Top photo: Ukrainian and American flags flying together. Photo by Shutterstock, timeout.com, and Anna Rahmanan

By Beau Davis

In many ways, you could be forgiven for mistaking our current decade for the 1980s. The Soviet Union (I mean the Russian Federation) under Premier (I’m sorry, President) Vladimir Putin is currently invading one of their smaller neighbors in an effort to install a regime friendly to the ideas of Communism (forgive me, safeguarding against NATO). In response to this, the United States, in concert with western countries around the globe, is aggressively arming the people of the invaded nation while at the same time committing itself to a terrifying nuclear arms race. Meanwhile, inflation continues to hurt many Americans’ purchasing power, the United States itself is just beginning to get over our own military defeats from a decade previous, environmental concerns are on a sharp increase, and technological progress continues to make huge impacts daily in both civilian and military life. 

Instead, however, history appears to be repeating itself with all of these things here in 2022. The largest war the European continent has seen since 1945 was instigated in late February with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine under the guise of a “Special Military Operation,” and ever since then, millions of Ukrainians, thousands of Russian civilian protestors, and countless others have continued to suffer appalling treatment from the effects of this war. Furthermore, the war in Ukraine has also not only suddenly thrust the world back into a period of uncertainty and fear not seen since the fall of the Soviet Union, but it has also led to major economic instability and the possible destruction of the system of globalization. Indeed, it would not be far off to say that we as a civilization have not been this close to the use of nuclear weapons in war since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. 

However, as surprising as Putin’s destructive invasion came to the international community, historical and cultural contexts, European geography, economic hardship at least partially spurred by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and changes in international and domestic politics all contributed to Putin’s plans for invasion in early 2022. In other words, the reasons for the war in Ukraine don’t make sense—until they do. Of course, none of this excuses Putin and the rest of the Russian government’s actions in the wholesale murder of innocent civilians and the breakdown of the now 30-year-old international order, but these contexts do at least give us a borderline understanding of and possible ability to predict future events. 

Background and History

On February 24, 2022, members of the Russian Armed Forces, partially in an effort to ‘de-Nazify’ the government of Ukraine (whatever that means), simultaneously conducted multiple strikes around the country and invaded Ukraine from multiple directions following Vladimir Putin’s recognition of independence for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions three days prior. These regions in eastern Ukraine border Russia and had been under separatist or rebel control since the start of the ‘Donbas War’ in 2014. This conflict was essentially a de facto proxy war between Ukraine and Russia which began with widespread protests, the removal of then-Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, and the annexation of the Ukrainian province of Crimea to Russia. Since before the start of Russia’s official invasion of Ukraine itself, the Donbas War claimed the lives of approximately 14,000 people which featured the Ukrainian military fighting pro-Russia rebels in largely stagnant trench-style fighting. However, despite the relatively recent history of conflicts occurring in Ukrainian territory since 2014, in order to really understand the current situation, one has to understand the breakdown of the Soviet Union (including Ukraine) from 1985-1991. 

Reasons for the Fall of the USSR

The breakdown of the Soviet Union is one of those events in history that cannot be easily explained by any one factor, mostly because the USSR was gargantuan in size and population. At the height of its power, the USSR had a population of 288 million people, encompassed 8,649,500 square miles of land from 15 different modern republics, and had one of the largest standing militaries on the planet in a perpetual standoff with NATO forces in and around Berlin (along with the world’s largest concentration of nuclear weapons). 

However, the Soviet Union’s economy (along with today’s Russian Federation) was extremely dependent on energy and natural resource exports—a fact that, when combined with communist policies, thus made the economy fragile and subject to the whims of any fluctuations in the energy market. This was extremely apparent in 1986 when the price of oil came to just $24 a barrel from $120 a barrel in 1980. This fact combined with the then-USSR’s prominent black market, political corruption, the Chernobyl radiation crisis which raised doubts about Russia’s energy production, and the general unwillingness of many countries to buy their military hardware, spelled uncertainty at best for its economy overall. Furthermore, in general the Soviet Union relied heavily on the territories under the Iron Curtain (particularly and somewhat ironically Ukraine due to its large agricultural output and size of territory) rather than Russia as it is today. Because of this, once the territories under the Soviet Union began practicing more democratic styles of economics under General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev (this being evidenced best by his policies of glasnost and perestroika which were intended to increase dialogue, openness, and free market tactics between economic and government circles in the USSR), less income, resources, and economic growth would ultimately come under the hands of the government in Moscow.   

