Summary

The article discusses the pitfalls of attribution bias in everyday judgments and its implications for foreign policy, particularly in understanding Vladimir Putin's actions regarding Russia's foreign policy.

Abstract

The article "Putin Isn’t Hitler: Attribution Bias and Foreign Policy" uses a relatable scenario of a sidewalk encounter to illustrate how individuals often attribute negative traits to others based on their actions without considering the underlying circumstances, a cognitive bias known as attribution bias. It argues that this same bias can lead to misinterpretations of foreign leaders' actions, citing the example of Vladimir Putin. The article suggests that Putin's foreign policy decisions, such as the annexation of Crimea and the invasion of Ukraine, are often seen through the lens of attribution bias, comparing him to Hitler and assuming a desire for empire expansion. However, the author contends that these actions are better understood as responses to Russia's perceived decline, economic challenges, NATO's eastward expansion, and geopolitical provocations. The article emphasizes that explaining Putin's actions in context does not excuse them but is crucial for a more accurate understanding of international relations and for preventing future conflicts.

Opinions

The author posits that everyday judgments, such as labeling someone a jerk for bumping into us, are often flawed due to attribution bias, where we attribute actions to inherent traits rather than circumstances.
When it comes to our own family members, we are more likely to consider their personal circumstances and give them the benefit of the doubt, highlighting a double standard in our judgments.
The article criticizes the common narrative that simplifies Putin's foreign policy as a Hitler-esque quest for conquest, arguing that this perspective is a clear case of attribution bias.
It is suggested that Putin's aggressive foreign policy is a reaction to Russia's decline as an imperial power, economic struggles, and the encroachment of NATO, rather than a drive for territorial expansion.
The author asserts that understanding the broader circumstances of Russia's actions does not equate to excusing them, and that such understanding is essential for resolving conflicts and preventing future ones.
The recent (as of June 24, 2023) uprising by the Wagner Group leader against Putin is cited as evidence that Putin is more of a vulnerable autocrat than an aspiring world conqueror.

Putin Isn’t Hitler: Attribution Bias and Foreign Policy

You get off the bus and walk down the sidewalk to your favorite coffee shop. Someone’s headed your way, moving quickly in the opposite direction.

Bam! They bump right into you. You’re shaken up a bit, but you’re fine. The other person? They shrug the whole thing off, muttering a quick “sorry!”, and keep going wherever they’re going.

What would you think about this situation? What would you say about what the other person did?

You’d probably call the person a jerk. Or at least thoughtless.

Everyday Judgment and Attribution Bias

We make these kinds of judgments every day. And, often, we’re not very good at it. We center ourselves and our own circumstances rather than those of the other person. We make claims about the other person’s inherent traits or personality rather than the circumstances in which they find themself.

As a result, we say the person who bumped into us is a jerk or a thoughtless person. We say these things because of how they treated us, not due to anything about their projects and priorities. We don’t ask why the person was in such a hurry.

It’s this aspect that explains why we’re so bad at judging the cause of others’ actions. And it’s this aspect where attribution bias enters the story. We attribute actions to inherent properties or traits of the person rather than their personal circumstances or goals.

Did the person bump into you because they were a jerk?

Maybe. I guess.

Or did they bump into you because they were in a hurry to catch the bus you just left? Maybe they were late to work, had a family member in the hospital, or were going through some stress. Or a million other ‘maybes,’ tracing to the circumstances in which they find themself.

Kids and Excuses

Many of us aren’t impressed by this point when it applies to a stranger. Sure, they’re just a jerk. But we think about it differently when applying it to our own family members.

Some other person’s kid does something wrong on the playground? They’re a bad kid with bad parents. But when it’s our kid? Well…they were tired. Or they were sick. Or they were just having a bad day.

When it’s our own family member, we find it easier to explain events in terms of their personal circumstances. For one, it’s more likely we know what those circumstances are in the first place. But we also find it easier to give them the benefit of the doubt. We know our kids or other family members well enough to know they aren’t really bad people. They just do bad things at times.

I’ll also point out here — and again later — that to explain a person’s actions in terms of their personal circumstances isn’t the same thing as excusing or justifying those actions.

Think back to the case of someone running into you on the sidewalk. As we said, the person might have been in a hurry to catch the bus. But offering ‘they were in a hurry’ as an explanation doesn’t excuse what they were doing. They still should’ve been more careful.

What I’m saying, however, is that if our goal is to understand what the person is doing, we usually do better by appealing to their circumstances and goals rather than to character or personality traits.

Putin and Foreign Policy

The less patient reader might ask, understandably, what any of this has to do with Vladimir Putin and Russia. Where does attribution bias enter the picture in our foreign policy judgments?

There’s a common story people tell about Putin and Russian policy over the course of the last decade. But to recap that policy, Putin invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014, engaged in various shenanigans involving the U.S. election in 2016, and then invaded Ukraine in 2022. Among other events. And people try to explain these actions by comparing Putin to Hitler — a crazy dictator who wants to conquer his neighbors.

In effect, there’s a line of thought that says Putin wants to rebuild the Czarist (or Soviet) Empire and engage in a Hitlerian project of conquest in eastern Europe and western and central Asia. After all, so this line of thought goes, look at what he’s doing out there. He must be a crazy, warmongering empire builder.

However, this is a pretty straightforward case of attribution bias. And people who accept this line of thought should consider more carefully Putin and Russia’s circumstances before trying to explain Putin’s actions.

Consider the broader situation in Russia. The country has been in decline as an imperial power for several decades (and arguably longer). Widespread economic collapse followed the breakup of the Soviet Empire. A population decline followed. Meanwhile, as Russia declined, NATO continued expanding toward its borders. They moved well into what Russian leaders consider their ‘sphere of influence.’ And Russia’s many attempts to using ‘soft power’ were blocked and bypassed by the U.S. and its allies.

And so, Russia turned to ‘hard power.’ It did so due to these broader circumstances. To explain these actions requires appeal to these circumstances rather than the attribution bias of attributing to Russia world conquering intent.

Explaining and Not Excusing

Russia invaded Crimea and Ukraine because Putin thought these things were in his own best interest and in the best interests of Russian national security. He did so in the context of Russian decline, NATO provocation, and U.S. needling. There’s no deeper Hitlerian project of world conquest lurking here. Putin didn’t invade because he’s paranoid or has other undesirable personality traits.

If anything, we should read the invasions as deep signs of Russian weakness, not strength. Frankly, I think most of these things are pretty obvious, especially to close observers of foreign relations.

Many fail to see it due to the temptation of attribution bias. And many think acknowledging it will excuse or justify Putin’s behavior. Or they’re worried that they’ll be carrying out the ‘Russian agenda’ by discussing Russia’s circumstances clearly and sensibly.

However, that’s just foolishness. We can understand and explain what Russia is doing without excusing it. Indeed, there’s no excuse for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It’s a senseless war that will ultimately lead to bad things for both countries and their neighbors.

Only by getting at why these things are happening — digging into the broader circumstances without resorting to attribution bias in the process — will we help end the war and prevent similar wars from happening in the future.

P.S.

I wrote everything you see above before the current (and developing, as of June 24, 2023) uprising against Putin by the Wagner Group leader.

But I think readers can see from that uprising exactly why Putin is more calculating, scared autocrat than attempted world conqueror. If Putin can barely even hold his own regime together, how can he be the next Hitler?