Russia-Ukraine – Part I

Introduction:
Over the next few articles, I will provide a historical perspective on the Russia-Ukraine war. My analysis is rooted in history alone—free of political agendas or ideological arguments. The history of Russia and Ukraine is complex and vast, enough to fill volumes. My goal is to offer a broad, general overview to provide historical context for readers who may not be familiar with the deep-rooted background of this conflict.

I aim to make this complex subject accessible, emphasizing the fundamental truth that no historical event happens in a vacuum. International conflicts are shaped by past events, longstanding tensions, and deeply ingrained national perspectives. The war in Ukraine is no exception.

Western Attitudes Toward War & NATO’s Role:
In the modern world, the idea that one sovereign nation can invade another with impunity is widely condemned. The West, in particular, remains deeply influenced by the echoes of World War II, a conflict that reshaped global attitudes toward war and aggression. Since 1946, Western Europe has shown little appetite for military conflict, increasingly delegating its defense responsibilities to the United States.

This reliance is evident in NATO funding. The alliance, originally formed to counter Soviet expansion, now relies heavily on U.S. financial and military support. As of 2024, the U.S. directly funds 16% of NATO’s common budget, while the other 31 member nations contribute approximately 3% each.[1] When considering total NATO defense spending, the U.S. accounts for 68.7%, while the rest contribute 31.3%.

This dynamic has led to a significant atrophy in Europe’s ability to defend itself independently. Over time, Western Europe has shifted from being a region of “formidable conquerors” to one largely dependent on U.S. military support.

The “Hitlerian Effect” & European Policy Shifts:
This phenomenon—Europe’s reluctance to engage in its own defense—is what I term the Hitlerian Effect. Western European nations, haunted by the devastation of World War II, have adopted policies of appeasement and open borders.[2]Initially, the post-war migration policies were motivated by labor shortages, but over time, they have been reinforced by a lingering sense of collective guilt over the atrocities of the war. This cultural shift has deeply influenced European policies for decades, and continues to do so in the present.

Meanwhile, the United States has expanded its global presence, originally under the guise of spreading democracy and countering Soviet influence.[3] Though the Soviet Union no longer exists, U.S. foreign policy and many U.S. leaders, remain entrenched in a Cold War-era mindset, often framing modern conflicts—including Russia’s actions—through an outdated lens of Soviet-era hostility.

Russia’s Historical Perspective:
To understand Russia’s current position, we must first recognize its historical experiences—particularly its long history of foreign invasions and military struggles. Any evaluation of Russia’s actions without this context would be incomplete.

Eastern Europe has always been a complex region, shaped by shifting borders, ethnic divisions, and religious influences. Russia’s historical trajectory has been deeply affected by these forces. Since the 14th century, Russia has endured repeated invasions, internal strife, and struggles for territorial consolidation. Under Ivan IV (Ivan the Terrible) in the 16th century, Russia formally became a Tsardom, but its history remained one of hardship and external threats.

Western Europe’s perception of Russia has also played a role in shaping its national identity. For centuries, Russia was regarded as a land of mystery—barbaric, uncivilized, and fundamentally separate from Western European culture. This perception persisted despite Russia’s periodic attempts to Westernize, as exemplified by Peter the Great’s construction of St. Petersburg, intended as Russia’s “window to the West.”

Yet, Russia remained largely agrarian, with an overwhelming peasant population and a small ruling elite. Industrialization lagged behind Western Europe, creating economic disparities and deepening Russian ambivalence toward modernization. Even as European nations gradually embraced political reforms in the 19th century, Russia clung to its autocratic system, maintaining serfdom until the late 1800s.

The Crimean War & Russia’s Isolation:
By the mid-19th century, Russia’s attempts to expand and secure influence in the Balkans led to the Crimean War (1853-1856). Russia sought to protect Orthodox Christians in the region and gain control of Black Sea trade routes. However, facing a coalition of French, British, and Ottoman forces, Russia suffered a humiliating defeat.

The war left lasting scars on Russia’s national psyche. Despite its leaders’ efforts to integrate with Western Europe, Russia remained an outsider—seen as politically repressive and militarily inferior. The conflict reinforced the idea that Russia would never be fully accepted by the West, further fueling its nationalistic and isolationist tendencies.

Russia’s Struggles in the late 19th and early 20th Century:
By the dawn of the 20th century, Russia was making slow progress toward modernization, but internal divisions ran deep. The peasantry resisted industrialization, fearing the disruption of their traditional way of life. Further, forced participation in industrial life due to imposed land reforms and economic hardship. Meanwhile, political factions emerged, some advocating for capitalist reforms, others for socialism or communism. Marxism, popular among European intellectuals, gained traction in Russia’s labor movements, though Tsarist authorities ruthlessly suppressed these efforts.

Externally, Russia faced new geopolitical challenges. The unification of Germany in 1871 created a powerful rival to the west, while Japan’s rapid modernization posed an unexpected threat in the east. In 1904-1905, Russia suffered another devastating defeat in the Russo-Japanese War, further damaging its international reputation and fueling internal unrest.

By this point, Russia found itself trapped between two worlds—part of Europe, yet never fully accepted; struggling to modernize, yet bound by its autocratic traditions.

Looking Ahead:
Where does this leave Russia in the years leading up to World War I and beyond? In the next installment of this series, I will examine how these historical patterns influenced Russia’s trajectory into the 20th century and its eventual transformation under the Soviet Union.

[1] This number is not completely accurate as, until the first Trump administration, some member nations fell short of that 3%, the United States making up the difference for them.

[2] This phenomenon is expertly discussed in Douglas Murray’s book: The Strange Death of Europe.

[3] There are other reasons as well for the expanded U.S. presence world wide—economics and the promise of free trade no small matter, but that is not the thrust of this article or this series.