Russia’s President Vladimir Putin solidified his hunger for control
by invading Ukraine and disregarding attempts to fix a heavily suffering
economy. Blaming the West for Putin’s aggressive actions simply evades his
responsibility for disrupting international order.
Putin’s main goals include
hindering NATO’s expansion / stopping Ukraine’s inclusion and perhaps
reconstituting the Soviet Union. His aggressive persistence and strict
prioritization of geo-political influence no longer puts Putin on the
defensive.
The notable drop in oil prices
over the last few months and the tightening of economic sanctions has stripped
Russia of billions in budget revenue and exiled them from some of the world’s
largest capital markets. The ruble’s dramatic decline to historic lows in
December forced Russia’s Central Bank to hike up interest rates by 6.5 percent,
putting it over 16 percent higher than the United State’s current market
interest rate.
Putin’s prioritization of Ukraine
over an alarmingly suffering Russian economy overshadows arguments for Putin’s
insecurity. According to Russian supporters, the US and its European allies are
to blame for Russia’s pushback in Ukraine. Putin has emphasized that NATO’s
enlargement and the West’s backing of pro-democracy movements in Ukraine
threaten Russia’s core strategic interests.
Supporters recognize Putin’s fear that NATO would host a naval base in
Crimea, motivating his actions to annex the peninsula.
Despite signing peace deals in
Minsk in September 2014 and February 2015, Russia continues to overrun
Ukrainian troops, break ceasefires and endure fighting. As of this month, over
6,000 people have been killed in the Russian-Ukrainian crisis. Senator John
Kerry reiterated the US and EU’s united diplomatic stances on Russia-Ukraine in
a less-than-amicable meeting with Russia’s Foreign Minister.
Putin’s reactions to the economic
sanctions are tenacious, not timid, in tone. After one Minsk summit, Putin
responded, “I want to remind you that Russia is one of the most powerful
nuclear nations…our partners should always be aware that no matter in which
condition their governments may be or which foreign policy concepts they may
pursue, it is better not to come against Russia as regards a possible armed
conflict.”
While it is reasonable to see
Ukraine’s attempts to move further west as potentially threatening to Russia, Putin’s
characterization as completely fearful and insecure is misleading. Instead, he
has instigated a powerful and comparably stable group of US-EU allies to impose
harsh economic sanctions, further crumbling the Russian economy. Putin could take
steps to ease these sanctions through negotiations, but he chooses to continue
to exacerbate conditions in Ukraine and his own country. If Putin were truly
fearful, would he let his country reach the brink of a recession, solely to
keep Ukraine at least neutral? Is NATO to blame for Putin’s desire for control?
Since 1999, Russia’s GDP per
capita doubled, providing Putin with an economic cushion and a sense of
legitimacy. After being accustomed to Putin’s trend of economic success, it
will be interesting to observe citizens’ reactions to the harsh realities of sanctions. Large banks controlled by three friends of
Putin have seen about $640 million of assets frozen in the US, Putin slashed
Kremlin salaries and international reserves fell by 25 percent. Regardless,
Putin has not abandoned his violent agenda in Ukraine and tolerates a
distressing economy.
Obama and the EU continue to
discuss expanding economic sanctions, but the impact of this stick-based method
will depend on Putin’s persistence. Characterizing Putin as merely insecure and
defensive to NATO and the West shields his unrelenting approach. If Putin were
so insecure, he would be frightened that his once growing economy has touched
record lows. He would not risk approval and financial capabilities by choking
his economy in order to obtain a sliver of Europe. Instead, he has hastily
reacted to Ukraine’s yearning for independence.
After breaking two peace
agreements, watching sanctions aid a plunging ruble and reaching the edge of
recession, Putin maintains his assertiveness. By portraying Putin as
apprehensive, Russian supporters point blame towards NATO, who simply endorse the
Ukraine acting freely. The West is not at fault for the 6,000 lives lost in the
Ukrainian conflict, but Putin’s forceful approach is.
