In the past few weeks, the atrocities occurring in Ukraine have taken over our media outlets and conversations. According to BBC, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “initial aim was to overrun Ukraine and depose its government, ending for good its desire to join the Western defensive alliance NATO.” The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a military alliance that was formed after World War II between 30 member states. Russia is notoriously left out of NATO, and Putin specifically finds it necessary to occupy Ukraine and prevent it from existing independently so it will never be able to join the alliance. The entitlement Putin feels in invading Ukraine stems from nationalism in the Russian government. From this, we learn the importance of drawing a line between patriotism and nationalism, as well as the importance of a worldly education to prevent that line from becoming blurred.

Patriotism, often thought of as the love of or commitment to one’s country, may originate from classical antiquity. The word patriotism itself comes from the Latin word “patria,” or “fatherland.” Early Roman culture encouraged a sense of patriotism that allowed for its empire to prevail, because the love and support shared among the citizens of the empire was a solid foundation for drastic success. However, classicalwisdom.com states that “it was both a force for good — in that it promoted social cohesion and public service — but it also had its dark side, as it encouraged conflict and even xenophobia.” As such, there are ongoing debates surrounding the importance, as well as the dangers, of patriotism in light of how history has handled patriotism.

While there is a difference between patriotism and nationalism, this fine line is debated as well. According to Merriam-Webster, nationalism branched off from patriotism after the 19th century to encapsulate a more political term often associated with superiority. Is modern Russia reflective of crossing this line? Paul Berman, author of the book “Power and the Idealists: Or, the Passion of Joschka Fischer and Its Aftermath,” believes so, characterizing Putin’s nationalism as one of a “voice of resentment, directed at the victors in the Cold War. It is the voice of a man whose dignity has been offended. The aggressive encroachments of a triumphant NATO enrage him.” The idea that Putin still feels a growing resentment toward the outcomes of the Cold War is quite reflective of nationalism over patriotism. Putin resents the alliance between several countries in NATO, believing that Russia should and can prevail over them. His attitude toward Russia is not patriotic, for he does not love Russia for what it is — his pride for Russia stems from his belief that Russia has a right and a claim to bigger power. That is nationalism.

Throughout history, we have seen world leaders conquer and imperialize other nations, not out of patriotic love for their own country, but rather out of a blind allegiance toward the belief that their nation is elite. Whether it be the Holocaust in Germany, the United States’ Manifest Destiny or countless other claims of national superiority, we see times in many countries’ histories where patriotism became dangerously oppressive, crossing the line to nationalism. None of it came from a love of their respective nations — it came from resentment, entitlement and xenophobia.

So, is there a way to learn from history and prevent patriotism from turning into nationalism? I turn here to political philosopher Martha Nussbaum, who advocates for a cosmopolitan education. A cosmopolitan education is an education partially devoted to worldly events, cultures and issues outside those of your own nation. While patriotism and cosmopolitanism are often thought of as opposite concepts, there is nothing contradictory in believing that people should be proud of their country while also having Nussbaum’s concept of cosmopolitanism as a “commitment to basic human rights.” Nussbaum writes, “One of the greatest barriers to rational deliberation in politics is the unexamined feeling that one’s own preferences and ways are neutral and natural.” The danger of only learning about our own country and culture makes citizens believe that alternative ways are abnormal and inherently wrong, leading to a blind nationalism where someone could falsely believe that what their own government is doing is correct because we are the standard. Learning about other countries’ practices allows us to reexamine these biases and better our own country’s practices.

The rise of nationalism in the Russian government under Putin should motivate us to check our own patriotism and ensure we do not cross the line from pride into superiority. A blind allegiance regardless of morals is, without a doubt, dangerous. The more we learn about other nations, the more comfortable we become with the acknowledgment of our own flaws and our own shortcomings. If nothing else, we must learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of our surrounding countries.

Zoe Brusso is a sophomore majoring in philosophy, politics and law.