A Different Lens: Examining Russia’s Actions in Ukraine Through the Prism of Irredentism
Historical Context
To understand Russia’s motivations behind its actions in Ukraine, it’s essential to examine the historical context. Ukraine and Russia share a complex relationship that spans centuries, with deep historical, cultural, and political ties. Ukraine was once part of the Russian Empire and later the Soviet Union, meaning its history has long been intertwined with that of Russia. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine became an independent state, but the legacy of this shared history continued to shape its relationship with Russia. Many regions of Ukraine, especially in the Donbas, Crimea, and areas like Luhansk and Kherson, have strong cultural, linguistic, and economic connections to Russia.
Russian Strategic Culture
Russia’s strategic culture is pivotal in understanding its approach to the conflict. Strategic culture theory suggests that a nation’s approach to war and diplomacy is deeply influenced by its history, geography, religion, language, and national identity. Russia’s strategic culture is shaped by its imperial past, its experiences during World War II, and the Cold War. This cultural narrative emphasizes the importance of a strong, centralized state, territorial integrity, and security of its borders. Russia perceives itself as a defender of Orthodox Christian values, and this contributes to its national identity. This historical backdrop explains why Russia views the conflict in Ukraine not just as a political dispute but as a matter of national security and defending ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking populations in Ukraine.
Background on Russia’s Sentiment and Buildup of Anxiety Leading to 2014
In the early 1990s, U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “not one inch” eastward. However, this assurance was not formalized in a treaty. Subsequently, NATO expanded into Eastern Europe, leading Russia to perceive this as a strategic encroachment, which heightened tensions in the region.
Chronology of NATO’s Eastward Expansion and Russia’s Perspective
1990: German Reunification and NATO Membership Germany reunified on October 3, 1990, with the former East Germany becoming part of NATO under West Germany’s existing membership. This expansion marked NATO’s initial movement eastward, closer to Russia’s borders.
1999: Inclusion of Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic NATO admitted Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, all former Warsaw Pact members. This expansion was perceived by Russia as a breach of earlier assurances that NATO would not extend eastward, exacerbating Moscow’s security concerns.
2004: Further Enlargement Seven more countries—Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia—joined NATO. The inclusion of the Baltic states, which share borders with Russia, intensified Moscow’s perception of encirclement.
2008: NATO’s Open Door Policy and Ukraine At the Bucharest Summit, NATO declared that Ukraine and Georgia would eventually become members. This statement heightened Russia’s anxiety over NATO’s proximity to its territory.
2010: Ukraine’s Non-Aligned Status Under President Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine adopted a non-aligned status, temporarily alleviating Russia’s concerns about NATO’s expansion into its neighboring countries.
2013-2014: The Crossroads of East and West
In 2013, Ukraine, under President Viktor Yanukovych, found itself at a pivotal moment in its post-Soviet history. The country was at a crossroads: the European Union (EU) offered Ukraine an Association Agreement, which would have deepened economic and political ties with Europe. However, Russia, led by Vladimir Putin, exerted significant pressure on Yanukovych to abandon the EU deal and instead join the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), a Russian-led initiative. This created a sharp divide within Ukraine, with pro-EU factions pushing for integration with the West and pro-Russian factions advocating for closer ties with Moscow.
U.S. Involvement and Support for Ukraine
During this period, the United States was actively involved in supporting Ukraine’s pro-European aspirations. The U.S. government strongly backed Ukraine’s efforts to integrate with the EU, offering diplomatic support and advocating for democratic reforms. The U.S. condemned the violence used by Yanukovych’s government against peaceful protesters and imposed sanctions on several of his officials in response to their brutal crackdown. While the U.S. did not directly intervene in the protests, it supported Ukraine’s European direction and championed the values of democracy and human rights.
2013-2014: Euromaidan Protests and Growing Tensions
The suspension of the EU deal led to massive protests, known as Euromaidan, with Ukrainians demanding closer ties with Europe. The protests turned violent as Yanukovych’s government attempted to suppress the growing dissent. Both the U.S. and EU condemned the government’s actions and urged Yanukovych to engage in dialogue with the opposition. As the violence escalated, the U.S. continued to voice support for Ukraine’s democratic movement and warned Russia against any interference. At the same time, the U.S. offered humanitarian aid to Ukraine and supported its economic reforms.
February 2014: Yanukovych’s Fall and Russia’s Response
In February 2014, the violence in Kyiv reached a breaking point, with more than 100 protesters killed. Facing mounting pressure, Yanukovych fled the capital on February 22, eventually seeking refuge in Russia. His ousting led to the formation of a pro-Western interim government in Ukraine. The U.S. quickly recognized the new government, expressing support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and its pro-European course.