This all being said, the Soviet Union’s lengthy invasion of Afghanistan is perhaps among the most well-known reasons why the USSR ultimately failed (and is certainly a glaring parallel to Russia’s current invasion of Ukraine). Known both then and now as ‘the graveyard of empires,’ Afghanistan proved too difficult of a conquest for the USSR through both the United States’ (and others) aggressive arming of the Mujahideen with Stinger missiles and other equipment, and because the people of Afghanistan (along with many other Muslims the world over) were united in their goal of ousting the Soviets through guerrilla tactics. This same sort of situation in Afghanistan would again happen with the United States (and arguably occurred as well in Vietnam during the 60’s and 70’s) 12 years after the last portions of the USSR military left the country. It remains to be seen if the current conflict in Ukraine will reflect this trend as well, but many signs seem to point to a similar conclusion. Ultimately, the USSR was not economically, politically, or militarily prepared for the war of attrition in Afghanistan which culminated in the last soviet troops leaving the country in early 1989. At the conflict’s end, approximately 15,000 soviet troops were killed, 35,000 were wounded, and an untold number of Soviet military equipment was destroyed. Contrasting this with today’s conflict in Ukraine in which NATO representatives estimated last month that 7,000-15,000 Russian soldiers had died (not including the wounded, captured, or missing soldiers that put the overall casualty list to most likely around 40,000), it is reasonable to assume that things aren’t going well for the Russian military. Regardless, it is telling that the huge Soviet Union considered similar losses sustained over nine years of conflict to be too excessive. 

Post-USSR Nations and NATO

From these events and others, the USSR would ultimately dissolve in the early 90s, and many of the states that were once under the yoke of Moscow suddenly found themselves independent nations. This would lead to many different civil wars, confused borders, mass protests, and eventually the incorporation of multiple pre-Soviet states into NATO, from fears of eventual Russian aggression. The largest and most consequential of these nations in terms of current events would be Poland, which joined the organization in 1999. However, other Eastern European countries such as Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania would also join. These countries’ decisions to join NATO (including the possible future incorporation of Finland and Sweden) are one of the most publicized reasons Putin gave the world for his current military endeavor in Ukraine. Putin saw this continued NATO “expansion,” at least publicly, as a direct military threat to Russia’s borders (though it is important to mention that NATO is a voluntary and strictly defensive military and political alliance that only conducts military operations when a member is under attack).

Ukraine itself has never been a part of this organization (but not through lack of trying since the early 2000s). If they were, it is almost certain that Vladimir Putin would never have conducted this operation in the first place. Two of the biggest reasons for Ukraine’s inability or previous lack of willpower to join would have to be the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine from 1990, and the Budapest Memorandum which was in effect or dictated policy from 1994-2001. The Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine not only began the process of forming an independent Ukraine, but also stated Ukraine had no interest in being a part of a military bloc or making, procuring, or accepting nuclear weapons. This document, in concert with the Budapest Memorandum which provided security assurances to Ukraine from not only Russia itself but also the United States on the condition that Ukraine gave up its considerable nuclear arsenal left over from the times of the Soviet Union, gave the Ukrainian government reasons to believe that NATO membership was not necessary for future territorial sovereignty. However, beyond these events, things like shifting priorities in Ukraine’s government and changes in the government itself throughout the early 2000s kept NATO membership a somewhat difficult task to achieve. Then, in 2014, once the Ukrainian government was ousted and Russia used the opportunity to seize Crimea, the international community was against NATO incorporation on the basis that it may trigger conflict with Russia and was inadvisable due to internal strife in the country in general. 

Geography and Brief History of Conflicts in Ukraine Territory

However, beyond the discussion of recent history and background revolving around the USSR, it is also useful to recognize the role that geography and past conflicts have played in forming what is now modern Ukraine, and this discussion is perhaps best represented by the Nazi push into the Soviet Union during Operation Barbarossa in WWII. Billed to the German people as a quest for ‘Lebensraum’ or living space as well as a quasi-holy war between fascism and communism, Adolf Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941 marked the beginning of some of the most horrendous atrocities the world has ever seen. Modern Ukraine was no exception, and perhaps the most well-known of the legacies of WWII in the country is the Babyn Yar site. Located in the northern sector of the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv, the Babyn Yar Memorial Site is a ravine where Nazi forces exterminated and buried more than 30,000 Jewish (and other) people in the early stages of WWII. In early March of this year, the site gained new international attention when a Russian air strike damaged some of the memorial’s features. However, while the tactics, strategy, and atrocities committed by Germany during the war in Ukraine and other places in the Soviet Union may have been more or less new, the broad reason for the invasion in the first place were not; and that is, Nazi Germany wanted more land. 

