Russia’s Rightful Defense and the Global Consequences of the Russia-Ukraine War

In the unfolding geopolitical drama of the Russia-Ukraine war, Russia’s actions, often portrayed as aggressive or imperialistic, may, in a philosophical and historical context, be viewed as a rightful and even necessary defense of its national security and sovereignty, much in the same way the United States would protect its interests if faced with a comparable threat.

The Russia-Ukraine war is, to a profound extent, a sequel to the Cuban Missile Crisis—though the stakes and the ideological underpinnings are different, the core issue remains the same: national security. However, when viewed through a broader geopolitical lens, it becomes clear that Russia’s actions are not merely a reaction to Ukraine but a direct response to the aggressive spread of liberal hegemony by the United States and its allies. Russia’s intervention is a calculated defense of its sovereignty, driven by a logic that should resonate globally. The United States, in its attempt to remake the world in its own image, has unwittingly triggered this conflict, which risks spiraling into a far greater geopolitical crisis.

The events that have led to this disaster can be traced to a series of provocations by the West, which refused to heed Russia’s repeated warnings. Is Vladimir Putin really a neo-Adolf Hitler, a modern incarnation of Soviet imperialism, or is there a more credible and nuanced explanation for his actions?

The Cuban Missile Crisis: A Historical Precedent for Russia’s Actions

In 1962, the United States was confronted with the possibility of Russian nuclear missiles stationed a mere 90 miles from the U.S. coast. The Soviet placement of these missiles in Cuba was viewed by Washington as an existential threat, despite Soviet assurances that they had no aggressive intentions. U.S. policymakers, interpreting these missiles as a direct challenge to American security, reacted swiftly and forcefully, leading to a near-nuclear confrontation.

Now, fast forward to the present. Russia, with its concerns over NATO’s expansion and the West’s increasing encroachment on its borders, faces a similar security dilemma. What if, instead of Cuba, a nation like Ukraine—historically and culturally linked to Russia—were to join an alliance that directly threatened Russia’s sphere of influence?

If the shoe were on the other foot today, we might ask: how would the U.S. react if Russia established military alliances with Canada and Mexico, placed missiles on the border, and conducted military exercises aimed at U.S. targets? The answer is clear: America would view such actions as a direct threat to its existence and would almost certainly act preemptively.

This analogy is precisely why Russia perceives the West’s efforts to integrate Ukraine into NATO as an existential threat. Ukraine, situated on Russia’s southwestern flank, holds strategic significance. It serves as a vital buffer zone against encroaching military alliances, which, from Russia’s perspective, is akin to the presence of missiles on its doorstep. In this context, Russia’s military actions in Ukraine are less about expansionism and more about preventing NATO’s advance into its sphere of influence—a defensive move aimed at preserving Russia’s national security. Much like the United States would not allow China or Russia to set up alliances on its borders, Russia cannot tolerate NATO expansion into Ukraine.

Just as the U.S. would have never accepted the stationing of foreign missiles in Cuba, Russia cannot be expected to passively tolerate Ukraine’s potential membership in NATO, especially when considering the offensive capabilities NATO would gain by being positioned just beyond Russia’s borders. Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the invasion of Ukraine in 2022 were both direct responses to this persistent threat—a defensive move rather than an imperial one.

If we examine the dynamics through this lens, the Russian-Ukraine conflict becomes less a quest for imperial domination and more an effort to secure Russia’s own national survival. The U.S., in the same position, would undoubtedly respond with similar urgency, making Russia’s actions—however controversial—seem far less aggressive and more defensive in nature.

A World Divided: The Struggle for European Unity and Russian Sovereignty

The reality is that Ukraine’s growing ties with NATO, including military training, arms shipments, and increasingly open support from the West, represent an existential threat to Russian national security. The analogy with the Cuban Missile Crisis remains highly relevant: if a neighboring country were to host foreign military installations capable of striking deep into the heart of the U.S., Washington would not hesitate to act, regardless of the justifications given by the adversary. The strategic question for Russia is not one of territorial expansion but of survival.

NATO’s encroachment on Russia’s borders through the inclusion of former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact countries like Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic states represents an existential threat, as much as the United States would view a foreign military alliance on its southern border with Mexico.

