Disclaimer: This article presents the Russian point of view on the Ukraine conflict for the purpose of understanding geopolitical narratives. It does not reflect an endorsement of any side.

Introduction

Since 2022, the war in Ukraine has reshaped global politics and security in Europe. While the dominant Western narrative frames Russia as the sole aggressor, the Russian government and its supporters argue that the roots of this conflict lie deeper—in decades of Western provocation, NATO expansion, and a failure to recognize legitimate Russian security concerns. From this perspective, Europe bears significant responsibility for the escalation of tensions and the eventual outbreak of war.

NATO Expansion and Russia’s Security Fears

One of the key grievances expressed by Russia is the eastward expansion of NATO, particularly after the end of the Cold War. In the 1990s, verbal assurances were reportedly made by Western leaders that NATO would not expand into Eastern Europe. Yet, over the years, NATO incorporated former Warsaw Pact countries and even former Soviet republics.

From Moscow’s perspective, the possibility of Ukraine joining NATO was a red line. Ukraine shares a long border with Russia, and the presence of NATO infrastructure so close to Russian territory was seen as a direct threat. Russian officials argue that their warnings were consistently ignored by the West, especially by European leaders who, despite their geographic proximity and historical ties with Russia, chose to align with U.S. strategic interests.

The 2014 Maidan Revolution and Western Involvement

The 2014 ousting of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is cited by Russia as a turning point in the deterioration of relations. Russia views the Maidan uprising not as a democratic revolution, but as a Western-orchestrated coup that installed a pro-Western government hostile to Russian interests.

Europe, particularly countries like Germany, Poland, and the Baltic states, supported the new Ukrainian leadership and backed reforms that moved the country further away from Moscow’s influence. Russia contends that this emboldened nationalist elements in Ukraine and led to the marginalization of Russian-speaking populations, especially in the Donbas region.

Minsk Agreements and Europe’s Missed Opportunity

Between 2014 and 2021, the Minsk agreements were seen by Russia as a framework to peacefully resolve the conflict in Eastern Ukraine. These agreements, signed with the mediation of France and Germany, called for autonomy for the Donbas and a ceasefire.

Russian officials argue that Europe failed to ensure Kyiv’s compliance with Minsk, allowing Ukraine to stall the process while continuing military operations in the east. According to the Russian narrative, Europe’s inability—or unwillingness—to pressure Ukraine to implement its side of the deal contributed to the collapse of diplomacy and the resumption of full-scale conflict.

Economic Warfare and Sanctions

Europe’s response to the Russian invasion included sweeping sanctions and energy embargoes. From the Russian viewpoint, these actions were not simply punitive—they were acts of economic warfare. Russia contends that by cutting ties with its largest energy supplier, Europe not only harmed its own economies but also confirmed its status as a U.S.-dependent actor in global politics.

Furthermore, Russia claims that the sanctions have done little to promote peace, instead hardening positions and making diplomatic resolution more difficult.

Conclusion

While the war in Ukraine is often portrayed in stark moral terms in the West, the Russian perspective presents a different narrative—one where Russia is reacting to years of Western encroachment, political interference, and broken promises. From this point of view, Europe’s role in the conflict is not that of a neutral mediator or a victim, but of an active participant whose policies helped pave the path to war.

Understanding this viewpoint does not mean agreeing with it. But in a world of rising geopolitical tension, acknowledging the narratives that drive each side may be a first step toward meaningful dialogue—and ultimately, peace.