Since the beginning of the Ukraine war in 2014, most of the world has painted Russian President Vladimir Putin as an evil warmonger, giving little consideration to his reasons for initiating the conflict. Given the potential threat NATO poses to Russian security, taking decisive action to prevent NATO’s eastward expansion was a logical response.
Since the beginning of the war, Zelenskyy has emphasized the strength of the Ukrainian people and their willingness to fight for their freedom. However, blindly fighting a losing battle is not in the best interest of any party involved. Although Russia initiated the conflict, President Putin has never closed the door for peace negotiations. In all peace talks, Putin has prioritized his goal of preventing Ukraine from joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
Russia’s concern for its national security in the face of NATO expansion is the foremost cause of its aggression. Long before beginning its campaign against Ukraine and being labeled an aggressor, Russia repeatedly voiced its worries about national security on the world stage since German reunification in 1990. At the Malta conference of the same year, former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev was informally promised by Secretary of State James Baker that NATO would never expand eastward.
Over time, more countries that used to be part of the Soviet sphere of influence joined NATO despite Russia’s raising concerns regarding its national security. These concerns are reasonable given the fact that the U.S. has been able to place advanced missile systems in many new member countries, like Poland and Romania, through NATO. This was done after President George W. Bush withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, which understandably deepened Russia’s worries. With these events as a precedent, Putin had legitimate reasons to take strong actions to deter Ukraine from joining NATO. If the roles were reversed, the U.S. would have acted very similarly to Russia.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy threatened military intervention if the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics crossed the quarantine line around Cuba. Tensions only subsided when the USSR chose to withdraw its missiles from Cuba to avoid direct conflict. Applying the same reasoning to Russia makes their annexation of Crimea in 2014 seem logical, especially considering the region’s military significance and Ukraine’s application to join NATO.
It is simply hypocritical for the U.S. to completely condemn Russia while it has not hesitated to act similarly throughout history. Despite Russia being successful in taking large amounts of Ukrainian territory, Putin remained open to peace negotiations, which is not cohesive with his portrayal as a warmonger.
In contrast, Zelenskyy has consistently rejected making concessions in negotiations with Russia despite Ukraine’s dire situation. His ability to sustain the war depends entirely on foreign military aid, severely limiting his leverage. As such, Zelenskyy needs to make compromises, like abandoning the idea of NATO membership and direct foreign military intervention, to end the war and prevent further loss of life.
