In a statement on June 20, 2023, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov expressed that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) opposition to ending the war in Ukraine would mean planning to get involved in the war and stated that the Moscow administration was ready for such a scenario.[1] On June 22, 2023, Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zaharova warned that the aggressive policies of the West could lead to Deconfliction between the nuclear powers. In this context, Zaharova suggested that the responsibility for the crises that may occur belongs to the West and made the following statement:[2]
“The biggest risk is that the United States (USA) and NATO will continue to provoke themselves with their aggressive policies in order to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia in Ukraine and will be drawn deeper into the military conflict.”
It can be said that the successive statements coming from Moscow that there may be a hot conflict with the West are extremely remarkable. Moreover, the emphasis on the risk of nuclear conflict in the Russian outlets in question is also very important. The question that should be discussed at this point is whether Russia and NATO can afford to get into a heated conflict with each other.
As it is known, the Moscow administration has overcome the trauma caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union after Vladimir Putin became the President of Russia and acted with the desire to prove that it has the status of a “great power” during its actions in international politics.
In this context, the Kremlin has made efforts to maintain its influence in the post-Soviet geography within the framework of the ”Doctrine of the Immediate Environment“, also known as the ”Primakov Doctrine”. Therefore, Russia has carried out a strategy aimed at preventing the formation of pro-Western administrations in the former Soviet countries. On the other hand, the United States, which considers increasing its influence in the Eurasian geography as a prerequisite for its global leadership, has tried to ensure the formation of pro-Western regimes in the post-Soviet geography by supporting color revolutions on the one hand; on the other hand, it encouraged NATO’s eastward expansion policy by violating the guarantees given to Russia after the Cold War.
As might be expected, Russia considered NATO’s eastward expansion as part of its containment policy. In this context, it can be stated that NATO’s acceptance of Romania and Bulgaria as members in 2004 became a border for the Moscow administration. Because Russia thought that after the membership of these states, NATO had reached the maximum limits to which it could expand among former Warsaw Pact members. Accordingly, in the ongoing process, it has revealed that the West will perceive increasing its influence in the Russian immediate environment as a reason for war. Because the Moscow administration has started to think that Western actors are encircling Russia through the Black Sea through NATO expansion.
The most concrete response of the Kremlin administration to this situation is the military intervention it carried out in 2008 to block Georgia’s Western orientation. Six years after the Russo-Georgian War, Russia has taken Ukraine’s reaction to the European Union (EU) and NATO orientation one step further with its military intervention, in which it annexed Crimea in violation of international law and tried to create a de facto situation in eastern Ukraine. Moreover, the NATO and EU orientations of the Kiev government also played a decisive role in the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine War, which began on February 24, 2022.
Undoubtedly, there are many historical problems between Moscow and Kiev. However, one of the most important triggers of Russia’s intervention in Ukraine is that NATO’s expansion strategy has caused the disappearance of these qualities of the countries that assumed the “buffer zone” character after the Cold War. Therefore, the Kremlin believes that it is at war not only with Ukraine, but also with the West and, of course, with NATO.
It is also necessary to emphasize that there is a share of truth in the belief in question. Because in the current situation, Ukraine’s resistance depends on the assistance of states that have internalized Western values, the majority of which are NATO members. Of course, it is obvious that the fate of the war will also be determined by the continuity of aid. Similarly, the sanctions of these actors targeting the Moscow administration lead to Russia’s isolation from the international community. For this reason, in a sense, it can be suggested that the West is waging a proxy war against Russia. Moscow, on the other hand, is waging hybrid war in accordance with the “Gerasimov Doctrine”. In this context, on the one hand, it supports the separatists of Russian origin in Ukraine; on the other hand, it makes use of the military elements that it uses in the war nobly.
In fact, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which it announced at the beginning of the war, and its departure from the goal of overthrowing Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky are also a result of Russia-Western rivalry. As of the current point, the Moscow government is far from the victory that it plans to achieve in a short time. Moreover, it is understood that the war has turned into a war of attrition that will continue for many years, especially the strategy of the United States and Britain is in this direction. As a matter of fact, the statements of Lavrov and Zaharova that are the subject of the bet are also due to this.
Russia implies that the process may evolve into a hot conflict with NATO, and in saying so, it shows that it holds the trump card of “nuclear war”, which it has been voicing from time to time since the beginning of the war. In a sense, the Kremlin administration, although it does not express it openly, implicitly demands that the support given to Kiev be cut off, implying that a war in which Russia will be defeated in Ukraine will open the door to a process in which the whole world loses.
It should be stated at this point that it is not expected that there will be a Russia-NATO War and that the parties will enter a hot conflict in this context. Because this is not rational from the point of view of both sides. Because the Russia-NATO War, the extent to which its destruction will reach, will lead to unpredictable conflicts. Because this means the ”Third World War”.
As a result, both Lavrov’s and Zaharova’s statements stem from their belief that Russia is at war with the West in Ukraine. On these statements, Moscow is bluffing that it can nobly draw NATO into war and raises its hands with the emphasis on the “nuclear threat”. However, it is not expected that the parties will enter a hot conflict. Because this is not a rational option.
[1] “Лавров: НАТО хочет воевать на Украине, Москва к этому готова”, Vesti, https://www.vesti.ru/article/3413594, (Erişim Tarihi: 22.06.2023).
[2] “US, NATO’s Aggressive Policies May Result in Clash between Nuclear Powers-Russian MFA”, TASS, https://tass.com/defense/1636187, (Erişim Tarihi: 22.06.2023).
