Why does Russia want Ukraine? This question has become increasingly critical as tensions escalate in Eastern Europe. To understand the complex geopolitical landscape, we turn to insights from Hein Goemans, a professor of political science at the University of Rochester and an expert in international conflicts and war. Goemans sheds light on the multifaceted reasons behind Russia’s aggression, ranging from historical ambitions to President Vladimir Putin’s personal political survival.
Unraveling Russia’s Objectives in Ukraine
The Imperial Ambition and Democratic Containment
According to Goemans, Russia’s motivations are twofold, deeply rooted in historical aspirations and contemporary political anxieties. Firstly, Putin aims to re-establish a sphere of Russian influence, reminiscent of the former USSR or even Tsarist Russia. This ambition involves creating a buffer zone of compliant states, either through direct annexation or the installation of puppet regimes.
Secondly, domestic political concerns within Russia play a significant role. Putin views the democratic transitions in neighboring countries, particularly the “Color Revolutions,” with deep suspicion. He perceives these movements, including the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, as Western-backed plots to destabilize Russia and promote democracy in its vicinity. This fear of “democratic encirclement” is driven by the concern that successful democratic models in neighboring countries could inspire dissent within Russia and threaten Putin’s authoritarian grip on power. He fears that a democratic Ukraine could become a safe haven for Russian dissidents, directly endangering his regime.
This pursuit of regime change in Ukraine, whether explicitly stated or implied, is fraught with danger. As highlighted by Alexander Downes of George Washington University, regime change operations can often lead to unintended and catastrophic consequences, even when seemingly successful.
The Timing of the Invasion: Perceived Weakness and Personal Survival
Why now? Goemans suggests that Putin might have perceived the current geopolitical moment as opportune. He may believe that the West is currently weak and disunited, making this a favorable time to assert Russian power. This perception of Western disarray could stem from various factors, including internal political divisions within Western nations and perceived inconsistencies in their foreign policy.
However, beyond geopolitical calculations, Putin’s personal political survival is also a critical factor driving his actions. The stakes for Putin are incredibly high. Losing power is not just a matter of stepping down from office; it could have severe personal repercussions. He likely fears prosecution and imprisonment within Russia if he were to lose his position. This existential threat to his personal safety and political future intensifies his determination to maintain control and project strength, both domestically and internationally.
Ukraine as a Westernized Counter-Example
What specifically about Ukraine might have triggered such a strong reaction from Putin? Goemans points to Ukraine’s increasing Western orientation and its development as a democratic society. Ukraine’s trajectory towards Western values and institutions presents a stark contrast to Russia’s autocratic system. This divergence is not just a matter of geopolitical alignment; it’s an ideological challenge to Putin’s model of governance.
Ukraine’s growing diversity and its embrace of democratic principles serve as a potent example for Russians who might aspire to a more democratic future. Putin fears that this “westernized” Ukraine could act as a catalyst for democratic aspirations within Russia, potentially undermining his authority and control. He sees Ukraine as a domino in a series of “Color Revolutions” that could ultimately reach Russia itself, threatening his regime’s stability.
Salami Tactics and the Commitment Problem
Goemans also discusses the concept of “salami tactics” in international relations, which is highly relevant to understanding Russia’s approach to Ukraine. Salami tactics involve demanding concessions incrementally, “slice by slice,” until the desired outcome – in this case, control over Ukraine – is achieved.
In the context of Ukraine, this is intertwined with a significant “commitment problem.” Ukraine cannot credibly promise Russia that it will never join NATO in the long term, as such a decision is a matter of sovereign choice and evolving security considerations. Simultaneously, Russia cannot credibly assure Ukraine that it will not make further demands even if Ukraine makes concessions now, whether those concessions are territorial, political, or related to NATO membership. This lack of trust and credible commitment mechanisms fuels a cycle of escalating demands and tensions.
Beyond Territory: The Quest for Regime Control
While the conflict is often framed as a territorial dispute, particularly concerning the separatist regions in eastern Ukraine, Goemans argues that Putin’s ambitions extend far beyond territorial gains. Initially, there might have been an assumption that Russia’s goals were limited to these separatist areas. However, the scale and scope of the invasion suggest a much broader objective.
