This is the first in a series of articles looking at all aspects of the war in Ukraine, and covers its ideological root cause.
Relentless government and MSM propaganda routinely paints Russia as an autocratic, expansionist threat to democratic values and European security. But beneath the rhetoric about security, democracy and human rights lies a deeper ideological struggle: that between two competing worldviews: globalism and national sovereignty.
Russia is vilified not because of what it does, but because of what it represents—a defiant, unapologetically sovereign nation-state that rejects the supranational governance model favoured by the Western globalist elite – which in my view is demonstrably far more of a threat to our freedom, democracy and prosperity than Putin or Russia ever will be.
Animosity toward Russia is, therefore, deeply ideological. Russia is targeted because it stands as threat to the vision of a post-national, globalised world order. As such, Western hostility is not about defending liberal democracy but about dismantling ideological resistance to globalist hegemony.
Globalism, in political terms, refers to a worldview that prioritises international institutions, open borders, economic integration, and the erosion of national identity in favour of the vision embodied in supranational organisations like the European Union, the International Monetary Fund, the World Economic Forum, and, in many ways, NATO itself.
In contrast, the nation-state model asserts national sovereignty, cultural uniqueness, and self-determination. It resists the idea that decisions should be made by unelected transnational elites or that national interests should be subordinated to internationalist ideals. Today, no country embodies opposition to these ideals more than Russia, which has positioned itself as a staunch defender of national sovereignty. Putin has repeatedly denounced Western attempts to impose a “rules-based international order” that serves the interests of a narrow globalist elite, emphasising instead traditional values and resistance to what he calls Western moral decay, known to us as woke multiculturalism.
This, inevitably, has set Russia on a collision course with globalist institutions that demand ideological conformity, borderless governance, and centralised control of global norms.
That hostility toward Russia is not about concern for democracy or human rights is demonstrated by the close relationships with autocratic regimes like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and various Gulf States, countries with far worse human rights records than Russia and, in some cases, actively engaged in regional warfare or internal repression.
Countries that assert their independence from the globalist framework—be it Iran, Syria, Hungary and at times Poland, usually find themselves demonised by Western media, sanctioned and pressured diplomatically. Russia, being the most powerful and defiant of these states, is treated as the primary ideological enemy.
The expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe was not about security but about integrating post-Soviet states into a Western ideological and economic system. Neither Nato nor the EU are neutral or purely defensive; they are vehicles for spreading a specific worldview rooted in liberal internationalism, economic centralisation, and cultural uniformity. By resisting this integration, Russia threatens the narrative of inevitable progress toward a borderless, homogenised global society.
The war in Ukraine is, therefore, not just a territorial dispute but instead a conflict between these two worldviews. Ukraine’s push to join the EU and NATO and to adopt Western cultural, political, and military norms was not merely a sovereign choice, but a political shift toward globalist alignment. Russia’s military response was simply an attempt to halt the ideological colonisation of its ‘near abroad’.
It needs to be emphasised, as we are not told by the MSM, that Russia promotes a culturally conservative worldview that includes traditional family values, national history, and religious tradition, ideas contrary to the Western elite's embrace of ‘progressive’ social policies, identity politics, and global citizenship.
Putin has framed this as a bulwark against Western decadence and moral relativism and often describes the West as having abandoned its Christian roots and national identities in favour of abstract universal values that change according to the elite’s political needs.
Western liberal democracies view themselves as morally superior and duty-bound to spread their values across the world. Countries that resist, ether through legislation banning Western NGOs, promoting national culture over global multiculturalism, or rejecting LGBT, gender and net zero ideology are labeled as regressive or dangerous. They find it necessary, therefore, to cast Russia as a moral heretic, defying the gospel of progress and inclusivity preached by global institutions.
Western media consistently portrays Russia as corrupt, dangerous, and irrational. As anyone who has posted comments in journals like the Spectator or the DT will know, dissenting voices who question NATO policy or Western narratives are very quickly branded as “pro-Russian” or “tools of the Kremlin,” regardless of their actual views. This demonisation serves to prevent legitimate debate about foreign policy and solidify public support for globalist strategies under the guise of resisting tyranny.
The treatment of Russian media outlets (e.g., RT, Sputnik) and social media accounts shows how Western elites treat information as a battleground. Deplatforming, censorship, and sanctions against Russian-affiliated entities are meant to monopolise the narrative, thus reflecting the discomfort globalists have with alternative worldviews, especially from a powerful, sovereign actor like Russia.
What makes Russia intolerable to globalists is not its military, economy, or even its politics, but its example. If a large, resource-rich, nuclear-armed country can resist the economic and ideological gravity of the globalist system and still survive and thrive, it creates a dangerous precedent.
Russia’s alliances with China, India, Iran, and others through organisations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation signal the birth of a multipolar world where Western liberalism is not the only game in town.
To many in the developing world and even in parts of the West, Russia has become a symbol, however flawed, of resistance to self-interested, hypocritical and sanctimonious western dominance, cultural homogenisation, and global managerialism. This is precisely why the globalist want it discredited and isolated in the eyes of the world.
In summary, Western hostility toward Russia is not fuelled by security concerns or international law. It is simply and only an ideological conflict. And in this conflict Russia champions the national sovereignty, cultural identity, and multipolar governance that most people, in most nations are in favour of. For the globalists this is unacceptable, and Russia must be vilified because of what it refuses to become; a compliant, borderless state within a larger global order.
It follows then, that in this ideological struggle, for most readers of this journal who defend national sovereignty, national identity and British culture, history and values, Russia is our ally and the western globalist elite our enemy.