Russia has always been a difficult neighbour. Since the Peace of Westphalia and the victory at Poltava (1709) over Sweden, its Baltic rival, by Tsar Peter I, its role on the continent has been on the rise. With her victories over the Ottoman Empire, Catherine … Grande seized the Crimea and access to the Black Sea, achieving his long-awaited exit to the sea. It was enshrined as a great power and the “policeman” of Europe against Napoleon, along with Tsar Alexander. This status was completed by his conquests in the Caucasus and Central Asia. This rise was halted with the Crimean War of 1853. At the end of the nineteenth century, Russia attempted Western-inspired internal reforms; They did not promote modern nationalism, although they encouraged a strong cultural impulse. After the defeat by Japan and the failure of the 1905 revolution, the Leninist revolution of 1917 exerted a decisive influence throughout the continent, but this time in the ideological rather than the geostrategic sphere. The rest, its weight in the twentieth century with the victory over Hitler, is well known. This led to the emergence of their dominance over the entire Eastern Europe with the Soviet Empire, which collapsed abruptly in the 1990s. They were exhausted by the military effort. This was followed by the presence of Russian military personnel at NATO headquarters for years, which was also cordial.
Russia did not accept its geostrategic losses: its borders retreated to those of the seventeenth century. Its leaders, who feel nostalgia for the Soviet Union, view this as a humiliation that must be reversed, and its imperial status in recent centuries restored. It is far from being a regional power, as described by Obama’s entourage. Its nuclear power, which Putin repeatedly mentions, and its ability to direct it to any point in the world, prove this. It also has a high-tech military industry, although its “dual use” remains unsuccessful. He primarily rejects the advance of NATO forces towards the east. The integration of the Baltic states, by democratic and sovereign decision, has been a thorn in the private since 2004. They are militarily weak states, with a large Russian-speaking population, which Moscow considers easily “recoverable”. In principle, two or three sections in each will be enough.
What makes matters worse is that the accession of Sweden and Finland to the alliance has put Russia in an uncomfortable position. Readers can see a map of the Gulf of Finland, which is located between two NATO countries, Estonia and Finland, with Saint Petersburg at its eastern end. It is a dishonorable situation, because St. Petersburg, in their imagination, remains the heroic city of World War II and the capital of tsarist splendor.
Moscow wants to get rid of the NATO blockade. As for the north and south, it highlights Western contradictions and weakens the internal unity of the European Union. In the south, in the Sahel region, and with the semi-official armed organization Wagner, it supports jihadist groups and the local illegal immigration mafia, an issue that sows seeds of discord between partners and allies. It also supports the most extreme and anti-European parties, financially, with tricks and digital propaganda.
In the north, drone tests at airports, airspace violations and measures against railways and underwater cables are being implemented. It uses fake ships without specific knowledge, with which it sells its oil despite the sanctions. These actions were carried out with apparent indifference on the part of the United States, the Alliance’s main supporter, thus weakening the Alliance’s deterrent power.
Putin has a move on Trump. The experience of Russians like Lavrov contrasts with the lightness of Marco Rubio and Witkov. Everything indicates that the American conveyed to the Russian in Alaska that he considered Ukraine a “European issue,” as well as his agreement to cede part of his territory to Russia. Since this meeting, Moscow has increased its provocations in the EU countries and its pressure on Ukraine with missiles and guided munitions.
Now Trump is proposing a plan favorable to the Kremlin, which includes practical surrender to the West, without the participation of Ukraine or the European Union, to which he applies the “pay and shut up” principle. It includes ceding territory and accepting the possibility of modifying Europe’s borders by military force, as President von der Leyen explained. It’s a return to the first half of the twentieth century. European Union leaders rejected it, trying to negotiate changes to the text. They got some of it, but Putin doesn’t accept it. It would also revoke security guarantees granted to Ukraine in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which was signed by the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, and then China and France. Who can rely on these guarantees in the future?
Putin will gain control over the territories he seized by force, and perhaps even expand them, which he was unable to achieve in four years facing a militarily inferior country, with limited human resources and no air force. However, Kyiv managed to attack Russian strategic aviation behind the Ural Mountains. Ukrainians fight to free themselves from Moscow’s control despite exhaustion; Their attackers are doing it for money. Russian fighters do not show the leadership that Tolstoy praised Vasily Grossman.
Trump’s plan is in line with Putin’s New Empire policy, which seeks to integrate Ukraine into Russia’s orbit as a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the State of the Union address. For now, it will be able to turn it into a “neutral” state, outside NATO, and under a pro-Russian government, like Yanukovych’s, emerging from hasty elections. In the future, it could continue a hybrid conflict until European support is exhausted. What can be done in the face of the challenge of our neighbors? Tyrants respond only to force and determination; They hate appeasement. But how do we do it without European defence?
If the EU and NATO capitulate on Ukraine, Russia’s next move will be against the weak Baltic states: Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. It is possible that the attack will come from the land border. Behind there will be Belarus and disloyal governments, such as that of Hungary. Would NATO be willing to test its resolve by invoking Article 5 in the face of a limited Russian attack on an Estonian border town? With Trump in office, it’s hard to guess what the reaction will be. A potentially indifferent response would call into question the transatlantic connection and the alliance’s survival, which would please Russia and China, the biggest future beneficiaries of this outcome.
The 27-member European Union, unable to use its enhanced majority in its defense, and in the absence of a new federal treaty to unify its armies, is trying to persuade Washington not to submit to Putin. Without illusions, he appreciates his financial efforts and sanctions against Russia, including energy. On the ground, it could ideally withstand Putin’s hybrid skirmishes if common objectives are applied in operational capabilities.
Russia will continue to be there, as a difficult neighbour. With its complicity with China, its nuclear capacity, its strategic depth, its natural resources, and its sense of time. Its persistence belies the instability of our democracies. It’s a long-standing reality, one that our children will likely continue to face.