Russia's Perception of NATO Enlargement and the Challenges to its Great Power Identity
The discussions surrounding the causes of Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, both within Ukraine and internationally, are complex, but ultimately, the resolution of this war depends on understanding these causes. Rather than a singular, definitive cause, the invasion stems from a several intertwined factors, but one stands out when considering Russia's rhetoric and actions: the Great Power perception.
The modern perception of Russia's Great Power status is deeply rooted in the Soviet Union’s role in World War II, particularly its decisive contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union's military strategy during the war, often characterised by enormous sacrifice and brutal tactics, cost millions of lives. However, this sacrifice is framed within Russian historical memory as a symbol of national strength and resilience, securing the Soviet Union's rightful place among the world’s Great Powers. The narrative that Russia, through immense suffering, led the Allied victory is a cornerstone of its self-identity and justification for its influence on the global stage. This victory over Nazi Germany, often referred to in Russia as the ‘Great Patriotic War’ rather than the broader term ‘World War II’, occupies a central position in Russian national propaganda.
By emphasizing the ‘Great Patriotic War’, the Russian state focuses on the years 1941-1945, when the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the fighting on the Eastern Front, downplaying or excluding the broader context of global alliances and conflicts. The deliberate use of this term serves to elevate the Soviet Union’s role, portraying Russia as the saviour of Europe and the ultimate vanquisher of fascism. This historical narrative is heavily promoted through state propaganda, education, and public commemorations. Russian history textbooks and public discourse emphasize the ‘Great Patriotic War’ as a defining moment in Russia’s ascent to Great Power status and downplay or omit the broader complexities of World War II, including Western Allied contributions and Soviet pre-war actions such as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. By centring the narrative around Soviet heroism and sacrifice, Russia seeks to reinforce its claim to a privileged position on the global stage, a claim that continues to influence its foreign policy and relations with other Great Powers today.
It is also necessary to consider NATO, which emerged from the aftermath of World War II primarily under the leadership of the United States and the United Kingdom. NATO, initially formed as a collective security alliance to counter Soviet influence, evolved into a key pillar of Western military and political power. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia’s status as a Great Power was called into question, even within Russia itself. The dissolution of the Soviet Union resulted in the loss of vast territories, spheres of influence, and geopolitical leverage, leading to an identity crisis in Russian foreign policy. This period of uncertainty was further exacerbated by rapid advancements in military technology, particularly in the air domain.
The Gulf War of 1991 was a stark demonstration of Western military superiority. The United States and its allies, using precision-guided munitions, stealth technology, and advanced air power, quickly dismantled Iraqi forces in a manner that caught Russian military strategists by surprise. This technological gap not only highlighted Russia’s lag in modern warfare but also signalled a shifting balance of power that further marginalised Russia’s global standing. The war’s outcome reinforced Russia's insecurity about its declining military and technological capabilities in a world where the United States seemed to dominate militarily and economically.
Adding to this erosion of Russia’s influence was the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, which further deepened Russian grievances. The decision to bypass the United Nations Security Council, where Russia held veto power, was perceived in Moscow as a blatant disregard for international law and a sign of Western unilateralism. Russia, which saw itself as a guardian of international norms through its role in the Security Council, felt sidelined and disrespected on the global stage. This disregard for Russia’s role in global governance stoked fears that the West, particularly NATO, was willing to act independently of Russia's influence, diminishing its ability to shape global security dynamics.
The eastward expansion of NATO has been a concern for Russia, but its deeper grievance lies in the loss of its empire and Great Power status after the Soviet Union's collapse. For Putin, this loss of influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia was seen as a geopolitical disaster, with each NATO expansion reminding them of their diminished standing. Actions like claiming the Sea of Azov and annexing Crimea were framed as restoring former imperial territories, helping to heal the post-Soviet identity crisis. As Putin remarked, ‘As for the results of the special military operation, some of them may manifest themselves only after a long while. New territories have appeared. This is a significant result for Russia. These are serious questions. Take the Sea of Azov, which has become Russia’s inland sea. That’s very serious.’ This rhetoric underscores the symbolic and strategic significance of such territorial gains for Russia, reinforcing its efforts to reclaim its Great Power identity through the recovery of key geopolitical assets.
The 2014 invasion of Ukraine and war in Donbass were not just about stopping NATO but reasserting control over a region Russia sees as vital to its sphere of influence. Crimea’s annexation was less about NATO missiles and more about restoring Russia’s image as a dominant regional power. The full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 revealed even more about Russia's intentions. While NATO’s eastward expansion had long been a point of tension, the invasion highlighted Moscow’s broader goals of reasserting control over Ukraine and re-establishing dominance in the post-Soviet space. Russia’s response to Finland and Sweden’s accession to NATO further clarified this dynamic. Putin’s statement that Russia has no territorial disputes with Finland or Sweden, unlike Ukraine, was telling. It underscored the fact that Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine is deeply tied to historical claims and its desire to keep Ukraine in its orbit, rather than an inherent fear of NATO’s military presence. The redeployment of 80% of Russian troops from the Finnish border to Ukraine, even as Finland was formally accepted into NATO, also dispels the notion that Russia’s actions are primarily driven by fear of NATO.
If NATO posed such a grave threat to Russian security, one would expect Moscow to reinforce its borders with newly accepted members. Instead, the Kremlin prioritized the war in Ukraine, further emphasising that the conflict is not about NATO expansion alone, but about Russia’s need to assert control over Ukraine, restore its influence, and preserve the remnants of its Great Power identity.
Image courtesy of Mikhail Metzel via AP, ©2006. Some rights reserved.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the wider St. Andrews Foreign Affairs Review team.
