Russia, Ukraine, and the Ghost of Zbigniew Brzezinski
How The Stage For Today's War Was Set In the 1990s
The BLUF: Ukraine is both historically and strategically significant for the Russian Federation. Where historically Ukraine represents the birthplace of Russia, strategically Ukraine — specifically Crimea — is linked to Moscow’s national security interests in the Black Sea and access to the Mediterranean. Legacy Western foreign policy very likely underpins Russia’s threat perception concerning NATO expansion, the alliance’s aspirations in Ukraine, and perceived efforts to balkanize the Russian Federation.
Are you busy with other things or are you a multitasker? Let me read this report to you!
Russia very likely believes the current state of Ukraine is linked to legacy US foreign policy objectives related to Washington D.C.’s interests in Europe and Eurasia. Over the past 20 years, the Kremlin has repeatedly accused the US of engaging in efforts to intentionally expand the NATO alliance within the former Soviet Union space as part of more strategic efforts to destabilize Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin has pointed to publicly available US foreign policy, alluded to information collected via the Russian intelligence services, and observations concerning NATO incremental expansion to underpin Moscow’s threat perception.1 2 3 As recently as June 7, 2024, Putin claimed that NATO endeavors to “divide Russia into five parts”, an accusation that is very likely linked to legacy foreign policy documents.4
Much of Russia’s consternation with the West linked NATO expansion and perceptions about US desires to balkanize the Russian Federation are likely associated with, 1) the belief that the West and the Soviet Union came to an agreement that NATO would not move “one inch eastward”, and 2) US foreign policy expert public disclosures concerning Washington’s national security objectives concerning Russia.
Although Western nations dispute Moscow’s claim concerning supposed agreements about NATO expansion, the Kremlin has pointed to the conversation between U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and former Soviet Union leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990 — the minutes of which are now declassified and available at the George Washington University archive. The declassified information indicates that Gorbachev was led to believe that NATO would not expand towards the Soviet Union.5
Publicly available US foreign policy documents also provide credence to Moscow’s claims. In the mid-1990s US foreign policy expert Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote the book ‘The Grand Chessboard - American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives’, which prescribes the US’ efforts to ensure America remains the global hegemon and efforts to expand US influence in Europe and Eurasia. In several sections of Brzezinski’s book, he discusses NATO expansion, US efforts to control Ukraine and the Black Sea Region, and activities intended to splinter the Russian Federation into smaller nations. Specifically, Brzezinski highlights the historic and strategic importance of Crimea for Russia, especially the warm water port at Sevastopol which also supports Russian maritime access to the Mediterranean Sea. Furthermore, he explains the critical strategic role Türkiye plays in controlling the Bosporus and Dardanelles Straits and how this supports Western efforts to control access to the Black Sea and restrict Russia's freedom of navigation.6
For a backgrounder on Russia’s threat perception access The BLUF’s Foundational Intelligence page
The Kremlin elevated its NATO threat perception in 2008 after US President George Bush called for NATO Membership Action Plans for Georgia and Ukraine.7 At the time, the Kremlin signaled to NATO that these would be “red lines” and that continued NATO expansion risked representing a national security threat.8 9 Shortly after, Russia conducted military operations into Georgia, securing Abkhazia and South Ossetia which ensured Russia retained control of the Caucasus Mountain region.10 In 2014, Russia claims the US conducted a color revolution in Ukraine designed to support the installation of a pro-Western leader, threatening Russian control of Crimea and its strategic interests in the Black Sea and prompting the Kremlin’s annexation of the peninsula.11 12
Conceptualizing Ukraine’s Historic Significance to Russia for US Audiences
Historically, Ukraine is to Russia as is the area that makes up the 13 original colonies is to America. Ukraine, specifically Kievan Rus, is the birthplace of Russia and holds historical sentimental value. This is not a justification of Russia’s actions but an attempt to highlight why Ukraine is historically significant for Russia.
Strategic Outlook
The Kremlin very likely believes US policy towards Russia will not change moving forward, ensuring continued strategic tensions. On several occasions over the past decade, Putin has claimed that US foreign policy towards Russia will not change regardless of the elected president, suggesting that US efforts towards Russia are linked to the legacy policy highlighted above.13 14 15 Moreover, in an interview with French media, Putin claimed that US presidents are ceremonial and that “men in black suits” set Washington’s policy direction.16 Specifically, Putin stated:
“I have already spoken to three US Presidents. They come and go, but politics stay the same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy. When a person is elected, they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones. These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is what happens with every administration.”
Absent a significant US foreign policy change, strategic tensions between Russia and the US will very likely persist. As part of continued tensions, the Kremlin will almost certainly continue to highlight its threat perception concerning, 1) US policy, 2) NATO expansion and force disposition, and 3) Moscow’s strategic red lines — which will almost certainly continue to include Ukraine, Georgia, and the broader Black Sea Region.
Note to the Reader: Do you think Russia’s threat perception is unfounded? If yes, why? If no, what do you think contributes to the Western framing of Russia’s worldview?
https://www.rt.com/news/392166-putin-stone-nato-expansion/
https://tass.com/world/1646601
https://tass.com/politics/1746553
https://tass.com/world/1800079
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/36/36669B7894E857AC4F3445EA646BFFE1_Zbigniew_Brzezinski_-_The_Grand_ChessBoard.doc.pdf
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nato-ukraine-bush-idUSL0141706220080401
https://tass.com/politics/1744085
https://tass.com/politics/1013587
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/the-2008-russo-georgian-war-putins-green-light/
https://tass.com/russia/1423871
https://tass.com/politics/900244
https://tass.com/politics/1795771
https://tass.com/politics/1795813
https://www.rt.com/russia/598809-putin-us-elections-relations/
https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/putin-presidents-puppets-america/
It’s a shame we don’t hear about or learn about these data points in the West. Thanks for this analysis! Sharing in my network!!!!