Russia’s war in Ukraine has profoundly altered global security dynamics, exposing strategic missteps and complacency by European powers. While Russia’s aggression is undeniable, western Europe, through their expansionist ambitions, and failure to heed historical lessons, bear substantial responsibility for provoking the crisis. The US, by shifting its strategic stance, may have averted a full-scale global confrontation, avoiding the direct escalation that could have led to catastrophic consequences.
The West’s role in the Ukraine crisis has been shaped by its failure to recognise Russia’s security concerns and its own historical patterns of complacency. Many scholars have extensively detailed how European actions contributed to the unfolding disaster.
READ | Trump’s Neanderthal realism faces its breaking point
One of the biggest strategic missteps was NATO’s eastward expansion. NATO’s enlargement into Eastern Europe, particularly the prospect of Ukrainian membership, was perceived as a direct security threat by Russia. This expansion, disregarding Russia’s interests, stoked fears of Western encroachment. European leaders underestimated how NATO’s moves would be interpreted in Moscow. The belief that Russia would passively accept the shifting security architecture in its backyard was a grave miscalculation.
Another key factor was the European Union’s overreach in Ukraine. The EU aggressively pursued an association agreement with Ukraine in 2013, despite Russia’s warnings. The agreement, which included a deep and comprehensive free trade deal, was seen in Moscow as an effort to pull Ukraine into the Western sphere of influence, undermining Russian economic and geopolitical interests. When Ukraine’s pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych was pressured to reject the deal, mass protests erupted, leading to his ousting. Russia interpreted this as a Western-backed coup and responded with the annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in the Donbas.
Compounding these errors was Europe’s complacency and military unpreparedness. Post-Cold War Europe assumed peace was the new norm, slashing defence budgets and diminishing its military preparedness. When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, European nations were caught flat-footed. Even after the annexation of Crimea, European leaders largely ignored Putin’s intentions, failing to bolster their defences adequately. Their reliance on the US for military support left them vulnerable when American priorities shifted.
Historical precedents show that European expansionism and power struggles have repeatedly led to catastrophic wars. The two World Wars were direct consequences of European nations pursuing aggressive territorial and political ambitions, often entangling Russia in conflicts that reshaped global history. In both cases, European powers underestimated the long-term consequences of their actions, fostering instability that ultimately forced Russia into defensive measures. The Ukraine crisis mirrors this pattern, where NATO’s expansion and the EU’s geopolitical manoeuvring pushed Russia into a defensive posture, triggering another protracted conflict with global ramifications.
The US may have averted a global conflict
The Biden administration’s early response to Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 involved unprecedented military and financial aid to Ukraine. However, the US has since moderated its stance, prioritising strategic stability over indefinite escalation. This shift, while criticised by some European leaders, has potentially prevented the war from spiralling into a global conflict.
One of the most crucial aspects of this strategy was avoiding direct military confrontation with Russia. While the US has armed Ukraine extensively, it has resisted calls to deploy troops directly, understanding the risks of direct NATO-Russia conflict. The spectre of nuclear escalation loomed large in 2023-24, with concerns that Russian desperation could lead to the use of tactical nuclear weapons. By stepping back from an all-in military approach, the US may have prevented an unmanageable escalation.
The Trump administration’s strategic realignment also played a role in preventing a broader war. A more pragmatic approach emerged, focusing on negotiating a peace deal rather than perpetuating a prolonged war. European leaders, initially sceptical of Trump’s withdrawal of blanket support for Ukraine, have begun to recognise that the conflict needs a diplomatic resolution. Macron and Starmer have engaged in ceasefire planning, acknowledging that perpetual warfare is unsustainable.
Additionally, the US has pushed European nations to take responsibility for their own security. By signalling that it will not indefinitely bankroll Ukraine’s defence, Washington has compelled European nations to reassess their military commitments. This has led to discussions of a European-led peacekeeping force, shifting the burden away from US taxpayers. Europe’s increased military spending and strategic coordination indicate that Trump’s approach—often decried as isolationist—may have compelled the region to finally acknowledge its defence shortcomings.
Europe needs to recalibrate its Russia policy
As the war grinds on, it is imperative for European powers to adopt a more pragmatic and historically informed approach. Ukraine’s NATO membership remains a red line for Russia. A negotiated neutrality status, akin to Finland during the Cold War, may be the only viable path to lasting peace. The region must recognise that pushing Ukraine irrevocably into the Western camp without security guarantees invites perpetual conflict.
Furthermore, the region must reduce its overreliance on US defence. The realisation that the US may not indefinitely underwrite European security should push NATO members to enhance their defence spending and strategic autonomy. A European-led peacekeeping force, rather than continued military brinkmanship, may provide the security guarantees necessary for a settlement.
Diplomatic engagement with Russia must also be prioritised. While sanctions and military aid are necessary tools, the region must engage in diplomatic backchannels to establish a sustainable security order. The notion of a post-war European security framework that accommodates Russian interests—while preventing aggression—should be seriously explored.
The Ukraine crisis, rather than being an inevitable clash of civilisations, was in many ways the result of strategic errors by European powers. The region now faces a defining moment: it must assume responsibility for its own security, engage in realistic diplomacy, and move beyond the policies that have fuelled instability in the region. The world cannot afford another century of repeating the mistakes of the past.