"Because of the cultural differences between Russia and the US, is it surprising that Trump and Putin can find common ground – or not?"
This was one of many reactions to my article "Culture has 'for breakfast' the mineral deals." The question is interesting because it was asked by someone who identifies as English-speaking, born in the United States, who "never really thought about the cultural implications of this dialogue."
Readers who are either immigrants themselves or born to immigrant families who recently came to the U.S. often refer to their experience of how not being their native language affects their daily lives, while the aforementioned reader does not refer to how English is their mother tongue affects their daily lives and interaction with the world. And when he says that "maybe a lot of what Trump and J.D. Vance were talking about, Zelensky didn't understand," it doesn't seem to occur to him that the reverse might be the other way around: that some native speakers of English may be completely incapable of understanding people from different language cultures.
But if he asks whether it is possible – or even if it is the goal – to find common ground, this man takes the first step towards cultural self-knowledge that, according to Chinese sociologist Fei Xiaotong, opens "a new way for the coexistence of cultures".
Putin and Trump have 3 characteristics in common
The short answer to whether Putin and Trump can achieve common ground is: "no." Their linguistic cultures are so far apart that even the same beliefs and opinions they seem to share are rooted in very different perceptions of reality.
But that doesn't mean they don't have anything in common. And these commonalities hide just as important lessons about culture as their differences. In fact, we may understand more by asking what Trump and Putin have in common than by asking what prevented Trump and Zelensky from signing the minerals deal.
By examining the common characteristics of Trump and Putin, we understand the cultural phenomena that apply to all cultures: political and social.
1. Trump and Putin have the support of "theirs"
In November 2024, Trump got 77,284,118 votes. In January 2025, a statista survey showed that nearly nine out of ten Russians approve of Putin's actions. In both cases, support is numerous. Taking seriously the votes and voices of these people is the first thing we need to understand about the common characteristics of Trump and Putin.
As long as Trump and Putin have the support of much of their compatriots, history is not only about them and their personal characteristics, but also about the culture that shaped and continues to shape them as people and leaders.
Focusing on the personal history and character of the two leaders is a natural consequence of what Ole Jacob Madsen, a professor at the University of Oslo's Department of Psychology, calls the psychologization of society. But by shifting our focus from Trump and Putin to psychological case studies in American and Russian culture that made them who they are, we can learn not only something about the people we disagree with, but also about ourselves.
Whether or not we approve of the personal characteristics and actions of our leaders, we are also part of a culture that shapes the way we think and act. And by reminding each other that this situation of ours is common, we can bridge the differences that our leaders may have by imposing their own interests.
2. Trump and Putin are the "villains of history"
"Trump likes and admires bad people because he is himself a bad man," The Atlantic wrote on the day the US president met with his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky. Public criticism from the segment of the American population that did not vote for Trump demonstrates a big difference between Trump and Putin. A difference that has its roots in language culture, religion, history, the Constitution and much more. The common feature is that both are presented as the "bad guys" abroad.
In the book "Symbolic Leaders: Public Dramas and Public Men", the American sociologist Orrin E. Klapp analyzes how a person can emerge as a "hero" or appear as a "villain" or "fool". Klapp analyzes how iconic leaders emerge, how unknown people become symbols, and how we can understand the "theater" of public life and actors-protagonists.
Carsten Fogh Nielsen, a Danish philosopher, along a similar line to Klapp, pointed out that the problem with "heroes" and "villains" is that they define their opponent:
"There is no hero who is everybody's hero. Being a hero means choosing to defend certain values, rules and ideals. And there are no values, rules and ideals, accepted by everyone. If someone is defined as a hero, others will consider him a villain because he stands for all the things they disagree with."
The definition of "heroes" and "villains" is a cultural phenomenon that divides us into "us" and "them" instead of listening and learning from our differences. And this is the second lesson from the common characteristics of Trump and Putin.
3. Trump and Putin as "symbols" cannot be ignored
Because of 1 and 2, the whole world is talking about Trump and Putin. Not because of themselves as individuals. If they didn't have so much support from the American and Russian people, and if they didn't play the role of "bad guys" in the stories other leaders tell about themselves, then they wouldn't have the power they have. Thus, as symbols of the culture, values, norms and ideals they represent, they cannot be ignored.
But what if we focused on the cultures, values, rules and ideals of the more than 77 million people? Americans and even more Russians who support Trump and Putin, respectively? Would we discover so many similarities and differences between all of them that we would have a hard time defining who are the "heroes" and who are the "villains"?
