Vladimir Putin’s Performative Masculinity

The stories coming out of Ukraine tell a grim story. Over the past month we have been presented with images of a country torn apart by attacks from an invading military that seems indiscriminate, even deliberate, in its targeting of civilians. These images have led to outrage and accusations of war crimes. Pictures of bombed maternity hospitals and destroyed buildings with “children” painted on the roof present a parade of horrors that stand out even among the normally horrific scenes of war.

These stories and images give us insights into the worldview of President Vladimir Putin. What could make a man engage in such horrors? Scholars have discussed how Putin believes that he has a noble calling to unite all Russian speakers under one flag, and how in his mind this imperative justifies his brutal methods. Longtime foreign correspondents trace his actions to a feeling of injustice over Russia’s place in post-Cold War world order.

While geopolitics and actions of history are key to understanding what could lead a man into committing such atrocities, a gendered perspective is required to both fully understand Putin’s worldview and gain valuable insights into how to counter Russia’s pacing threat.

Putin has long been enthralled with performative masculinity — outward shows of traditional masculine tropes used to create a public persona. Since his ascent into power two decades ago he has used it as a means both of maintaining control and contrasting Russia with Western powers. His recent statements have focused on slamming the United States for its “cancel culture” and “wokeness,” while extolling the strength of the Russians. He is using the trope of juxtaposing the masculine strong and the feminine weak, with Russia and the United States as the stand-ins. To an extent, Putin succeeded in fooling people that he, and Russia, are the strongmen. A sitting U.S. Senator even expressed support for the Russian military over the “woke, emasculated” U.S. Army. Yet what Putin — and Senator Cruz — fail to realize is that performative masculinity is not a strength. It is a critical vulnerability of the Russian war machine. Despite the fact that the Russian military is much larger and better equipped than that of the Ukrainians, they are showing horrific losses. These losses are demonstrating that Putin’s shows of strength are merely show, with little to no substance behind them.

Russian tanks are not the only aspect of its military feeling the brunt of Ukrainian resistance. Putin’s narrow definition of power — focused on physical dominance — is leading to the demise not only of key factions of the Russian military, but of Russia’s ability to exert global influence. Faced with mounting death tolls and continued losses in Ukraine, the image of strength that Putin built for himself is crumbling.

The losses of Russian forces is juxtaposed to the images of both Ukrainian resistance and Russian defiance. A woman tells occupying Russian soldiers to put sunflower seeds in his pocket so that when he dies, sunflowers — the national flower of Ukraine — will bloom. Female medics are providing essential services to both refugees and soldiers, simultaneously acting as both caregivers and furious defenders of their homeland. Russian ballerinas — the epitome of femininity often used to justify Russian masculinity — are defecting in protest of the war.

The participation of Ukrainian women in the security sector is not new. Women have been a part of the Ukrainian military since 1993, and in 2021 conscription requirements for women increased. Russia’s 2014 invasion of Crimea expanded women’s opportunities in the military, and civilian resistance fighters, including women, have become a regular fixture alongside the official military. In a March 7 tweet from Ukraine’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it was stated that more than 15% of the regular Ukrainian military are women, and that the number of women in the resistance is “impossible to count.” This is in contrast to the declining participation of women in the Russian military — down from nearly 10% in the early 2000s to less than 5% today.

So it isn’t just that women are an active part of the resistance and military, but also how women’s participation is starkly counter to Putin’s worldview. In the ordered view of masculinity practiced by Putin, the masculine warrior is juxtaposed to the feminine “beautiful soul.” There is no place in this worldview for women being part of the strength of a country. It is not just that Putin’s hypermasculinized military is failing, but that it is failing at the hands of a diverse and committed Ukrainian resistance. Russia is losing not only the physical war, but the cultural war as well.

Beyond Ukraine, there are key lessons to be learned about how hypermasculinity is a key critical vulnerability for Russia. The Biden administration’s Interim National Strategic Guidance — the administration’s national security roadmap — focuses on the importance of engaging in “strategic competition” to ensure the United States maintains influence around the world. It calls out “investing in our people” as the number one way to succeed in strategic competition. A security sector that is more reflective of the country it serves is better poised to defend it. And diversity in teams promotes more efficient and effective problem solving.

The U.S. military services have begun to focus on this. The Army has launched a series of recruiting ads called “The Calling,” which focuses on how diverse backgrounds led to careers in the Army. The Commandant of the Marine Corps focused on diversity during his Force Design 2030 posture hearing. These actions are essential for countering the worldview expressed by Putin and potential future attempted strongmen. Putin’s actions are atrocious, yet Russia’s failures in Ukraine are showing us weak points in a singular focus on masculinity.