Through the Lens of the Bear: A History of Russian Foreign Policy 

Piers Morgan recently hosted Professor John Mearsheimer, a famous scholar of International Relations known for his theory of Offensive Realism. On the show, Mearsheimer also talks about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and describes it as “preventive,” stating that it can be viewed through the lens of his theory. It can be argued with empirical evidence that the Russian Federation is doing what any strong state would do to protect its interests or flex its muscles. That is what Putin’s Russia has been up to, as Kozerevian-like behaviors are now rare worldwide but still not absent from Western thinking regarding Russians’ conduct in general. To comprehend current evolvements and choices by Russia, we must first know something about the present strategic foreign policy of Russia, what its goals are right now, and how different its foreign policy has been at various stages since World War II ended. 

Ukraine Crisis

The Ukraine crisis necessitates a deeper understanding of Russia’s foreign policy beyond a realist power play. While realpolitik explains security concerns driving state actions, scholars like Stephen Cohen urge consideration of historical grievances in shaping Russia’s perspective. The West, accustomed to US dominance, may have misread Russia’s assertive foreign policy under Putin, a product of the multipolar world shift, as observed by Gidon Rose. To decipher Russia’s actions, we must examine its historical trajectory: the Cold War emphasis on an Eastern European security sphere, the post-Soviet integration attempts, and the current assertive approach under Putin, as outlined in official documents like the “Foreign Policy Concept.” Through this multifaceted lens, we can only navigate the complexities of the Ukraine crisis and the emerging multipolar world order.

The Concept Behind Russian Foreign Policy

As outlined in official documents, Russia’s foreign policy prioritizes a multipolar world order free from US dominance and colonial legacies. This vision emphasizes a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe to safeguard its security and protect ethnic Russians abroad. Russia champions respect for sovereignty and non-interference while advocating for a more equitable global system that empowers all states, not just Western powers. Examining these core goals is essential to comprehending Russia’s international behavior, including its actions in Ukraine.

Russia’s dissatisfaction with the American-led, Western-centric unipolar world order—where the United States held the dominant position as a “Hyperpower,” a term coined in 1999 by French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine (hyper puissance in French)—is well-documented. However, this ennoblement was not welcomed by everyone, especially Russia. The US-dominated unipolar world order, favoring developed nations and enforced through sanctions, faced strong opposition from Russia and other states. They viewed this system as inherently unfair, benefiting the “Global North” at the expense of the “Global South.” This aligns with critiques of “liberal hegemony” by scholars like John Mearsheimer. 

Russia particularly objected to US sanctions as a tool of control, perceiving them as a form of “conservatorship” where the US dictates acceptable behavior and punishes dissent. Understanding these objections is crucial when analyzing Russia’s foreign policy goals, which include creating a multipolar world order with greater equity and less Western dominance.

Furthermore, exploring how other rising powers like China share similar concerns about US-led dominance adds another layer of complexity to the evolving global landscape. Russia has also demonstrated its defiance of US sanctions by continuing to support Cuba and Iran through trade and other means despite those sanctions. Additionally, the former Soviet Empire has sought to circumvent the US-dominated global financial system by conducting trade in local currencies. Examples include trade between China and Russia, Russia and India, and the creation of BRICS, an economic bloc some see as an alternative to the UN. The emergence of BRICS, a multilateral institution composed of major developing economies from the Global South, signifies a clear shift away from the historical dominance of European powers in global governance.

History of Russia and Ukraine

Ukraine, a country west of Russia in Eastern Europe, has a history deeply intertwined with Russia, especially for Vladimir Putin. There is undoubtedly a comprehensive history behind this. Kievan Rus, the medieval state considered the cradle of Ukrainian and Russian identity, grew into strong Tsarist Russia in the 18th and 19th centuries. The yearning for past glory extends beyond Ukraine to former Soviet territories, Eastern Europe, and, particularly, Central Asia, a region beyond Russia’s borders. 

This arena for the historical “Great Game” saw Russia contend with the Ottomans, Persians, British, and Americans. Central Asia remains a vital sphere of interest for Russia, where it remains intolerant of any significant foreign presence. Eastern Ukraine, particularly the Donbas region encompassing Donetsk and Luhansk, has a significant ethnic Russian population. Russia has repeatedly claimed that these populations are persecuted by the Ukrainian Government, using this narrative as a justification for its invasion.

Non-Interference 

The concept of non-interference is a cornerstone of Russian foreign policy. It dictates that states should be independent of external pressure and meddling in their domestic affairs. The Russian Federal Assembly, the country’s legislative body, has strongly advocated this principle internationally, promoting stronger protection of state sovereignty. This belief stems from the idea that states should be free from external influences that could alter their constitutional systems, territorial integrity, or governance structures. Notably, India and China also share a similar stance on non-interference. 

Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 casts a shadow over its championing of non-interference. While Russia claims the US instigated a coup against a pro-Russian leader, justifying their intervention, evidence suggests a popular uprising. This instance exposes a potential gap between Russia’s stated principles and real-world actions, raising questions about the true motivations behind its non-interference rhetoric.

Russia advocates for a more equal, just, and multipolar world in which everyone has their say and prestige, or, in other words, standing in the international arena. 

War in Ukraine

The war in Ukraine isn’t a sudden event. Satellite images from 2021 showed Russia steadily building up troops near the border, hinting at a possible invasion. This troop movement, coupled with the long history of conflict dating back to 2014, underscores the situation’s complexity. Russia’s anxieties about the NATO expansion eastward, which they view as threatening their security, further complicates the issue. Understanding these factors is crucial to grasping the complete picture of the war in Ukraine, which goes beyond a simple military clash. These situations couplet into an invasion by Russia on the 24th of February, 2022, the prospect Putin had been warning about for quite a long time. 

During the early offensive by the Russian Government, it gained significant territory, amassing 27% of the entire Ukrainian territory till March 2022. Still, after Ukraine started its counter-offensive, most of the territory was regained by Ukraine, with the backing of the US and Western Nations. 

As of 2024, Russia has again gained much territory, close to 18%. As Mearsheimer speculates, Russia doesn’t want to conquer all of Ukraine. Instead, its focus could be on strategically carving out a significant chunk of eastern Ukraine, like the Donbas region, to secure a land bridge to Crimea and cripple Ukraine’s industrial base. Additionally, gaining control of parts of the southern Ukrainian coastline would tighten Russia’s grip on the Black Sea, weakening Ukraine’s economy and military while bolstering its own. These strategic land grabs would establish a buffer zone between Russia and NATO, solidify Russia’s regional dominance, and give it leverage in future negotiations. 

Russia and the West

Russian relations with the West are frosty at best. The West’s support throughout the conflict has remained unwavering. It has framed its support as a defense of democracy and liberal values against authoritarianism. This stance is bolstered by the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against Russia regarding its actions in Ukraine. Moreover, this support has translated into billions of dollars of military and humanitarian aid flowing to Ukraine throughout the conflict. The most recent major aid package approved by Congress was $61 billion in April this year. As of now, more than $380 billion has been granted by the EU countries to Ukraine, and the US has given more than $130 billion in aid.

With the substantial assistance pouring into Ukraine, there appears to be no indication of a proposed solution from the involved nations nor any sign of a cessation of the conflict. There are several reasons for this, and the post-Cold War order in Europe faces a significant challenge from Russia. Feeling hemmed in by NATO expansion and the EU’s influence in its neighborhood, Russia views the current framework as a constraint on its sovereignty, security, and economic well-being. This discontent fuels actions that challenge the status quo, raising tensions and demanding a response from Europe that balances security concerns with the possibility of future cooperation.

The situation isn’t one-sided. While Russia pushes for a multipolar world, the West, led by the US, benefits from the existing order it views as maintaining stability. This creates a clash of ideologies, with Ukraine as the unfortunate battleground. The conflict transcends territorial disputes, becoming a proxy war for the post-Cold War order.  It is a fight for influence, with the future of a multipolar world versus a US-dominated unipolar world hanging in the balance.

Lastly, Putin’s mindset is set on reinvigorating the dying bear to claim the historical glory that the Russian Empire once used to have. This is the reason why Putin’s actions in Ukraine appear to be motivated by a desire to reassert Russia’s status as a great power and recreate a Russian sphere of influence akin to the “Russian world” concept. This entails exerting control over Ukraine, which is viewed as an integral part of Russia’s historical and cultural orbit. An independent, Western-oriented Ukraine is perceived as an existential threat to Russia’s identity and regional dominance. Putin seems driven by a vision of restoring Russia’s preeminence in the post-Soviet space, with Ukraine playing a central role in this revanchist project. The conflict can be seen as an attempt to roll back what Moscow considers an unjustified diminution of its influence following the Cold War by forcibly reintegrating Ukraine into its perceived traditional sphere of dominance.

The Historic “Us vs Them” between Europe and Russia 

Throughout history, Europe has viewed Russia with suspicion and negativity. Vast, unfamiliar territory, a different branch of Christianity (Eastern Orthodoxy), and a distinct culture contributed to Russia’s being seen as the “other.” Orientalist ideas of the East being “irrational” and “inferior” further fueled this perception. Some, unable to familiarise themselves with Russia, viewed the East fearfully as if it was a dangerous and unknown land. Historical events and political propaganda exacerbated these stereotypes, leaving a lasting impact on European-Russian relations. 

