Ukraine conflict: A geopolitical reckoning beyond Western narratives

As a qualified senior teacher of Political Science with research and professional specialisation in Law & Governance, Public Policy as well as South-East Asia-focusing on the dynamics of the Indo-Myanmar Border, Myanmar state affairs, and Afghanistan-alongside expertise in International Maritime Law, International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law, I approach the Ukraine conflict with an analytical lens unclouded by Western propaganda. The discourse surrounding this war has been oversimplified into a binary of good versus evil, failing to acknowledge the nuanced historical, strategic, and legal complexities that underpin Russia’s actions. It is imperative to scrutinise the broader geopolitical chessboard, recognising how NATO’s expansionism, Western-backed regime changes, and historical security assurances have contributed to the present crisis. A myopic portrayal of the conflict disregards these crucial elements and serves only to perpetuate a skewed narrative, one that strategically overlooks the legitimate security interests of Russia while simultaneously whitewashing Western interventionist precedents.
The ongoing Ukraine conflict has been widely framed as an unprovoked act of Russian aggression, yet such a characterisation conveniently omits the intricate geopolitical realities that precipitated this crisis. To approach the matter with intellectual honesty, one must look beyond Western narratives and examine Russia’s strategic concerns, NATO’s role in heightening tensions, and the broader historical precedents that make Moscow’s actions more comprehensible. Dismissing Russian security anxieties as mere expansionism disregards the patterns of Western interventionism and the balance-of-power dynamics that shape global politics.
The argument that Ukraine, as a sovereign nation, has the unconditional right to determine its alliances and geopolitical orientation is one often advanced in Western discourse. However, sovereignty does not exist in a vacuum; it is invariably shaped by the geopolitical realities of major power rivalries. The United States itself has long adhered to the Monroe Doctrine, aggressively countering any foreign military presence in the Western Hemisphere. When faced with potential Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962, Washington was prepared to go to war rather than accept an existential threat on its doorstep. Similarly, Russia perceives NATO’s expansion towards its borders as an intolerable provocation. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, NATO has systematically encroached upon Russia’s periphery, reneging on past assurances to Soviet leaders that such expansion would not occur. Declassified documents from Western archives confirm that officials from the U.S., UK, and Germany gave verbal assurances to Soviet leaders in the early 1990s that NATO would not expand eastward, yet these commitments were soon disregarded. For Moscow, Ukraine’s potential NATO membership represented not only a security threat but also a direct challenge to its historical and cultural ties to the region. The reality is that Ukraine has been used as a geopolitical pawn by the West, with its internal affairs heavily influenced by external actors, including the United States and European Union.
The 2014 Maidan Revolution, often portrayed as a democratic uprising, was in many ways a Western-backed coup designed to install a government amenable to NATO interests. The now-infamous leaked conversation between U.S. officials Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt exposed Washington’s direct involvement in selecting Ukraine’s post-Maidan leadership. The ousting of a democratically elected government in Kyiv further exacerbated divisions within the country, alienating Russian-speaking populations in eastern Ukraine and Crimea. It is within this context that Crimea’s decision to rejoin Russia must be understood. The Crimean referendum of 2014, which resulted in an overwhelming majority voting in favour of reunification with Russia, mirrored other instances of self-determination worldwide. Western powers that recognised Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence from Serbia cannot credibly argue that Crimea’s reintegration with Russia was wholly illegitimate. The stark inconsistencies in how self-determination is applied across different geopolitical contexts highlight the extent to which international norms are often manipulated to serve strategic interests. Similar cases, such as South Ossetia and Abkhazia’s breakaway from Georgia in 2008 following NATO’s increasing influence in the region, reinforce the notion that self-determination is selectively supported depending on Western strategic priorities.
Historical precedent further supports Russia’s concerns regarding NATO expansion. In 1999, NATO’s bombing of Yugoslavia, carried out without UN Security Council approval, set a dangerous precedent for unilateral military action under the guise of humanitarian intervention. The West justified its actions by claiming the need to protect Kosovo Albanians, yet the sovereignty of Serbia was disregarded entirely. The same rationale that NATO used in Kosovo can be applied to Russia’s concerns about protecting Russian-speaking populations in Ukraine. Furthermore, Western-backed interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria demonstrate a pattern of selective sovereignty, where the rules of international engagement appear to shift depending on strategic interests. Russia’s intervention in Georgia in 2008, often criticised in the West, was similarly framed by Moscow as a necessary measure to protect ethnic Russians and counteract NATO’s encroachment. These precedents underscore that security considerations are not unique to Western nations; Russia, too, has legitimate concerns when facing the prospect of foreign-aligned military installations near its borders.
