Abstract： Putin’s forceful，almost contemptuous dismissal of warnings from U.S.and European leaders about the dangerous path he was pursuing led to anxious speclation about what lay behind it.After years of pursuing a pragmatic geopolitical game that was understandable，though not always appreciated by the West，Putin seemed to be operating in a different world.He had spent years courting acceptance in organizations like the G8，whose meeting he had planned on hosting in the new Sochi Winter Olympics setting，but in 2014 he seemed to be throwing everything away in pursuit of some sort of mission that few in the west understood.

Keywords： Narrative Tools Truth National Memory Russia

In 2014 the U.S. and Europe found themselves in a surprisingly tense face-off with Russia over events in Ukraine. As these events unfolded，it became clear that what was involved went beyond the kind of realpolitik dispute over resources or ideology that had long vexed the relationship between Russia and the West. Instead，it seemed to involve something deeper and more visceral，something that led many observers to acknowledge they were at a loss to come up with an explanation for what they saw as aggressive and dangerous moves by Russia. German Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly told Barack Obama，for example，that Russian President Vladimir Putin was not “in touch with reality”—a sobering observation，given that she was the Western leader regarded as having the best understanding of the Russian perspective.

Putin’s forceful，almost contemptuous dismissal of warnings from U.S. and European leaders about the dangerous path he was pursuing led to anxious speculation about what lay behind it. After years of pursuing a pragmatic geopolitical game that was understandable，though not always appreciated by the West，Putin seemed to be operating in a different world. He had spent years courting acceptance in organizations like the G8，whose meeting he had planned on hosting in the new Sochi Winter Olympics setting，but in 2014 he seemed to be throwing everything away in pursuit of some sort of mission that few in the West understood.

In Washington，D.C.， Politico Magazine devoted the cover story of its March 13，2014 issue to putting “Putin on the Couch.” Some two dozen journalists，former diplomats，and other Russia watchers speculated on why Putin blithely ignored the objections of the West and pursued a course of action that was so baffling. One of the journalists wrote about being “befuddled” by Putin’s actions and called him “crazy，calculating，and somehow capricious all at the same time.” Others attributed his behavior to a susceptibility to conspiracy theories，a cold calculating personality，his pessimism，paranoia，deep anger at the West，insecurity，hypersensitivity，and a tough upbringing on the streets of Leningrad.

To be sure，Vladimir Putin brought personality quirks to this geopolitical encounter，but in the end these were not the main drivers of his actions. Instead，much of what he said during the tense standoff with the West over Ukraine was a straightforward reflection of an underlying national narrative that has been part of Russian culture for centuries. Catherine the Great，who annexed Crimea to the Russian empire in 1783，reportedly believed that the only way she could defend her country was to expand its borders. This rationale continues to play a role in Russian reasoning today，at the grassroots level as well as at the top. In order to understand Putin’s stance—and why it is wildly popular with large segments of the Russian population，it is crucial to understand the “social language”（Wertsch，2002） that they share as members of a “mnemonic community”（Zerubavel，2003）. This is a social language built around a set of narrative tools that shape the speaking and thinking about the past and the present and that distinguish this mnemonic community from others. ZOqjD4nux+18lk3HxtYkPhxE2lS+Wqf728II/maqD7/U1u8EJZ0/JfJBovxRZv+j