In response to Yanukovych’s removal, Russia saw its influence in Ukraine rapidly diminishing. In a decisive move, Russia annexed Crimea on March 18, 2014, citing the protection of Russian-speaking populations as a justification. This act of aggression was condemned by the international community, and the United States imposed sanctions on Russia in response. The annexation of Crimea marked the beginning of a larger geopolitical conflict.
2014: Pro-Russian Separatism and Growing Conflict
Shortly after the annexation of Crimea, pro-Russian separatists in Ukraine’s eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence. This sparked fighting between the Ukrainian government and the separatists, with Russia’s involvement becoming increasingly evident. Although Russia officially denied its direct participation, it provided military support to the separatists, further escalating the conflict.
By the end of 2014, Ukraine found itself deeply embroiled in a conflict with Russian-backed separatists in the east, while the country’s political future remained uncertain. The United States continued its support for Ukraine, providing military aid, imposing sanctions on Russia, and working with EU allies to push for peaceful negotiations to end the violence.
Yanukovych’s Missteps and the Conflict’s Escalation
Viktor Yanukovych’s failure to make a clear choice between Russia and the EU led to his downfall and significantly contributed to the broader conflict. His attempt to play both sides—maintaining relations with both Russia and the EU—created a dangerous balancing act that exacerbated tensions within Ukraine and on the international stage. As the EU sought to limit Russia’s influence, Yanukovych’s indecision and inability to effectively engage in diplomacy created a situation where it was impossible to satisfy both sides. The result was severe conflict, with one of the competing interests—either Ukraine’s sovereignty or Russia’s strategic goals—bound to be sacrificed.
This situation created a high-stakes diplomatic triangle, and the lack of clear action led to a full-scale crisis. Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its support for separatist movements in eastern Ukraine marked the beginning of a protracted and devastating conflict, with no easy resolution in sight.
Key Takeaways
The conflict in Ukraine, particularly Russia’s actions in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, can be understood through the lens of irredentism—Russia’s desire to reclaim territories with historical, cultural, and ethnic ties to Russia. The strategic culture of Russia, shaped by its imperial past and its desire to protect ethnic Russians, is central to its actions in Ukraine.
The events of 2013-2014, including Ukraine’s political turmoil and Russia’s aggressive response, highlight the complexity of the situation. The United States’ involvement, in supporting Ukraine’s European aspirations and condemning Russian aggression, further shaped the conflict, adding to the broader geopolitical tension.
Ultimately, the downfall of Yanukovych, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and the conflict in the Donbas region are key moments in understanding how Russia views Ukraine’s future and its broader ambitions in the region.
A Different Lens: From Crimea to Full-Scale War — Russia, Ukraine, and the Proxy Struggle with the EU and USA
The annexation of Crimea in 2014 marked a pivotal point in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. What initially seemed like a regional dispute over territory has since evolved into a complex war involving broader geopolitical struggles, with Russia and Ukraine at the forefront and the EU and USA acting as key players in what has often been described as a proxy war. This article explores the events that followed Crimea’s annexation and leads into the full-scale war of 2022, highlighting the role of Ukraine, Russia, the EU, and the USA, and how these forces contributed to the escalation of the conflict.
2014-2016: The Donbas Conflict and Growing Proxy Tensions
After the annexation of Crimea, the situation in Ukraine escalated further as pro-Russian separatists in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions declared independence. With Russia’s military support, these separatists launched a violent insurgency against the Ukrainian government. Despite widespread accusations of direct Russian involvement, Russia denied any official participation, instead offering “support” to the separatists through covert means, including the supply of arms and possibly troops.
Ukraine was caught in a bloody conflict in the Donbas region. The Ukrainian government, facing an insurgency in its eastern territories, was unable to stand up to the Russian-backed separatists without external help. Ukraine’s military was outmatched by the superior Russian military power, leading to a stalemate that lasted for several years. The U.S. and the EU stepped in to support Ukraine by imposing sanctions on Russia, supplying military aid to the Ukrainian forces, and supporting the country’s economic and political reforms.
However, despite these measures, Ukraine could not hold off the Russian-backed separatists without the assistance of its Western allies. Russia continued to strengthen its position in the region, particularly by building up military infrastructure in Crimea, while denying any formal involvement. The Minsk Agreements, signed in 2014 and 2015, sought to bring peace to the region but were never fully implemented, and the conflict remained unresolved, with occasional flare-ups of violence.
2017-2021: The Frozen Conflict and Escalating Proxy War
While the Donbas conflict continued to simmer between 2014 and 2016, it evolved into a frozen conflict by the end of the decade. The situation was marked by limited fighting, but there were no significant changes in territory. Russia’s annexation of Crimea remained unchallenged, and the conflict in the Donbas continued without a decisive conclusion.
