Ukraine Crisis and the Possible Pattern of Russia’s Eastern Europe Policy
MUHAMMET ALI ZURNACI
The table of “I do not know what to do” has never been an option in the dynamic between great powers and regional actors. Competition, although often constrained, carries significant costs and risks within the inherent asymmetry of such relationships, regardless of the narratives spun by analysts. However, the current geopolitical landscape is shifting rapidly. Proxy wars, hybrid warfare, and an expanding toolkit for indirect power competition are reshaping the nature of asymmetric engagements faster than anticipated. In this chaotic ground of multiple actors and inconsistent moves, unintended consequences abound—and any actor may capitalize on them.
When analyzing this crisis, perspectives depend largely on the actors involved:
- Russia and Ukraine: A straightforward yet deeply asymmetric struggle.
- Russia and the EU: A more complex interplay, still marked by asymmetry.
- Russia and NATO: The highest level of complexity, with broader implications.
None of these frameworks is entirely correct or entirely wrong. Instead, we are observing layered asymmetries affecting different actors at different levels. While this is primarily a “Russia-Ukraine conflict,” its ripple effects extend to Russia-NATO, Russia-EU, and various other sub-functional relationships.
Let us collectively abandon outdated and exaggerated terms like “Global Russia,” “Great Power Russia,” or “Russian Empire’s Sphere of Influence.” Such phrases are speculative, alarmist, and detached from on-the-ground realities. Russia’s power projection is characterized by overambitious military maneuvers, a fragile economy, and weak political foresight—not the hallmarks of a great power.
If Russia were a truly great power, the world would be filled with “great powers” by similar criteria. For context: Russia’s GDP is roughly one-third that of Germany’s and one-fifteenth that of the United States’. This economic disparity undermines its ability to sustain the image of a hegemonic force. Lavrov’s stoic demeanor does little to conceal these vulnerabilities.
What is the Ultimate Goal?
The question remains: is Russia aiming to shrink its immediate risks, or is it attempting to exaggerate its influence to draw global attention? The latter seems more likely.
Russia’s so-called “sphere of influence” must be critically examined across dimensions:
- Military: Tactical gains, but limited by strategic overstretch.
- Economic: A structurally weak foundation.
- Political: Vulnerable to both internal dissent and external pressures.
- Ideological: Lacking coherent global appeal.
- Mafiatic: A speculative element that does not inspire confidence.
Muhammet Ali Zurnacı, January 12, 2022, Istanbul