This map perhaps showcases this idea best. As you can see, the area of Ukraine lies right in the middle of the Eastern European Plain, an area quite devoid of many obstacles like mountains except for the occasional river. Because of this, not only have an untold number of conflicts taken place in the region, due to the seemingly arbitrary borders between countries, but also because the area is one of the European continent’s greatest agricultural producers. This was true for the Mongol Empire (during which Kyiv was sacked and destroyed), Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union, and many more. Ukraine’s strategic position as a large European country bordering the Black Sea has also been attractive to conquerors in particular throughout history as waterways connected to the ocean can be a powerful military tool. So, while Putin’s current invasion of Ukraine is undoubtedly atrocious and indeed goes against the established international order, generally speaking events like it have happened before for similar reasons. This isn’t to say that eventual conflict in Europe was guaranteed to occur at some point after WWII, but it does track with our communal history.     

Current Conditions in Ukraine, Possible Predictions, and Conclusion

As of this writing, the conflict between Ukrainian and Russian forces has now been raging for more than 100 days. In it, we’ve seen the effectiveness of NATO weapons like Javelins against Russian armor and equipment, a unilateral effort by multiple companies to distance their practices from Russia in general, horrible civilian casualties with a huge refugee crisis throughout Europe, a coordinated effort by the West to supply Ukraine with aid, mass Russian civilian protests, and the widespread use of artillery, drones, and missile strikes against both civilian and military targets (though this distinction is definitely unclear at times). However, war is chaotic and there is still much we don’t know and likely won’t find out about until the fighting is over. Propaganda, misinformation, internet restrictions, operational security concerns, and more from all sides have come together to paint a confusing picture in the country overall (this fact in itself is interesting as this conflict is shaping up to be one of the most well-documented or filmed in history). 

That being said, it can more or less be safely assumed that things aren’t going great for any of the combatants. Russian forces, while being vulnerable to drones and anti-armor weapons (as well as most likely being inadequately supplied and under-coordinated for many of their objectives in the country and making bad decisions like fortifying radioactive areas around Chernobyl), have continued to make things hard for the Ukrainian military in places. Mariupol, one of Ukraine’s largest port cities and on the path to Russian-held Crimea, fell to Russian forces after a prolonged siege which saw both civilians and members of Ukraine’s military hold out in the Azovstal Steel Plant. Additionally, Russian air strikes and missiles continue to inflict casualties across the whole of the country as there is a distinct lack of Ukrainian capabilities to defend against missiles. However, perhaps the most glaring of problems for Russia’s military is its lack of technologically advanced hardware. This is referenced by Russian units moving during the day instead of at night due to lack of night vision optics, the fielding of many Soviet-era tanks instead of newer ones, the decline of ‘smart’ munitions in favor of less accurate artillery, and the supply problems. Meanwhile, the Ukrainian military’s successes have been much more broadly reported here in the West (though again its hard to say with complete accuracy what is true due to propaganda efforts). The Ukrainians were able to oust Russian forces from the areas around the capital of Kyiv, scores of Russian troops and equipment have been captured, hundreds of tanks and vehicles have been destroyed, and it is even being reported that Ukrainian units have pushed the Russians in the northeast area of the country back to the border. To top this all off, as long as the Western countries and NATO continue to supply Ukraine with military hardware, intelligence, and internet access, Ukrainian units have the capability to make things extremely costly for Russia. 

However, beyond lessons that can be learned from history the current situation happening all around Ukraine, the rest is up for speculation—especially just how far Putin and the rest of the world is willing to go in this conflict. That is part of what makes this war so consequential and unsettling. No one, not even Putin himself, is certain what will happen next as the largest European conflict since WWII continues to rage. What is certain is that this war will have a lasting legacy. It has already eroded the idea of globalization (the notion that the world is so inter-connected now through internet and technology that countries can no longer practice isolationism or, you know, make war on each other) for many nations around the world. Events like Finland and Sweden preparing to join NATO speak to this kind of idea in spades. It could be that Russia decides to double-down on the conflict and mobilize hundreds of thousands more troops to put to the front line, or that Russia invades Finland and Sweden before NATO membership takes place, or that nuclear or biological/chemical weapons are used, or Russia simply declares the “Special Operation” over and leaves things, more or less, as the current status quo. Any or none of these events may occur in the coming months along with countless other possible scenarios. For now, we know that Ukrainian civilian’s lives will continue to be uprooted and extinguished, Russia will continue to be seen by the majority of the world as a pariah state, and the world will continue to collectively tremble at the thought of a broader conflict.