During this period, the involvement of Western powers became increasingly important. The United States, under both the Obama and Trump administrations, continued to provide military aid to Ukraine. This included lethal weapons, training, and intelligence support, aimed at bolstering Ukraine’s defense capabilities. The EU, while focused on sanctions against Russia, continued to engage in economic aid and political support for Ukraine, particularly its efforts to align with Europe.
In Russia, President Vladimir Putin strengthened his control over Crimea and the eastern regions, consolidating power in these contested territories and increasing Russia’s military presence. As the years passed, Russia’s perception of Ukraine shifted from a nation that could be influenced diplomatically to a country actively aligning itself with the West. The shift in Ukraine’s geopolitical orientation was seen as a direct challenge to Russia’s sphere of influence, particularly in the face of NATO expansion and Ukraine’s growing ties with the EU. NATO’s eastward expansion played a significant role in shaping Russia’s defensive posture and actions in Ukraine.
The U.S. and EU continued to support Ukraine’s sovereignty, but their aid often felt like a supportive lifeline rather than a guarantee of victory. Ukraine could not defeat Russia’s military power without ongoing external support. The U.S. and EU, in essence, had become involved in the conflict, even if not officially engaged in direct military operations. These nations were, in many ways, proxy actors in a larger regional struggle between Russian imperialism and Western democratic ideals.
2022: The Full-Scale Invasion and the War Becomes a Proxy Conflict
The conflict that began with the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and simmered in the Donbas region for years reached a boiling point in 2022, when Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. On February 24, 2022, Putin announced the beginning of a “special military operation” aimed at the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine. The true aim, however, was widely understood to be the restoration of Russian influence over Ukraine, reversing the country’s westward orientation and preventing its potential membership in NATO.
At this juncture, Ukraine found itself once again facing the full might of the Russian military. However, this time, the stakes were much higher. The United States and NATO quickly mobilized to support Ukraine, providing massive amounts of military aid, including advanced weaponry like anti-tank missiles, air defense systems, and training for Ukrainian forces. The EU also provided significant economic aid, including sanctions against Russia and financial support for Ukraine’s economy.
Ukraine alone could not stand up to the Russian onslaught, but with the support of the USA and EU, it was able to mount a significant defense. The conflict rapidly escalated from a regional war to a proxy war, where Ukraine was acting as a proxy for Western powers seeking to limit Russia’s influence in the region and prevent the spread of its authoritarian model. While Russia’s military might is overwhelming, Ukraine’s resistance, combined with Western military and economic support, created a significant challenge for Russia.
The invasion quickly shifted from a territorial dispute to a broader ideological war, with Russia and Ukraine representing competing visions for the future of the region. For Russia, the war is part of a long-term strategy to preserve its sphere of influence and prevent the West from further encroaching into what it considers its backyard. For the EU and the USA, the conflict is about supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty, defending democratic values, and preventing Russian expansionism.
Proxy War Dynamics: A Struggle Between Great Powers
As the war continues into 2023 and beyond, it becomes increasingly clear that this is no longer just a war between Russia and Ukraine. It is a proxy struggle between Russia and the EU and USA, with Ukraine serving as the battleground for competing geopolitical interests. Ukraine is facing an existential threat from Russia, and its survival as a sovereign nation depends on the continued support of its Western allies.
The situation illustrates the reality that Ukraine alone cannot stand against Russia’s military power. It is only through the support of the United States and EU that Ukraine has been able to mount a defense against the Russian invasion. The war, therefore, represents not just a regional conflict but a broader contest between the forces of democracy and autocracy, with the fate of Ukraine hanging in the balance.
Key Takeaways
Russia’s actions in Ukraine—from the annexation of Crimea to the 2022 full-scale invasion—can be seen as part of Russia’s broader strategy of irredentism and imperial revival. Russia’s goal is to reclaim Ukraine as part of its sphere of influence and prevent its alignment with the West.
The United States and EU have played critical roles in supporting Ukraine, particularly since 2014, providing military aid, sanctions on Russia, and diplomatic support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The war in Ukraine is no longer just a conflict between Ukraine and Russia but a proxy war in which the United States and the EU are actively involved in supporting Ukraine against Russia’s territorial ambitions.
Ukraine’s survival as an independent state depends on the continued support of its Western allies. Without this assistance, Ukraine would struggle to resist the overwhelming military might of Russia, turning the conflict into a broader ideological struggle between democracy and autocracy.
The war in Ukraine may seem like a battle over land, but it is really a contest for the future of Europe and the international order, with Ukraine caught in the middle. The outcome will not only determine Ukraine’s future but also the balance of power in Europe and beyond.