlights his deep commitment to the well-being of his nation. By prioritizing peace and self-determination, de Gaulle enabled France to evolve into a respected global player in various domains, including culture, diplomacy, business, sport, and military affairs.
Putin: A Vision of Greatness Rooted in Power and Control
In stark contrast to de Gaulle’s approach, Vladimir Putin’s pursuit of greatness for Russia is characterized by a quest for power, control, and territorial expansion. Putin’s fear of losing Russia’s great power status drove him to initiate the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. However, instead of restoring Russian national greatness, this act of aggression has brought dishonor and isolation to the nation.
Putin’s inability to envision Russia as a post-imperial power and his reliance on territorial control as a measure of greatness highlight a fundamental difference with de Gaulle. While de Gaulle was a war hero who fought for his country, Putin’s actions suggest a clinging to an imperialist vision of the 19th-century national greatness that no longer aligns with the realities of the 21st century.
The Consequences of Different Visions of Greatness
The divergent paths chosen by de Gaulle and Putin have had far-reaching consequences for their nations’ global standing and influence. De Gaulle’s decision to prioritize peace and independence allowed France to evolve into a leader in Europe and a globally respected nation. While it may not possess raw power or vast territorial holdings, France’s greatness today rests on culture, diplomacy, and the inspiration it evokes.
On the other hand, Putin’s pursuit of territorial control and power projection has resulted in deteriorating relations with neighbors, global isolation, and a decrease in Russia’s influence. The bloodshed unleashed in Ukraine has invoked disgust rather than admiration in the international community, leading to a decline in attendance at international summits and a diminished international standing.
Lessons Learned: The Importance of Democracy and Personal Power
One of the most significant contrasts between de Gaulle and Putin lies in their understanding of the relationship between national greatness, democracy, and personal power. De Gaulle, often seen as an authoritarian figure, never lost sight of the fundamental principles of democracy and willingly accepted the rules and culture of democratic governance.
In contrast, Putin has tightly clung to personal power and wealth, intertwining his vision of national greatness with his personal reign over Russia. This approach, marked by suppression of dissent, human rights abuses, and an intolerance for opposition, has further eroded Russia’s standing on the world stage.
De Gaulle’s commitment to democratic principles allowed France to weather periods of upheaval, such as the street uprisings of 1968, which ultimately led to his resignation. In contrast, Putin’s autocratic approach has stifled dissent and resulted in a lack of political freedom, further isolating Russia from the international community.
Conclusion
The pursuit of national greatness is a complex and multifaceted endeavor. The divergent paths taken by Charles de Gaulle and Vladimir Putin offer valuable insights into the different strategies, ideologies, and consequences associated with this pursuit.
De Gaulle’s focus on peace, independence, and democratic principles allowed France to evolve into a global leader admired for its culture and diplomacy. In contrast, Putin’s fixation on power, control, and territorial expansion has isolated Russia and diminished its international standing.
As we navigate through the complexities of geopolitics and the pursuit of greatness, it is crucial to consider the lessons learned from these contrasting examples. Ultimately, true national greatness lies not in the control of others or the accumulation of power, but in the fostering of peace, independence, and the well-being of one’s own people.
Summary
Vladimir Putin’s vision of national greatness rooted in power and control stands in stark contrast to Charles de Gaulle’s pursuit of peace, independence, and self-determination for France. While de Gaulle’s approach allowed France to evolve into a respected global player, Putin’s actions have brought dishonor and isolation to Russia. The divergent paths and consequences of these leaders’ pursuit of greatness highlight the importance of democracy, personal power, and the well-being of the nation’s people. As we navigate the complexities of geopolitics, it is vital to prioritize the fostering of peace and independence over raw power and territorial control.
—————————————————-
| Article | Link |
|---|---|
| UK Artful Impressions | Premiere Etsy Store |
| Sponsored Content | View |
| 90’s Rock Band Review | View |
| Ted Lasso’s MacBook Guide | View |
| Nature’s Secret to More Energy | View |
| Ancient Recipe for Weight Loss | View |
| MacBook Air i3 vs i5 | View |
| You Need a VPN in 2023 – Liberty Shield | View |
Receive free geopolitical updates
We will send you a myFT Daily Summary email summarizing the latest Geopolitics news every morning.
