Among the many troubling things you’ve likely seen on the news lately is the developing situation in Ukraine, which sees the US and Russia having some increasingly intense conversations about the role of Ukraine in their mutual relationships.
Here, I’m going to bring my skills as an academic who teaches international relations to bear in an attempt to give my take on what’s going on in Ukraine, and, potentially, why and how this conflict could escalate, though I do not think that direct conflict between the US and Russia is at all likely here.
I’ll start things off with a little relevant history before I get into my analysis of relevant outcomes in this conflict.
Here, I’m going to bring my skills as an academic who teaches international relations to bear in an attempt to give my take on what’s going on in Ukraine, and, potentially, why and how this conflict could escalate, though I do not think that direct conflict between the US and Russia is at all likely here.
I’ll start things off with a little relevant history before I get into my analysis of relevant outcomes in this conflict.
Recent History
Though there have been people living in Ukraine for thousands of years, the important history here starts in 1917. At the beginning of the Russian Revolution, Ukraine declared itself independent and would become one of the major member states of the Soviet Union. It’s important here to keep in mind that, though Russians dominated power in the Soviet Era, Ukraine was no slouch and was, in many ways, the breadbasket of the USSR.
During WWII, Ukraine was the site of truly awful modern warfare, leaving whole towns wiped from the earth, forever. Learning from this experience, the Soviets were looking for options to prevent the devastation of modern war from, once again, reaching Russia proper.
Looking at a map of the region, it’s clear why Russia values Ukraine so much: it’s between them and Germany. Recall that in WWII, Germany invaded Russia and very nearly took Stalingrad before the siege was broken and the Germans were chased all the way back to Berlin. Imagine the British burning New York in 1942 and you’ll have an idea of the significance.
Ukraine provides what we in international relations calls strategic depth: it gives Russia some time and breathing room to counter, historically, German aggression from the West.
After the end of the Second World War, the state of global politics was less violent in Europe, but no less scary, as both the USSR and the newly-formed NATO both developed nuclear weapons and began to point them at each other.
The Cold-War period saw the West German state rebuilt with the help of the US and NATO, so, once again, Russia felt threatened by the positioning of German, and now American, tanks, planes, and missiles pointing at them, thus valuing Ukraine as something that adds strategic depth.
Though the Cold War is over, and the USSR dissolved, it’s important to recall that the current government of Russia came of age during the cold war, and, as a state, they do not want to risk, to be seen, to be weak in comparison to NATO, nor do they want to give up their strategic depth.
The issue here is twofold. First is that Ukraine has had a partnership with NATO since 1994, which Ukraine has attempted to expand into full membership since 2019. This gives Russia the impression that they might face American tanks on their border, which would eliminate the time and space to think and react currently afforded them by a non-NATO state buffering between Russia and Germany.
Second, there has been civil unrest and brief periods of civil war since 2014: one of the factions in this struggle is made up of ethnic Russians who want Ukraine, or at least parts of it, to become part of Russia. Russia has, and continues to, promise these Russian Nationalists with protections from Russia, which have included armed support from Russian special operations.
During WWII, Ukraine was the site of truly awful modern warfare, leaving whole towns wiped from the earth, forever. Learning from this experience, the Soviets were looking for options to prevent the devastation of modern war from, once again, reaching Russia proper.
Looking at a map of the region, it’s clear why Russia values Ukraine so much: it’s between them and Germany. Recall that in WWII, Germany invaded Russia and very nearly took Stalingrad before the siege was broken and the Germans were chased all the way back to Berlin. Imagine the British burning New York in 1942 and you’ll have an idea of the significance.
Ukraine provides what we in international relations calls strategic depth: it gives Russia some time and breathing room to counter, historically, German aggression from the West.
After the end of the Second World War, the state of global politics was less violent in Europe, but no less scary, as both the USSR and the newly-formed NATO both developed nuclear weapons and began to point them at each other.
The Cold-War period saw the West German state rebuilt with the help of the US and NATO, so, once again, Russia felt threatened by the positioning of German, and now American, tanks, planes, and missiles pointing at them, thus valuing Ukraine as something that adds strategic depth.
Though the Cold War is over, and the USSR dissolved, it’s important to recall that the current government of Russia came of age during the cold war, and, as a state, they do not want to risk, to be seen, to be weak in comparison to NATO, nor do they want to give up their strategic depth.