NATO’s eastward expansion, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, has been viewed by Moscow as a betrayal of earlier promises, and the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO is seen as the final step in a process that began decades ago. In this light, Russia’s actions become less of an unprovoked invasion and more a calculated defense against a geopolitical encirclement. Russia’s historical narrative of defending its borders—whether from the Mongols in the Middle Ages or the Nazis in World War II—echoes through its current stance on Ukraine. This is not merely a reaction to the Ukrainian crisis but a response to a broader existential challenge posed by NATO’s expansionism.

Liberal Hegemony: A Self-Sanctified Crusade That Ignored Realpolitik

The United States has long been the architect of liberal hegemony—a foreign policy strategy that promotes the spread of liberal democracy, free markets, and the rule of law as the basis for international peace and prosperity. Yet, history has shown that this globalist crusade has often disregarded the principles of sovereignty and self-determination, particularly in regions of strategic importance.

In the case of Ukraine, the U.S. pushed for closer ties with the country, framing it as part of its broader mission to spread democracy. However, the U.S. did so without consideration for Russia’s legitimate security concerns. This miscalculation can be traced back to the CIA’s $4 billion-dollar orchestrated coup in Ukraine in 2014, when the U.S. supported the ousting of the democratically elected pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych. The resulting pro-Western government in Kyiv served as the proverbial “nail in the coffin” for Russia’s tolerance of Western interference. The West’s insistence on promoting liberal democracy in a region historically tied to Russia only reinforced Moscow’s belief that NATO expansion into Ukraine was an existential threat, not just a strategic move by the West.

Moreover, the U.S. has failed to recognize that Russia is not the same authoritarian regime it was under the Soviets. Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia has moved away from the communist ideology that defined its previous incarnation. Yet, Western narratives often paint Russia as an imperialist aggressor, driven by the same expansionist tendencies of the Soviet Union. This narrative has become a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the more the West pushes against Russia, the more Moscow is driven to act in self-defense.

In this ideological crusade, the U.S. has acted as a self-styled global savior, believing that the world should align with its liberal democratic model. The problem, however, is that liberal democracy, in the eyes of many nations, is no more than an ideological weapon used to force compliance with the interests of the U.S. The West’s insistence on “regime change” in Russia, and its attempts to shape political outcomes in Ukraine, represent a dangerous form of interventionism.

The Irony of U.S. Actions: A World of Ideological Contradictions

The contradiction is glaring. The United States, which champions itself as the beacon of liberty and democracy, often ignores these very principles in its foreign policy. While preaching the sanctity of sovereignty and self-determination, it disregards Russia’s security concerns—viewing them as irrelevant to its own agenda. This paradox deepens when considering the U.S.’s alliances with regimes more authoritarian than Russia (most of its non-Europeans allies), while simultaneously casting Putin as the villain. The result is a foreign policy riddled with hypocrisy, driven by a self-righteous desire to impose liberal democracy on the world, regardless of the consequences. The true irony lies not only in the actions of the U.S. but in the way it expects the world to fall in line with its ideological crusade, without ever fully confronting its own contradictions.

For example, Russia, having emerged from the ashes of Soviet communism, is now Europe’s most religiously devout nation, with 82% of Russians identifying as believers in God. Meanwhile, the U.S.—which is economically intertwined with Communist China and allies with regimes more authoritarian than Russia—is actively engaged in undermining Russia’s sovereignty. The West’s crusade against Russia, in the name of liberal democracy, is fundamentally hypocritical.

Moreover, Russia is not the communist entity it once was. It operates under a market economy and has an elected government. Yet, many in the West continue to view Russia through a Cold War lens, failing to recognize that Russia is no longer the ideological enemy it once was. In fact, Russia’s government represents a form of governance that is rooted in its own historical and cultural context, with a deep respect for religious values and a commitment to national sovereignty.

Putin: A Neo-Adolf Hitler? The Imperialist Myth and the Lack of Evidence

The portrayal of Putin as a new Adolf Hitler—a dictator seeking to expand Russia’s borders and impose a totalitarian regime—is both misleading and historically inaccurate. This narrative has been promoted by the Western media, but it does not hold up when examined closely. First, the scale of Russia’s military engagement in Ukraine contradicts the idea of a grand imperial conquest. A full-scale blitzkrieg, like the one Nazi Germany used in Poland, would have required a much larger military force. Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine was launched with just 190,000 troops—far too few to capture and hold a country the size of Ukraine, with a population of over 40 million.

