The desire for influence and control that lies at the heart of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

This article first appeared as part of the University College Dublin University Observer, Issue 5 and was published in April 2022.

To many, the brutality of the onslaught inflicted on the Ukrainian people was unimaginable a mere eight weeks ago. The imagery depicted on our screens and in our newspapers shows actions devoid of humanity. Yet the roots of this conflict lie deep in the desire for influence and control in Europe, and in the historical context of the fall of the USSR. Putin’s decision to invade, while shocking, has been contemplated by analysts for many years.

After the Second World War, the Russian Empire stretched from “the Pacific Ocean to Berlin and from the Artic to the borders of Afghanistan”[1]. With the fall of the Berlin wall and the downfall of the USSR, Russian control in Europe has waned. Poland is an excellent example of this. A former Soviet Republic, which is now a NATO member, making it firmly aligned militarily with the United States and other key allies such as the United Kingdom and France. The West’s close proximity to Mother Russia enrages Putin. Since taking power, he has sought to influence the policy decisions in the former Soviet Republics to protect Russian interests. He is particularly engaged with events in Ukraine.

Ukraine is strategically significant for Russia. It forms an essential part of the “buffer zone” between Putin and the West. Russia has long sought to influence both its domestic and foreign policy. Many Ukrainian leaders have attempted to carefully walk the line between Russia and the West. However, in the run up to 2014, Western sentiment had been growing among much of the Ukrainian people. The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, was precipitated by a growing desire among Ukrainians for an alliance with the West. Membership of the EU was almost obtained by the country before the deal ultimately failed, with many citing Russian influence in its demise.

In 2014, as Ukraine attempted to chart a new path westwards with a pro-Western government in power, Russia struck, asserting ownership over the Crimean region and its people. In February and March of 2014, Russia invaded and subsequently annexed the region.

The annexation of Crimea was a clear violation of Ukraine’s right to territorial integrity, a fundamental rule under international law. Putin argued it was necessary to protect “ethnic Russians” living in the region. There was no evidence of a threat against the Russian population living in Crimea. Putin was simply looking for a way to control Crimea and attempting to find justification for his actions. Russia took Crimea by force, as the world stood idly by. The imposition of sanctions by the EU and the United States did little to dissuade Russia. Crimea has remained under Russian control for the last 8 years. Putin undoubtedly took note of Western reluctance to engage in the conflict.

Crimea is of critical military value to Russia. The port of Sevastopol, a port which was the subject of lease agreements between Russia and Ukraine before the annexation, provides Russia with its only access to a warm-water port. It is the only port under Russian control capable of use in the winter months, affording it critical economic, but most importantly military significance. With NATO members such as Turkey controlling other strategically valuable ports in the Black Sea, Russia’s access to and control of Sevastopol is paramount to Putin. The country’s lack of a warm-water port with direct access to oceans is described by Tim Marshall, a leading geopolitical commentator, as “Russia’s Achilles heel”[2]. Putin was not willing to lose access to this critical military asset.

Russia’s annexation pushed Ukraine closer to the West. In 2017, the Ukrainian parliament adopted legislation reinstating membership in NATO as a strategic foreign and security policy objective of Ukraine. The prospect of Ukrainian membership of the European Union and NATO became more likely, with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy reiterating his desire to join these organisations. Russia, seeking to maintain its sphere of influence in the former Soviet Republics, was deeply concerned by this prospect.

In 2021, Russian aggression towards Ukraine increased. In April of last year, Russia built up thousands of troops in Crimea and along the border with Ukraine. Such a display of aggression had not been seen since 2014 and Putin’s actions provoked international concern. In November, Putin once again built-up troop levels. By the end of December, over 100,000 soldiers were stationed along the Ukrainian border, with satellite images indicating they were ready to invade at any moment. Leaders in the United States and Europe called for Putin to remove his troops. Putin demanded assurances that NATO’s enlargement eastwards would cease.  Summits held between the United States and Russia in January failed and tensions continued to escalate. On the 24th of February, following multiple failed diplomacy efforts, Russia invaded Ukraine. 7 weeks into the conflict, the nation has been devastated. A sliver of hope has been provided by the Ukrainian people.  Ukraine’s resistance to the invasion has surprised many. Russia has had to reconsider strategy as it encounters a defiant population. Russian change of tact has been seen in recent days by the drawback of Russian troops from Kyiv.

In the aftermath of an invasion of a country on their doorstep, European reaction has been notably different. In response to the invasion, Olaf Scholz, Germany’s New Chancellor indicated Germany would provide critical military equipment to Ukraine, increase defence spending, and cut ties with Russia by freezing the bilateral work undertaken by the two countries on the controversial Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which connects Russian oil to German homes. It is his last action which is perhaps most significant. Europe’s energy reliance on Russia is its greatest weakness. German action on this issue, alongside other EU counterparts, marks a notable shift. Despite economic repercussions caused by moving away from Russian oil, the EU have begun taking the steps to achieve this. Russia may find a new market for its oil in the East, with China being notably silent on the invasion thus far. While Putin may be able to find new buyers, there is no doubt that Russia and its people will feel the impact of this war. With Europe and the United States firmly united on this issue, Russia is becoming increasingly isolated. The invasion of Ukraine will have much wider geopolitical consequences, with China observing the global reaction to Putin’s actions, as it contemplates an invasion of Taiwan.

The invasion of Ukraine has been decades in the making. Feeble international reaction to the 2014 annexation of Crimea has sowed the seeds for the conflict we see today. Ukraine’s military importance to Russia cannot be overstated. Putin is unlikely to back down from this battle. This conflict, and its aftermath, will determine what powers have control and influence in Europe, for decades to come.

[1] Tim Marshall, Prisoners of Geography

[2] Tim Marshall, Prisoners of Geography