It appears increasingly likely that Putin seeks to install a puppet regime in Ukraine rather than simply annexing territory. From a strategic perspective, controlling the political landscape of Ukraine through a compliant government serves his broader objectives more effectively than direct territorial conquest. This approach aligns with the theory of warfare and leader-centric perspectives, where the primary motivation is often the leader’s personal survival and regime security.
Consequences of Russian Success in Ukraine
A successful Russian occupation of Ukraine would have profound and far-reaching consequences for the international order. Goemans emphasizes that it would represent a blatant violation of fundamental principles of international law and diplomacy, particularly the principle of “territorial integrity.” This principle, which Russia itself had previously affirmed in agreements with Ukraine, would be shattered.
Putin’s actions can be seen as a direct challenge to the established international norms and institutions designed to maintain peace and stability. His disregard for international dialogue, exemplified by launching the “military operation” during a UN Security Council meeting on the crisis, underscores this defiance.
Furthermore, a Russian success in Ukraine would embolden Russia and raise serious concerns among other nations, particularly those in Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics. Countries like the Baltic states and others would have legitimate reasons to fear that they could be next targets of Russian aggression. This would inevitably lead to a global shift towards increased military spending and rearmament, creating a more volatile and dangerous international environment where miscalculations and accidents could easily escalate into larger conflicts.
The Perils of Russian Failure and Putin’s “Gambling for Resurrection”
Conversely, a Russian failure in Ukraine also presents significant dangers. Goemans warns that if Putin does not achieve his objectives, his domestic political position would become extremely precarious. Facing potential overthrow and fearing for his personal safety, Putin might resort to increasingly risky actions in a desperate attempt to regain control and maintain power.
This concept of “gambling for resurrection” describes situations where leaders, facing imminent downfall, engage in high-stakes gambles to salvage their position. Historical examples, such as German leaders in World War I continuing the war despite knowing they could not win, illustrate this dangerous dynamic. These leaders prolonged the conflict out of fear of domestic consequences.
The West faces a difficult challenge in managing this situation. While there is a desire to punish Putin for his aggression, excessive pressure could backfire, pushing him further into a corner and increasing the likelihood of even more reckless behavior. The idea of offering Putin an “off-ramp” may be misconstrued, as his primary fear is not external but internal – the threat from domestic enemies. There is limited leverage the West can exert to alleviate these internal fears.
The Most Dangerous Situation Since WWII
Goemans concludes by stating that the current situation is indeed the most dangerous since World War II. The peril lies not only in the potential for Russian success but also in the equally concerning scenario of Russian failure. Both outcomes present immense risks to global stability.
This precarious balance necessitates extreme caution and careful consideration of all actions and potential consequences. The international community must navigate this crisis with a mature and competent approach, characterized by clear communication, strong alliances, and a deep understanding of the complex motivations and potential reactions of all actors involved. The goal should be to avoid cornering Putin to the point where he feels compelled to engage in catastrophic “all or nothing” gambles, while simultaneously upholding international principles and supporting Ukraine’s sovereignty.
Putin’s Broader Revisionist Ambitions
In a recent, highly assertive speech, Putin articulated a vision that extends beyond Ukraine, raising alarms about his broader geopolitical aims. He questioned the legitimacy of the borders established after World War I and World War II, borders that underpin the current international state system. This statement is particularly alarming as it suggests a desire to redraw the map of Eastern Europe and potentially beyond.
Putin’s assertion that “nationalism cannot be the basis of a state” is a radical departure from the widely accepted principles of statehood and self-determination. His questioning of post-WWI and WWII borders implies that numerous countries, including former Soviet republics such as Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, could be considered targets for revisionist claims. The recent threats directed at Finland and Sweden regarding NATO membership further underscore this expansive and concerning geopolitical outlook.
While Putin may already exert influence over elites and puppet regimes in some of these countries, his stated ambitions suggest a deeper and more expansive agenda. The question remains whether his ultimate goal is to reconstitute the Soviet Union or even the Tsarist Russian Empire. Historical references in his speeches hint at the latter, which would have even more profound implications for Poland and other countries that were part of the Tsarist empire. This expansive vision necessitates a comprehensive and vigilant response from the international community to deter further aggression and uphold the principles of international law and sovereignty.
