After the end of the cold war and the disbanding of the USSR in 1992 we in Europe and North America were very much enamored with the Russian leader Boris Yeltsin. That was largely because his leadership rubberstamped the end of that stand off and reinforced the rejection of communism and the old Soviet system. He was amiable, friendly and didn't come across as the typical sinister looking Russian. However, what was typical Russian at that time was alcoholism and the country was inundated with that problem during the 1990's. Yeltsin himself epitomized that issue as he was a leader with a drink problem who presided during a time when Russia collapsed into chaos as western corporations and big business had their way with the country.
By contrast his predecessor Vladimir Putin was a far more serious person and decided to embark on a process of reviving Russian purpose and national self-esteem. Putin unlike Yeltsin was no pushover, a former senior intelligence official in the Soviet KGB had witnessed the decline and decided that a course reversal was needed. He was President of Russia from 2000 to 2008 and returned after a four-year absence and has been president since 2012. Russia is considerably different today in 2025 than it was in 2000 and a more prosperous and better organized country than it was before.
However, to the USA Russia became a throne in their side. To some extent it was a hangover from the cold war - it was probably hard not to still associate Russia with the Soviet Union which was the 800lb gorilla in the USSR. Moscow being its capital and by a long way Russia was the largest piece of real estate in the Soviet Union. Indeed, even hearing the Russian language and its dialect must be difficult not to associate with the dark and oppressive Soviet Union of those days. However, many in Washington didn't want a Russia reemerging as any form of power, it was expected to continue its decline but that didn't happen. The USA is uneasy that Russia is standing up to them and not backing down over NATO expansion.
Russia being a part of NATO was a non-starter because the Russian military which was different to Americas and had a different tradition, much larger and could not have been controlled by the USA. I've never adhered to the incessant complaints by the USA that the other NATO countries don't contribute enough to the alliance. In many respects the USA wanted to be the big daddy in NATO and was quite prepared to see the other NATO members playing a supportive role rather than embarking on big military build ups. The USSR had collapsed, communism eliminated as a threat and NATO was in effect a security zone which allowed the USA greater flexibility in Europe. Russia is no USSR and simply because of its location doesn't pose a threat to Europe despite the alarmism raised by western media.
What Vladimir Putin has done is revived a country that was on life support and installed a patriotic spirit and national purpose in the country. Russia is now in a position to push back and determine its own future and run the country their own way rather than adhere to the demands of western corporations. Russia is now also in a better position to influence its neighbours which is something NATO and the passive EU is uneasy about.
However, there is something more to Russophobia which in many respects is tailor made for today's international system and contemporary thinking in western countries. North America and Europe are inundated with officials and politicians who have lost faith or at least have given up on patriotism as a national trait. It's considered old fashioned and a holdover from colonial days and must be abandoned in favor of globalism/multiculturalism and political deference to supranational organizations such as the EU and the UN. Patriotism is seen as a misguided form of nationalism which is seen as intolerant and ugly and was largely responsible for the great power rivalry of the Europeans in the 19thC and early 20thC.
Russia has rejected communism, but it hasn't abandoned patriotism or the notion of national purpose and strength. The EU boasts about soft power as a virtue (a contradiction in terms) which really means being nice and trusting and appearing to being reasonable and holding out for cooperation. Russia on the other hand after their initial experience has decided that it needs to stand on its own two feet and not rely on the good will and the best wishes of other countries. European countries don't believe in what's good for the nation-state anymore or the ambition of national purpose but want to be part of a grand global order that is walking in lock step together for the good of humanity and the world.
The USA has exported its rules based international order. Russia takes the parts that serve its interests and rejects those that doesn't - something the west doesn't like. Russia is more conservative than the USA and Europe, doesn't adhere to political correctness and isn't interested in promoting the green agenda.
Russia is a Christian country with the Russian orthodox church being its standard bearer. Their religious leaders don't conflate politics and religion but promote the spiritual side of their faith. This is unlike the Archbishop of Canterbury in the UK and the Pope in the Vatican who both heavily promote political views Christianity in Europe declines.
All in all, it's obvious that in the international community Russia's face doesn't really fit into either the international rules based liberal order of the USA or the collectivist soft power and modern values that besiege the EU.
