Speakers: Professor Jonathan Haslam, Dr. Nigel Gould-Davies, Lady Olga Maitland.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine found itself caught between the West and Russia. The United States supported NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, including Ukraine’s desire to join the alliance, driven by Ukraine's own security concerns and aspirations for closer ties with the West. Russia, however, saw this as a threat to its own security, and sought to maintain close ties with its former satellite state. What has unfolded over the past few decades is a complex and increasingly violent struggle for control of Ukraine — a country whose location and resources have made it a focal point in the contest for regional and global power.
The Aftermath of the Soviet Collapse
In 1991, Ukraine declared its independence following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and Russia grudgingly accepted it, though with conditional recognition. This changed in 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea and fuelled separatist movements in Eastern Ukraine. The roots of the current crisis can be traced back to the power vacuum left by the Soviet Union’s dissolution. Even President George H.W. Bush was cautious in 1991, as the collapse of the USSR wasn’t universally celebrated in the West. For Russia, the loss of the Soviet Union was a traumatic event, fuelling a more aggressive foreign policy under leaders like Yeltsin and Putin.
NATO’s Eastward Expansion
The critical turning point came during the Clinton administration's push for NATO expansion. While the US pushed for NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, especially the 2004 inclusion of the Baltic states, Russia saw it as a direct threat to its strategic interests, despite Western claims of defensive intent.
While France and Germany initially envisioned creating a new European security architecture, Eastern European nations actively sought NATO membership. This created a complex diplomatic situation that would have lasting consequences. Clinton's administration, working primarily through the National Security Council (NSC), started developingexpansion plans. Strobe Talbott, who became Clinton's point man on former Soviet affairs, initially warned against rapid NATO expansion, particularly regarding Ukraine's potential membership. His concerns, expressed in a memo, predicted that Russia would never accept Ukraine joining NATO - a prophecy that would prove accurate.
Putin’s rise to power in the early 2000s brought a new assertiveness in Russian foreign policy. Initially showing interest in cooperation with the West - even considering closer ties with NATO not through a "19+1" format, but a “20” - Putin's approach hardened over time, with the 2004 NATO expansion and the US-led invasion of Iraq souring relations.
Despite these tensions, Germany under Angela Merkel continued pursuing economic ties with Russia, particularly through energy projects like Nord Stream 2, creating vulnerabilities that would later complicate Europe's response to Russian aggression. The overthrow of pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine was also seen by Putin as a direct result of Western interference, and in response, Russia annexed Crimea, setting off the conflict.
For Russia, Ukraine represents more than just territorial ambition. Controlling Ukraine means controlling approximately 60% of Europe's grain supply, making it a crucial piece in food security. But perhaps more significantly, Putin views Ukraine's democratic aspirations as an existential threat to his regime. A successful, democratic Ukraine directly challenges Putin's narrative about stability under authoritarian rule.
European Divisions
Despite vocal support for Ukraine, Europe has struggled to present a unified front in the face of Russian aggression. Germany’s reliance on Russian energy created a significant vulnerability in the European response. Angela Merkel’s economic-driven policy gave Russia substantial leverage over Europe’s energy supplies, complicating Europe’s ability to act decisively.
France, too, has historically taken a more cautious approach to Russia, often questioning the US’ leadership in Europe. This reluctance delayed a more forceful European response, leaving the continent divided and reactive in the face of Russia’s actions. These divisions were exposed during the early stages of the conflict, as Germany and France’s hesitancy undermined a coordinated European strategy.
Trump and Uncertainty Ahead
With Donald Trump poised to return to the US presidency, the future of Western support for Ukraine is now more uncertain than ever. Trump’s tenure was marked by scepticism toward NATO and ambivalence about the US’ commitments to European security. But unlike his first term, Trump wouldn't face re-election pressures, potentially leading to significant policy shifts. Some suggest he might pursue another "quid pro quo" approach, seeking a settlement that doesn't require Ukraine's NATO membership but guarantees territorial integrity - though the status of some regions remains contentious.
Trump’s unpredictability on foreign policy, coupled with his tendency to prioritise America’s domestic interests, makes it difficult for European allies to gauge what kind of commitment they can expect from the US in the long term. For Ukraine, this uncertainty is a source of significant concern, as it looks to the West for continued support.
The Future of Ukraine and Global Stability
The conflict has triggered broader economic consequences. With Russian central bank reserves frozen and Europe facing potential market instability, the economic dimension of this conflict is dangerous. The US may therefore face pressure to reduce its Ukraine spending, particularly if domestic economic challenges intensify.
Ukraine's reconstruction presents another challenge - who will fund it? Germany's need for labour and Europe's broader challenges could play a role in post-war planning. The events unleashed in the 1990s continue to shape Europe in unpredictable ways, and the resolution of this conflict will likely determine Europe’s security system for decades to come.
The question remains: who can offer Putin a face-saving exit from Ukraine? With Russia facing demographic challenges and its economy under strain, the balance of power might not favour Moscow in the long term. However, the West's unity and commitment to Ukraine's cause will be tested as economic pressures mount and political landscapes shift.
This crisis represents more than just a regional conflict - it's a pivotal moment in post-Cold War international relations, challenging assumptions about European security, democratic expansion, and global power. The decisions made in the coming months and years, particularly upon Trump’s return to the US presidency, will reshape not just Ukraine's future, but the entire international order.
Comments