On the Ukraine Issue (Part 9): Developmental Psychological Analysis of Top Leaders in the East and West

■Both Putin and Biden are similar

Putin continues to invade Ukraine while keeping the US (Biden) in check, which is clearly behind Ukraine (Zelensky). Biden is also taking advantage of this situation.
Ukraine is fighting Russia (while receiving arms and war funds from the West) as a proxy for the West (especially the U.S.). This is nothing short of the structure of the Cold War.
Putin is doing it through forceful military action. As a result, many lives have been lost. Biden is avoiding direct military intervention and is responding in the form of aid to Ukraine and economic sanctions against Russia.
If this situation continues, will Ukraine push Russia back (win the war, so to speak) and will there be a cease-fire (end the war)? What if Russia wins? Whichever side wins, the longer it drags on, the more casualties there will be.
After all, won't such an offensive between the East and West only escalate the fighting?

Putin's action is a folly that, as UN Secretary-General Guterres has said, is a step backward in time in the 21st century, when we should have learned our lesson after two world wars and should have learned our lesson by now. So, what about Biden, who is in a position to stand on the receiving end of it, showing mature adult wisdom befitting the 21st century? To me, he seems to have no policies.
Putin and Biden are similar to each other.
Let's explore this in depth using the ideas of developmental psychology.

■The basics of developmental psychology

Once a person reaches a certain age, physical growth ceases and thereafter aging begins.
However, it has become clear that the growth and development of the mind (or consciousness) continues throughout life. In extreme cases, "I am more mature today than I was yesterday" can happen to anyone, no matter how old they are.
From the standpoint of developmental psychology, there are distinct "stages" in the development of human consciousness. The roughest classification is three stages, the most common theory says there are eight stages, and more detailed theories say there are more than a dozen stages.
The three most general stages are the pre-ego stage, the ego stage, and the trans-ego stage.
Most people, unless they have a severe mental disorder, will easily transition from the pre-ego stage to the ego stage in infancy, the so-called "budding of the ego".
Of course, if so-called "early childhood trauma" occurs during this stage, "pathologies" specific to this stage may occur. In general, the earlier the trauma is suffered, the more severe the pathology is likely to become. In other words, a certain "discrepancy" arises in the ego. The term "discrepancy" refers to a state of conflict, clash, or friction between two or more things. For example, multiple personality disorder (dissociative identity disorder) is a typical example.
Human "consciousness" or "self" is said to be a collection of various subpersonalities. By successfully integrating them, a personality is formed. However, when the integration fails, the subpersonalities are not recognized as part of oneself (experienced as strangers), even though they are part of oneself. In very simple terms, this is at least the initial symptom of multiple personality disorder (dissociative identity disorder).

In fact, such a state of "discrepancy" in the ego can occur at any stage of development. Of course, it can also occur in adults who have already reached the "ego stage," in which the ego has sprouted, become established, and stable. It is no exaggeration to say that most human beings are in this state of "discrepancy" to varying degrees.
Unless these "discrepancies" are successfully integrated, growth of consciousness will not occur. This integration simply means that we will have a moment when we realize that what we thought was someone else's problem is actually our own problem.
This moment is difficult for human beings (especially the more mature they are) to accept. Every human being has a psychological need to blame others for everything that happens to him or her. In a sense, it is a mechanism to defend the ego. In other words, there is a survival issue involved. We might say that it is a desire for survival as a living organism.
Therefore, the moment when we realize that what we thought was someone else's problem is actually our own problem is also the moment when our sense of self surpasses our need for survival. In other words, we experience the moment when the small self dies (becomes non-survivable) in order to allow a larger sense of self to emerge.

But, strangely enough, the small self does not disappear just because of this moment. For example, before Copernicus, people believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Even if that person realized that the earth actually revolved around the sun, the earth would not disappear. The death of the small self refers to the moment when a person who believed that the earth is everything in the universe realizes that the earth is just one of the countless stars in the entire universe. It means the moment when a person who had assumed that "this sense of self is the entirety of the phenomenon of 'I'" realizes, "Oh, this is just a part of the greater 'I.'" By witnessing the moment when the small "I" dies, one awakens to the larger "I".

■Phased Expansion of Identity

Let me restate this phenomenon in a more phased manner.
In my last article, I stated that one grows by transcending any dualism, and I presented the following four steps for transcending dualism.

Step 1: Look at only one side of the duality or opposites.
Step 2: Look at both and choose one or the other (the "seesaw game" may be repeated at this stage).
Step 3: Look at both and choose both simultaneously (the "seesaw game" ends at this stage).
Step 4: Integrate both into one whole.

In terms of the life cycle, the stable "ego stage" will generally last the longest in a cycle of less than 100 years of life. Even within this stage, people grow and develop in stages.