Additionally, the Soviet Union’s failed attempts to control countries like Afghanistan and the repeated uprisings in Eastern Europe during the Cold War further challenge the notion that Russia could achieve what Nazi Germany could not: the conquest and integration of Ukraine into a Greater Russia. Russia, with a GDP smaller than Italy’s, simply does not have the resources to engage in a large-scale imperial conquest in Eastern Europe. Instead, the invasion of Ukraine appears more as a defensive measure against the growing threat of NATO, not a calculated imperial expansion.

Even if one were to entertain the notion of Putin’s imperial ambitions, there is no evidence to support the claim that Russia desires to re-establish the Soviet Empire. Putin himself has repeatedly stated that Russia recognizes the new geopolitical reality following the collapse of the USSR. His main concern has been ensuring that Ukraine does not become a springboard for Western military aggression against Russia. In his 2021 essay “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians,” Putin laid out his views on the relationship between the two countries, emphasizing their shared history and cultural ties. His goal has never been to destroy Ukraine as an independent state but to prevent it from being used as a tool by the West to destabilize Russia.

The “Want of a Nail”: How Small Actions Lead to Larger Consequences

The phrase “for want of a nail, the shoe was lost,” taken from Benjamin Franklin’s parable, perfectly encapsulates the chain of events that led to the current crisis. A small series of actions—such as NATO’s promise to Ukraine and the U.S.-backed coup in 2014—set in motion a sequence of events that has escalated into a full-blown war. These actions, though seemingly minor in the eyes of the West, represented a serious threat to Russia’s security and national interests.

This war, though it may seem like an isolated conflict, is a direct consequence of actions taken years ago. The strategic missteps made by the West—the coup in Ukraine, NATO expansion, and the relentless promotion of liberal democracy—have led to a cascade of events that resulted in the current crisis. Just as a small nail can lead to the loss of a kingdom, so too have these seemingly small actions—like supporting regime change in Ukraine—led to a full-blown conflict between Russia and the West.

Putin’s response, though militaristic, is not an unprovoked act of aggression but rather a calculated defense against the threat of NATO’s encroachment. The West’s failure to recognize the significance of Russia’s security concerns and the historical context of its actions has only exacerbated the situation. As the war in Ukraine drags on, it becomes clearer that the West, in its pursuit of liberal hegemony, has underestimated the strategic depth of Russia’s resolve and the consequences of its own interventions.

The Russian intervention in Ukraine is not about imperialism; it is about survival. Russia sees the West’s actions as part of a larger plan to diminish its influence in Europe and encircle it with hostile military alliances. Just as the U.S. would never tolerate foreign alliances in its hemisphere, Russia cannot afford to allow NATO to expand into Ukraine.

The Global Consequences: A World Shaped by Liberal Hegemony

The global consequences of the Russia-Ukraine war extend far beyond the borders of these two countries. The U.S. has pursued a strategy of global interventionism for decades, spreading its version of democracy across the globe. This has led to a series of conflicts, with the U.S. embroiled in wars for two-thirds of the years since the Cold War’s end. The consequences of this strategy are now apparent, as the world is facing the potential for nuclear conflict and widespread instability.

The U.S.’s promotion of liberal hegemony has led to the rise of new power blocs, most notably the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), which are increasingly challenging the U.S.-led global order. The war in Ukraine is, in part, a reaction to this challenge. Russia, along with China and other emerging powers, is pushing back against U.S. dominance and seeking to establish a multipolar world order. The war in Ukraine is a critical battleground in this larger geopolitical struggle, and its outcome will have profound implications for the future of global governance.

The United States: A Hypocritical Lens of Global Hegemony

The United States, in this context, plays a pivotal role in shaping the conflict. Washington’s foreign policy, particularly under President George W. Bush, has aggressively pushed NATO’s eastward expansion, despite earlier assurances made to the Kremlin. The 2008 Bucharest Declaration, which promised NATO membership to Ukraine and Georgia, stands as a direct provocation to Russia’s security concerns. From the Russian perspective, this is akin to a direct threat to their national existence, one that the U.S. would undoubtedly take seriously if posed by a foreign adversary on its own borders.

The hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy becomes starkly apparent when comparing Russia’s current situation to America’s own actions throughout history. For example, the Monroe Doctrine, which asserted that any foreign intervention in the Western Hemisphere would be seen as a threat to U.S. security, is no different in its principle than Russia’s current stance on Ukraine. The U.S. has historically acted to safeguard its interests through military alliances and interventions, whether in the Caribbean, Central America, or the Middle East. Therefore, it is profoundly hypocritical for Washington to condemn Russia’s defense of its security interests while itself having engaged in numerous military operations to protect its own strategic sphere.

If the U.S. were to face the threat of foreign military alliances being established in Mexico or Canada, would it not respond with overwhelming force? This thought experiment reveals the inherent double standard in how the West interprets Russia’s actions. It is not an act of expansionism but of survival—a nation responding to the strategic encirclement imposed upon it.

As such, the Russia-Ukraine conflict can be viewed through the lens of the U.S. historical experience. Russia’s actions are not born out of imperial ambition but of the same survival instinct that has motivated every sovereign state throughout history.

Europe’s Fragile Future: Economic Collapse and the Push for Centralized Power

The consequences of the war extend far beyond Russia and Ukraine. Europe, already grappling with an economic downturn, demographic challenges, and rising energy prices, finds itself caught in the middle of this conflict. The European Union, weakened by internal divisions and external pressures, is being driven toward greater centralization and unity.

The war in Ukraine is a catalyst for these developments, with individual European nations scrambling to secure their own interests in the face of Russian aggression and the growing influence of the United States. The U.S. has long sought to prevent the reassertion of Russian power in Europe, but in doing so, it has pushed the continent toward further fragmentation and instability. NATO’s continued expansion and the economic fallout from sanctions against Russia are accelerating the decline of European autonomy.

As the EU becomes more centralized, the United States will continue to exert its influence, hoping to leverage Europe as a bulwark against Russia. However, Europe’s economic decline and dependence on U.S. military power may lead to greater unrest and fragmentation within the EU, eventually resulting in a Europe that is less independent and more servile to global power brokers. This scenario sets the stage for a much larger geopolitical crisis, one that threatens the stability of the entire continent and, by extension, the global economy.

Still, the ultimate question remains: who stands to benefit from this scenario? The answer lies in the growing alliance between Russia, China, and the emerging economies within the BRICS bloc. The shift away from the U.S.-dominated international financial system, driven by the de-dollarization movement, poses an existential threat to the U.S. and its global hegemonic ambitions. The BRICS nations, through coordinated efforts, are slowly but surely undermining the dominance of the U.S. dollar, with Russia leading the charge in fostering a new global economic order. In the face of this challenge, the U.S. seeks to maintain its position by stoking the flames of conflict in Europe, using NATO as a tool to contain Russia and ultimately dismantle the emerging challenge to U.S. hegemony.

The West attempts to isolate Russia economically, Moscow has increasingly turned to its allies in the East, particularly China, to form a counterbalance to U.S. influence. The shift away from the U.S. dollar and the development of new trade and financial systems are part of a larger effort to dismantle the Western-led global order and replace it with a more multipolar system, one in which Russia, China, and their allies play a much larger role.

The Global Implications: The End of the Unipolar World

The Russian-Ukraine War was initially a tool for the West to weaken Russia and force it into submission. Yet, in doing so, the West has underestimated Russia’s resilience and its ability to adapt. In the process, the West is inadvertently strengthening Russia’s resolve, making it more powerful, technologically advanced, and militarily capable than ever before. As the war continues, Russia is becoming an increasingly formidable power on the world stage, capable of challenging the U.S. and its allies in ways that were previously unimaginable.

The current crisis in Ukraine is, in many ways, a self-inflicted wound for the West. By pushing Ukraine into NATO’s orbit, ignoring Russia’s security concerns, and failing to engage in meaningful diplomacy, the U.S. and its allies have set the stage for a war that could have been avoided. The West’s insistence on liberal democracy as a universal model has led to a disregard for the principle of national sovereignty, which is at the heart of Russia’s security concerns.

In the case of Ukraine, the U.S. should have recognized the importance of Russia’s “red lines” and sought a diplomatic solution rather than doubling down on military escalation. The failure to engage in honest and meaningful negotiations has left Ukraine as a proxy battleground, with devastating consequences for its people and the region at large.

[Photo by kremlin.ru, via Wikimedia Commons]

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect TGP’s editorial stance.