The issue here is twofold. First is that Ukraine has had a partnership with NATO since 1994, which Ukraine has attempted to expand into full membership since 2019. This gives Russia the impression that they might face American tanks on their border, which would eliminate the time and space to think and react currently afforded them by a non-NATO state buffering between Russia and Germany.
Second, there has been civil unrest and brief periods of civil war since 2014: one of the factions in this struggle is made up of ethnic Russians who want Ukraine, or at least parts of it, to become part of Russia. Russia has, and continues to, promise these Russian Nationalists with protections from Russia, which have included armed support from Russian special operations.
The Current Situation
With a simmering civil war going on in a NATO-allied country, Biden and Putin met recently to discuss the situation and try to come to a solution.
No such solution was found: the United States has promised to protect Ukraine against Russian aggression, and Russia has promised to defend Ukrainian sovereignty against the expansion of NATO and the EU. It seems intractable, and exactly the kind of setup that could lead to armed conflict that involves one, or both, of the major superpowers at play. I think three scenarios as possible, and I’ll list them in the order of least to most likely in my analyses.
First, the conflict could continue to escalate between the US and Russia in an open, armed conflict. This would mean engagements between American and Russian forces in Ukraine. At the worst, this could devolve into limited, and then complete, nuclear war. This, in my mind, is highly unlikely. Ask yourself: is the US willing to lose New York for Ukraine? Conversely, is Russia willing to lose Moscow for Ukraine? The clear answer, in both cases, is a no: thus, I do not think either nation is willing to enter direct conflict with the other over Ukraine at this time.
Second, either, or both, the US and Russia could continue, and increase, support for one of the several factions in Ukraine. Russia is currently doing this and supporting them with both troops and equipment, and the United States appears to be posturing towards doing the same. The result in this would likely be a long proxy war on behalf of the Russians, or, less likely, the Americans. Recall that both the US and Russia have, in the last half-century, had failed, long-lasting proxy wars (both in Afghanistan!). Neither country’s domestic political scene would tolerate another war of that sort with the current state of global affairs.
Finally, Russia could choose to act more unilaterally, as they have done before in Georgia in the recent past, invading with Russian forces proper to establish a foothold, effectively daring NATO to risk nuclear war to stop them. Given Putin’s relative stability as the effective dictator of Russia, I think this is one outcome that is more likely than the rest since it would mirror other Russian actions in the last several decades.
It’s my hope that none of these happen and the situation simmers down over time, but, sadly, I do not think that is a likely outcome in Ukraine given its history and geography.
No such solution was found: the United States has promised to protect Ukraine against Russian aggression, and Russia has promised to defend Ukrainian sovereignty against the expansion of NATO and the EU. It seems intractable, and exactly the kind of setup that could lead to armed conflict that involves one, or both, of the major superpowers at play. I think three scenarios as possible, and I’ll list them in the order of least to most likely in my analyses.
First, the conflict could continue to escalate between the US and Russia in an open, armed conflict. This would mean engagements between American and Russian forces in Ukraine. At the worst, this could devolve into limited, and then complete, nuclear war. This, in my mind, is highly unlikely. Ask yourself: is the US willing to lose New York for Ukraine? Conversely, is Russia willing to lose Moscow for Ukraine? The clear answer, in both cases, is a no: thus, I do not think either nation is willing to enter direct conflict with the other over Ukraine at this time.
Second, either, or both, the US and Russia could continue, and increase, support for one of the several factions in Ukraine. Russia is currently doing this and supporting them with both troops and equipment, and the United States appears to be posturing towards doing the same. The result in this would likely be a long proxy war on behalf of the Russians, or, less likely, the Americans. Recall that both the US and Russia have, in the last half-century, had failed, long-lasting proxy wars (both in Afghanistan!). Neither country’s domestic political scene would tolerate another war of that sort with the current state of global affairs.
Finally, Russia could choose to act more unilaterally, as they have done before in Georgia in the recent past, invading with Russian forces proper to establish a foothold, effectively daring NATO to risk nuclear war to stop them. Given Putin’s relative stability as the effective dictator of Russia, I think this is one outcome that is more likely than the rest since it would mirror other Russian actions in the last several decades.
It’s my hope that none of these happen and the situation simmers down over time, but, sadly, I do not think that is a likely outcome in Ukraine given its history and geography.