In terms of overcoming dualism, the infant begins in a state of undifferentiated self and world, and as the ego buds, the mind and body are first clearly distinguished. In other words, infants who have reached this stage are able to distinguish between "my mind" and "my body" (Step 1).

Eventually, the dualism of mind-body becomes questionable. The question is: "Is the real me the mind or the body? (Step 2)

If one is inclined this conflict of "am I the mind or am I the body?" toward "my body is the true me", then both one's mind and the minds of others will be given less priority, and physical superiority or inferiority will become the main criterion of perception. However, at this point, if one suffers from depression or other mental illness, the seesaw will immediately swing to the opposite pole (Step 3).

Eventually, the mind and body are integrated, awakening to a new self that is "neither mind nor body, but is at the same time both mind and body, and even more" (Step 4).

Basically, we can think of all dualisms as being integrated through this process.
Following this same process, one expands one's identity step by step: "I in the family," "I in the community," "I as a member of XX Corporation," "I as a Japanese," "I as an earthling," "I as an alien," and so on. The "I in the family" cannot suddenly grow and develop into the "I as an alien" all at once. It is necessary for people to see the "scenery" on the way to "I as an alien" as much as they need.

■Identity Levels of Top Leaders

In the last issue, as an application of the above four steps, I also showed the following four steps for a country's leader to go beyond the "home vs. enemy" dualism.

Step 1: Look at only one side, one's own country but not the adversary's.
Step 2: After looking at the convenience of both countries, choose the convenience of one's own country.
Step 3: Look at the convenience of both countries and choose the path that can achieve both at the same time.
Step 4: Integrate both into one whole (does not mean that one is annexed to the other).

If a person who has not developed his or her identity to at least the point of "I as an earthling," were to become the leader of a country, he or she would have to adopt the political attitude of "respecting the convenience of my country but not that of other countries. This means that he is stuck in steps 1 and 2 above. If this state of affairs becomes a "pathology," symptoms such as overreaction and paranoia will emerge. For example, all other countries that conflict with one's own interests become a "threat" to one's own existence.

To put it very simply, as long as the identity level remains at the stage of "me in my family" (infant level), "my neighbor's house" or "my friend's house" is a world outside of my perception, an impossible world.
In the same way, if the identity level remains at the stage of "I in country XX," then "the neighboring country" or "a country with a different system from my own" is a world outside of my perception, a world that is impossible. This is where "threats to one's own country (i.e., enemy countries)" are born.

Putin has brought the logic that one major purpose of his invasion of Ukraine is to eliminate the threat of Ukraine being a Nazi state. Whether or not Ukraine is really a Nazi state is actually not much of an issue for Putin. Because that suspicion alone is enough for him to consider it a "threat" to his country. In other words, for Putin, the very fact that "there is hostility in me toward other nations" is the purpose of the invasion.
In this respect, his level of awareness is no different from that of U.S. President George W. Bush, who insisted during the Iraq War that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
What about Biden, on the other hand? In the middle of his speech, he made an unscheduled ad-lib remark, "Putin is a diabolical man. He is a war criminal," a statement that would never be said by anyone whose level of consciousness has reached at least the level of "I as an earthling.
This is not the statement of someone who sincerely wants a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia.

■Borderline to be crossed by top leaders

The figure below illustrates the above four steps. This is just one conceptual model. There are probably as many conceptual models as there are psychologists.
You can think of this model as a "skyscraper" that shows the hierarchy of consciousness growth.

The first thing to note is that Step 4 forms Step 1 of a higher level of consciousness. You will notice that the identity level expands dramatically by going through Step 4.

Steps 1 through 3 represent growth on the same floor, so to speak. When growth on the same floor stagnates or regresses, "pathologies" specific to that floor may occur.

Step 4 means moving up one flight of stairs to the next floor. It would not be an exaggeration to say that dialectical "emergence" occurs at this stage.

Incidentally, we can think of the development from the "pre-ego stage" to the "ego stage" as occurring around step 4, when the child moves from the first to the second floor of this high-rise building.

Furthermore, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the Step 4 stage, which ascends from "I in XX country" to the "floor" of "I as an earthling," is the "borderline" stage. Here, there will be a development from the "ego stage" to the "trans-ego stage". At this borderline, there is a big "wall" of consciousness transformation. Some statistics indicate that only about 1% of the population is able to overcome this barrier.

We "earthlings" have chosen Putin and Biden as the leaders of each of the forces that divide the earth. It is obvious that neither of them have reached the "trans-ego stage".
You may say, "I didn't choose them." Then what would you do if the aliens come to Earth and say, "What are you two brothers doing with each other? You, the earthlings, are responsible for the affairs of the earth. "
In any case, isn't your destiny largely driven by the choice of "someone" who is not you? That destiny is not anyone else's, but yours.
Who, then, will change this destiny of all mankind?
I am trying to change the destiny by writing this analysis of the current situation. Whether it will work or not, I will not know until I try.