Today, February 21st, after months of military buildup along the Russo-Ukrainian border, the Russian Federation announced that it would recognize the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, shown in the map pictured. In an 86,000 word speech, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced a mutual assistance treaty with the rebel territories, and issuing an ultimatum to Kiev to stand down, leading to fear of escalation if Russian forces attempt to dislodge Ukrainian forces. Since then Russian forces have been recorded moving into the disputed area, although the extent of the deployment remains unclear at time of writing. Should Russia proceed with a full scale invasion of Ukraine, as some analysts now predict, it would mark the largest land conflict since the Second World War. Given the amount of diplomatic posturing, Russia seems to have staked a lot on this standoff, going so far as to forward-deploy nuclear weapons to scare off NATO. With an emergency meeting of the Security Council being convened in New York, some are asking why is Putin apparently willing to risk a Third World War by confrontation with Ukraine and the west? What does Russia want from Ukraine, and why does the United States care?

The Historical Argument

The complicated relationship between what we today call Ukraine and Russia goes back far enough in European history that the concept of a nation and distinct national identity becomes blurred. To vastly oversimplify, Russia takes much of its mythic history, including the name Russia from the Kievan Rus, a kingdom centered in modern Kiev, Ukraine, under the Rurikid dynasty. If you are familiar with the broad strokes of Arthurian legend, you could analogize Russia to England and Ukraine to Wales. As far as Russian nationalists are concerned, in the same way that Americans consider Wales unproblematically part of the United Kingdom under England, so too should Ukraine be considered part of the Russian Federation.

The current borders, Putin reiterated in a late night speech Monday Moscow time, are mere Soviet-era administrative lines, hastily forced into reality in 1991, which do not reflect the people who actually live there, many of whom earnestly identify as Russian rather than Ukrainian, and allegedly face discrimination on these grounds. The modern Ukrainian economy, including industrialization, electrification, and mechanization of agriculture were all products of Russian-led Soviet development programs. Since its independence, Ukraine has existed within the Russian sphere of influence, and the recent suggestions otherwise prove that Russia needs to assert itself more directly in its interests.

On the Ukrainian side, with their own language, culture, national identity, an increasingly western-oriented economy and political system, Ukrainians consider themselves independent of Russia. Notwithstanding the history of long dead dynasties, the popular memory in Ukraine remembers centuries of abuses by foreign occupation.

Because of its lack of sovereignty and inability to choose its own path among the great powers of Europe, both world wars, and several European conflicts besides, were fought on Ukrainian soil. After rebellion to escape the fires of the Great War as an independent nation, soviet annexation and collectivization took Ukraine from the breadbasket of Europe to the epicenter of famine, along with mass arrests, deportations, and executions during Stalin’s purges. The recovery from collectivization and the Nazi invasion that interrupted it was still ongoing when the Chernobyl nuclear disaster poisoned Eastern Europe.

Both the people and landscape of Ukraine are permanently scarred by the history of Russian domination. In this view, generation after generation of Ukrainians have suffered from Russian abuse ranging from negligent mismanagement to outright genocide. Ukraine today wants little more than to be left alone to forge its own path, even if that means making its own mistakes shifting between politics and alliances, something Russia needs to learn to respect.

The Legal Argument

Interestingly, both sides claim that America is obligated to take their side based on settlements brokered at the tail end of the Cold War. Russia claims that the United States and NATO have violated the Two Plus Four Agreement– that is, the agreement which ended formal postwar occupation of Germany and paved the way for German reunification and prohibited the stationing of NATO troops in former East Germany. Russia claims that the inclusion of additional former Soviet bloc countries in NATO violates the spirit of this treaty. The United States denies that it has ever stationed forces in violation of the treaty, and denies that anything in the treaty can be reasonably interpreted to preclude NATO welcoming new members.

It is important to note that Russian analysis, colored by Russia’s history as a European great power, views NATO not as a defensive alliance of equals, but as an offensive, anti-Russia coalition spearheaded by the United States. Russia portrays the US as a warmonger that has repeatedly violated international law including the sovereignty of countries it invades, and refuses to adopt a No First Use nuclear strike policy. Any addition to NATO is seen as a zero-sum attack on Russia. Of course there is some debate over whether Putin truly believes his homeland is endangered by NATO’s existence, or is merely obliged to publicly believe so as a matter of political orthodoxy. The answer is probably unknowable. In any case, Russia maintains that NATO involvement in Ukraine is a red line.

Ukraine’s argument for US assistance stems from the Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances, and the later Minsk Protocols. At the time of its independence from the Soviet Union, Ukraine inherited the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. Fearing that political and economic instability could lead to weapons falling into the wrong hands, the United States and others encouraged Ukraine to turn over its weapons to Russia in exchange for compensation and assurances from the US, UK, and Russia.

Close readers of the treaty will note there are no binding obligations for the United States to provide direct support to Ukraine beyond “seeking assistance from the UN Security Council”. Still, Ukraine notes, given that Russia has blocked security council action, the United States is, morally if not legally, obliged to provide direct assistance. After all, it was American assurances which led Ukraine to surrender its weapons to the country that is now threatening it. It was western mediation which led Ukraine to accept a ceasefire and drawdown of forces against Russian backed rebels in the eastern provinces of Donetsk and Luhansk, and to tacitly accept Russian occupation of Crimea in the Minsk Protocols; agreements which Ukraine has mostly abided by despite Russian intransigence.

The United States, Ukraine argues, has failed to live up to its obligations to protect democracy and international law abroad, effectively giving Russia permission to run wild. Moreover, the argument continues, Russia has flagrantly and repeatedly violated its obligations of nonaggression, and even if the US has no particular interest in helping Ukraine, it should at least take an interest in keeping a resurgent Russia in check by supporting Ukrainian resistance.

The Political Argument

Ukraine and Russia form an interesting pair of contrasts. Both are officially, ostensibly, democracies with elected heads of state, but have serious problems with executive overreach, official corruption, and electoral fairness. However, there’s no point in mincing words here: Russian democracy is essentially an open sham, whereas Ukrainian democracy, while fragile and fraught, is generally recognized as legitimate. For Russia, this represents a threat to national legitimacy and prestige.

The essential conceit of modern Russian ideology which underpins Putin’s claim to power is that real liberal democracy cannot work in Russia, at least not as long as Russia is to remain a world power. Democracy overseas is a sham, or it is only possible for small, homogenous, politically unimportant nations such as the Baltic states, or it is maintained only as a form of bread and circuses controlled by American foreign interests. Notwithstanding any military threat posed by Ukraine joining NATO, a politically stable, economically successful, western style multi-ethnic liberal democracy in Ukraine is a direct challenge to Putin’s system. By its existence it suggests another path for Russia is possible, and this is something Putin cannot allow.

Russia has repeatedly attempted to destabilize Ukraine since 2014 by supporting Russian ethnic separatists in the Donbass region and in Crimea, the latter of which was annexed into Russia after a questionable referendum. In the former case, Ukrainian forces were able to contain rebel activity to the present line of control, and Russia attempted to cut its losses by distancing itself under the aforementioned Minsk Protocol. Since attempts to weaken Ukraine by annexing Crimea and supporting rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk failed to result in the collapse or authoritarian backsliding that would achieve this objective, Russia now turns to direct intervention.