Тhose political candidates that do not succumb to promotion of isolationist policies towards Russia as a state, are labelled as Russia's, or otherwise Putin's, personal trojan horses. It's a repeating pattern that has continued to appear in Western mainstream media, think-tanks and certainly by independent pundits in their quest to understand Russia comprehensively as the capacious entity that spans through space, time and geopolitical battlefields. The term does not necessarily only apply to individuals, but as you shall witness, can force entire states to rethink their policies on Russia if they wish to remain on par with the liberal, forward-thinking European family.
Any candidate that does not openly advocate for further hostilities, trade wars, sanctions, severing of ties, or any other action that derails from the train tracks of the EU-forced locomotive, bears this mundane title. Let’s examine this in relation to a number of headlines appearing in Western media in recent years, highlighting those candidates that are fortunate enough to be used as Putin’s vehicle of bewilderment.
Orbán, Moscow's Trojan Horse
- Victor Orbàn.
Viktor Orbán is an apt first victim, and going by the reins of the national conservative Fidesz party, it's something that should be treated with a degree of scepticism. If the Warsaw Pact served to bind the satellites of the Soviet Union, then supposedly it is this new ''far-right'' conservatism that forms the more contemporary link to Moscow and its main doctrine of ''Putinism''. Whatever that is. Interestingly, the FA article rests on the basis of Orbán being the recipient of a substantial loan from Russia. Let's backtrack. A loan. It's not a military alliance, it's a loan. Kremlinology published an article that expressed this hysteria fittingly: His opinion of what the EU-ingrained beliefs have become might hit home in the hearts of many; To be a good European requires a firm critique of Russian leaders and uttering ‘’half a phrase’’ in favour is risky.
As a deemed outsider in European politics, Orbán is not accepted in this European family. Casting him in a light where his stance is so aligned with Moscow's earning him the title of a Trojan Horse is bizarre. Staunch Orbán supporters undoubtedly bind together around a vastly different issue; the migrant crisis. In 2014, 80% of the adult population believed in stricter quotas and limits on refugees which was, surprise surprise.. A main policy of Fidesz. Now that Orbán's whispers about putting an end to Russia sanctions are ear-pierced by the new McCarthyists across the Atlantic and their cousins in mainland Europe, he has suddenly become Putin's personal trojan horse. Didn't read much about this in 2010 when Orbán assumed office and when this hysteria was non-existent. I wonder why.
Czech president is Putin's Trojan Horse
- Milos Zeman
Next up, we have Milos Zeman, the newly re-elected Czech president. Here, the pattern is the same. Although, with a very interesting twist; Zeman was once a member of the Communist Party (1968-1970) and before pouncing on the opportunity to suggest that he's been under the wing of Soviet and now Russian politicians, consider this: he was expelled due to his vocal opinions about Operation Danube. He's also one of the longest serving Czech politicians once being Speaker of the Chamber of Deputies and being Prime Minister from 1998 to 2002. Up until 2014, the relationship with Russia never seemed to be a big deal, but then something changed as can be derived from the general attitude and tone from the article above. The best line from the article illustrates what I'm getting at here, paraphrased : Zeman also supports lifting of Western sanctions on Russia. He says it every time he meets Russian media. Ah, so that's what earns him the title of Trojan Horse. But don't forget, just like Orbán, he has conservative views on the migrant crisis - definitely in contrast to the EU-wide agenda.
The Wooden Horse from Lukashenko
- Lukashenko
This is a strange example and I'm really not surprised. Lukashenko, once in opposition to Western shock therapy right after the collapse of the Soviet Union when he came to power, has been swaying back and forth between key players on the European area. More so after the Ukrainian crisis. In the article above, it was the Zapad exercises that earned Lukashenko the title. This was obvious from the beginning; Belarus will never even be considered part of the European family until it drops its amicable relations with Russia. The stamp of Trojan horse is not only unfitting in this case, it's a rather lazy attempt. By the realistic scenario where half of all Belarussian trade has been with Russia and its symbiotic, amicable relations; why use that title now? In the case of Lukashenko, it has nothing to do with conservatism, supposed right-wing politics. It's something that summons greater fear to Atlanticists and EU creationists: Russia.
Austria, Russia's Trojan horse?
- Austria
Even Austria, as a whole nation, has been debated about and whether it fits into this boring, deflective term. Once again, what links the term is the rise of ''populist, right-wing'' politics. Highly correlated to the migrant crisis and the search for an alternative political ideology that is in opposition to many of the values represented as progressive and ideal for the over-arching European project. I don't even need to provide any examples in this case, the article has a fitting passage: There is a common denominator in central and eastern Europe, that is, scepticism towards taking in more migrants. But apart from that, interests and political systems differ, and the new coalition government might soon be trapped in typical Austrian-style gridlock rather than Orban-style authoritarianism. But it's supposedly the more-or-less neutral stance towards Russia that is worrying here. Why? EU deflectionism on all things drifting away from the idealist future is blamed on Putin.
Jadranka Jaksimovic: We are not a Russian trojan horse in Europe
- Serbia
In response to EU-wide criticism of Serbia as a nation bearing this title, one has to dig deeper into the depths of history to realize how important the ties between Serbia and Russia are to each other. It's a complete symbiotic relationship with mutual benefit. With such an outlook on Russia as a nation, it's simply too dangerous for the EU project to accept such a country into its embrace.
Donald J. Trump, Russia's Trojan Horse?
- Donald Trump
I don't think I really needed to include Trump as he goes beyond this; he fills the whole spectrum of accusatory opinion. Anything from a Russian agent to an Orange devil. But yes, also a supposed Russian trojan horse.
- Bulgaria
We have the case of Bulgaria and its various characters being cast in the same light.
A recent newspaper cartoon depicted the leftwing Ninova, who wants EU sanctions on Russia lifted, riding a Trojan Horse. Hiding inside was Putin.
- Igor Dodon.
Don't forget Dodon, although his status is only for show. His soft power hasn't made much of a difference in Moldova. The power lies in the parliament, which recently passed a law against Russian propaganda. The same parliament is pushing for closer integration with NATO and has held shared military drills.
These are just a select few headlines that gallop in the tracks of this hysteria. After all, Putin is the new Greek and Europe, as a unified entity sharing the same values, represent the independent city of Troy. Independent. Europe. It'll have to reach the next stage towards federalism before it can act as an independent body. The political infrastructure, however, is being built; a strong foundation (assuming it wants to achieve strength) can not be built on uneven ground. If there exist actors with divergent views on its arch-Nemesis, the Octoputin, as has become a rather interesting theme in political trope, then this whimsical view of a future Europe simply can't be achieved. In Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, a strong anti-Russia stance would form the base of the pyramid as a prerequisite for being part of the family.
This dangerous assumption, by itself, is contributing to Europe’s instability. When such deflectionism reaches mainstream debate, it sets up a dangerous precedent. By forming a general belief that any leader using measures of realpolitik and realism are deemed as Putin's personal trojan horses creates an atmosphere where only Atlanticist views are accepted. By playing the blame game and going so far as to suggest various corrupt practices being linked to Putin, then surely that says more about the European backyard than it does about Russia. When half of the members of the Visegrad group, an entity expected to grow significantly in the next decade, are portrayed as Putin's personal carriages - then there's something inherently wrong in the general system of European debate.