“France cannot be France without greatness”, wrote Charles de Gaulle in the opening of his memoirs. His nation, he insisted, must always be “front and center”.
Vladimir Putin feels the same about Russia. Back when I could still visit this country, Fyodor Lukyanov – a foreign policy thinker close to Putin – told me that the Russian president was driven by fear that his nation would lose its great power status forever.
This fear and paranoia reached its tragic climax with the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. But instead of restoring Russian national greatness, Putin’s war has dishonored and isolated his nation.
Unlike Putin, de Gaulle’s belief in national greatness did not depend on the subordination of a neighbor. He ended the French-led Algerian War and accepted Algerian independence in 1962. In contrast, even after 30 years of Ukrainian independence, Putin could not accept the right of Algeria. Ukraine to shape its own destiny.
The dilemmas that Putin and de Gaulle faced were similar in some ways. The French leader intended to rebuild national greatness after the humiliation of defeat and occupation in World War II. Putin considered the breakup of the Soviet Union after 1991 a humiliation for Russia and a “geopolitical tragedy”. The writings of both leaders display a concern for their nation’s history – and their own destiny in shaping it.
The difference lies in how de Gaulle and Putin define “national greatness”. Unlike Putin, de Gaulle was a true war hero who was repeatedly injured fighting for his country. As Putin cowered at the end of a long desk to avoid Covid-19, de Gaulle rode through Paris under fire during the city’s liberation in 1944.
When he returned to power as President of France in 1958, many on the French reactionary right assumed and hoped that de Gaulle would redouble his fight to keep Algeria. Instead, he made peace and accepted independence. In doing so, he freed his compatriots from the burden of a dishonoring war.
De Gaulle was wise enough to realize that fighting a lost colonial conflict would destroy French greatness rather than rebuild it. As the scholar Frederick Starr said writing: “De Gaulle succeeded because he envisioned a better future for France without Algeria than with it.”
Freed from its colonial burden in Algeria, France was able to forge a new future. Modern France is not a superpower, but it remains a leader in Europe. It is a global player in the fields of culture, diplomacy, business, sport and military affairs. France retains some of the badges of great power status, such as nuclear weapons and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. But its greatness today rests on culture and the global respect it inspires, rather than raw power or territory.
Putin, on the other hand, was unable to imagine Russia as a post-imperial power. He still defines Russian greatness by his country’s ability to control territory and inspire fear. It is de Gaulle who was born in the 19th century, but it is Putin who clings to an imperialist vision of 19th century national greatness.
In the 21st century, however, the bloodbath Putin unleashed in Ukraine has inspired disgust rather than admiration in the rest of Europe, isolating Russia from its neighbors and reducing its influence in the rest of the world. Only 17 African leaders traveled to St. Petersburg for the recent Russia-Africa summit, compared to 43 who attended the same event in 2019. Putin is unable to make it to this month’s BRICS summit in South Africa for fear of being arrested. So much for national greatness.
In the past, Russia and France have fought for control of Europe – with French troops briefly occupying Moscow in 1812 and Russian troops entering Paris two years later.
This intertwined history always creates a kind of mutual respect. Much to the chagrin of many in Eastern and Central Europe, modern France has always viewed Russia as a great power that deserves respect and a vital place in the continental order. Successive French presidents – including de Gaulle and Emmanuel Macron – have reached out to the Kremlin. It was de Gaulle who coined the expression that Europe stretched “from the Atlantic to the Urals”. Macron launched an ill-fated effort at rapprochement with Putin shortly before he invaded Ukraine in 2022.
Yet, in the end, de Gaulle and his heirs chose paths that were profoundly different from Putin. Perhaps the greatest contrast is that de Gaulle understood that French greatness was inseparable from how it treated its own people and from political freedom.
While de Gaulle was often accused of being an instinctive authoritarian, he ran for power in real elections – and accepted the rules and culture of democracy. In 1968, France was shaken by street uprisings. (Some things never change.) A year later, de Gaulle lost a referendum, resigned as president, and retired.
In contrast, Putin has been unable to separate his vision of national greatness from his personal power and wealth. He clings to the Kremlin. Those who disagree with his policies are beaten in the streets, imprisoned, forced into exile or die in suspicious circumstances. Russia needed its own de Gaulle. Instead, he ended up with a pale imitation of Ivan the Terrible.
—————————————————-