Western discourse on the Ukraine conflict frequently omits the egregious role that NATO and the U.S. have played in escalating hostilities. Since 2014, Ukrainian forces have been extensively armed and trained by NATO, further entrenching the country within Western military structures. U.S.-led military exercises near Russia’s borders and the continuous supply of advanced weaponry to Ukraine left Moscow with limited diplomatic alternatives. When Russia launched its military operation in 2022, it was responding to years of strategic encirclement and growing threats on its doorstep. The portrayal of this move as a sudden, unjustified act of aggression fails to acknowledge the long-standing provocations that preceded it. The same logic applied by the U.S. in its pre-emptive strikes against perceived threats-such as its 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of weapons of mass destruction-demonstrates that military action, when deemed strategically necessary, is a tool frequently employed by Western powers.
The hypocrisy of the West is particularly glaring when one considers its own history of military interventions. The United States has invaded and occupied numerous sovereign nations under the pretext of security or democracy promotion-Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria being prime examples. In these cases, Western military campaigns led to widespread destruction, massive civilian casualties, and protracted instability, yet they were framed as necessary measures for global security. The Western silence on its own interventions, while simultaneously condemning Russia, underscores the selective application of international law. If military intervention is to be judged objectively, then all aggressions-whether by the U.S., NATO, or Russia-must be held to the same standard.
Beyond military confrontations, the economic war waged against Russia through unprecedented sanctions further illustrates the West’s reliance on coercion rather than diplomacy. These economic measures were intended to cripple Russia’s economy, yet they have, in many respects, backfired. European nations now struggle with inflation, energy shortages, and political instability, while Russia has successfully adapted by pivoting its economic alliances towards China, India, and other Global South nations. Afghanistan, too, has witnessed the destructive impact of Western economic manipulation, particularly through asset freezes and financial embargoes that exacerbated the suffering of its civilian population. Such tactics, rather than fostering stability, deepen divides and prolong conflicts.
For Afghanistan, the Ukraine crisis is a case study in how great powers instrumentalise smaller nations to advance their geopolitical objectives. The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, framed as a mission to combat terrorism and promote democracy, ultimately ended in failure, leaving behind a fractured and uncertain future. Much like Ukraine today, Afghanistan was subjected to foreign influence, its sovereignty subjugated to broader strategic interests. This parallel fosters scepticism towards the West’s narrative on Ukraine and raises questions about the true motivations behind Western support for Kyiv. History has shown that U.S. interventions are rarely driven by altruistic concerns; rather, they are calculated moves in the broader contest for global dominance.
The Ukraine conflict is not merely a bilateral war but a pivotal moment in the realignment of global power structures. The unipolar order, long dominated by the United States and its Western allies, is steadily disintegrating, giving rise to a multipolar world where emerging powers assert their strategic autonomy. Russia, India, and China, alongside influential regional actors such as Iran, Turkey, and the rising Afghanistan, are actively reshaping the geopolitical landscape by challenging Western-centric economic, political, and security paradigms. The West’s attempts to isolate Russia through economic sanctions and diplomatic pressure have, paradoxically, accelerated this transition, compelling Moscow to strengthen strategic partnerships with non-Western powers, particularly in Eurasia, the Middle East, and the Global South. The resistance of nations across Asia, Africa, and Latin America to Western coercion underscores a broader disillusionment with the post-Cold War order, as many states recognise that their long-term interests are best served by pursuing independent foreign policies rather than subjugating themselves to any single power bloc. The shift towards de-dollarisation, alternative trade mechanisms, and regional security frameworks further highlights this rebalancing. As Western influence wanes, the once unquestioned dominance of institutions like NATO, the IMF, and the World Bank is being challenged by alternative alliances and economic systems that prioritise sovereignty over subjugation. In this broader geopolitical contest, states that were once considered peripheral, such as Afghanistan, are finding themselves at the centre of emerging regional strategies, navigating new alliances and diplomatic recalibrations that reflect a world no longer dictated solely by Western imperatives.
Dr. Aniruddha Babar,
Academician and Independent Researcher. Director, “Project Constitutional Justice- A People’s Initiative, Tuensang”