A Dip in the Diplomatic Relations

Let me present an instance of the “other” picture in the Western mind. As Britain desperately tried to woo the Soviet Union away from Germany in May 1940, General Ismay sent a thought-provoking message to a diplomat in the form of a poem—Rudyard Kipling’s “The Truce of the Bear.” 

Inspired by the historic British-Russian rivalry, the poem hinted at the troubled past between the two nations. By referencing this shared history, Ismay likely acknowledged past tensions while subtly proposing better communication in the face of a common enemy.

Yearly, with tent and rifle, our careless white men go
By the Pass called Muttianee, to shoot in the vale below.
Yearly by Muttianee he follows our white men in,
Matun, the old blind beggar, bandaged from brow to chin.

Eyeless, noseless, and lipless, toothless, broken of speech,
Seeking a dole at the doorway he mumbles his tale to each;
Over and over the story, ending as he began:
“Make ye no truce with Adam-zad, the Bear that walks like a Man!

“There was a flint in my musket, pricked and primed was the pan,
When I went hunting Adam-zad, the Bear that stands like a Man.
I looked my last on the timber, I looked my last on the snow,
When I went hunting Adam-zad fifty summers ago!

“I knew his times and his seasons, as he knew mine, that fed
By night in the ripened maizefield and robbed my house of bread.
I knew his strength and cunning, as he knew mine, that crept
At dawn to the crowded goat-pens and plundered while I slept.

“Up from his stony playground, down from his well-digged lair,
Out on the naked ridges ran Adam-zad the Bear,
Groaning, grunting, and roaring, heavy with stolen meals,
Two long marches to northward, and I was at his heels!

“Two long marches to northward, at the fall of the second night,
I came on mine enemy Adam-zad all panting from his flight.
There was a charge in the musket, pricked and primed was the pan,
My finger crooked on the trigger, when he reared up like a man.

“Horrible, hairy, human, with paws like hands in prayer,
Making his supplication rose Adam-zad the Bear!
I looked at the swaying shoulders, at the paunch’s swag and swing,
And my heart was touched with pity for the monstrous, pleading thing.

“Touched witth pity and wonder, I did not fire then . . .
I have looked no more on women, I have walked no more with men.
Nearer he tottered and nearer, with paws like hands that pray,
From brow to jaw that steel-shod paw, it ripped my face away!

“Sudden, silent, and savage, searing as flame the blow,
Faceless I fell before his feet, fifty summers ago.
I heard him grunt and chuckle, I heard him pass to his den.
He left me blind to the darkened years and the little mercy of men.

“Now ye go down in the morning with guns of the newer style,
That load (I have felt) in the middle and range (I have heard) a mile?
Luck to the white man’s rifle, that shoots so fast and true,
But, pay, and I lift my bandage and show what the Bear can do!”

(Flesh like slag in the furnace, knobbed and withered and grey,
Matun, the old blind beggar, he gives good worth for his pay.)
“Rouse him at noon in the bushes, follow and press him hard,
Not for his ragings and roarings flinch ye from Adam-zad.

“But (pay, and I put back the bandage) this is the time to fear,
When he stands up like a tired man, tottering near and near;
When he stands up as pleading, in wavering, man-brute guise,
When he veils the hate and cunning of his little, swinish eyes;

“When he shows as seeking quarter, with paws like hands in prayer
That is the time of peril, the time of the Truce of the Bear!”

Eyeless, noseless, and lipless, asking a dole at the door,
Matun, the old blind beggar, he tells it o’er and o’er;
Fumbling and feeling the rifles, warming his hands at the flame,
Hearing our careless white men talk of the morrow’s game;

Over and over the story, ending as he began:
“There is no trnce with Adam-zad, the Bear that looks like a Man!”

The poem’s nightmarish bear can be seen as a clear allegory for Russia in the context of Britain’s message to the Soviet Union. The historical context strengthens this connection, as the poem draws inspiration from the tense competition between Britain and Russia, known as the Great Game. The bear’s deceptive nature, with paws resembling praying hands, masks a dangerous predator. This mirrors British anxieties about Soviet intentions. The horrifically isolated beggar is a stark warning—trusting the seemingly friendly bear leads to devastating consequences. 

The poem’s portrayal of Russia as a monstrous bear reflects a troubling tendency in history, particularly in the West, to demonize enemies before the conflict. This tactic of dehumanization, as seen with the portrayal of Muslims after 9/11, can pave the way for violence by justifying aggressive actions. As Professor Ghazanfar says, the West first defines their enemy, vilifies them, and then chases them. 

Conclusion

Ukraine’s current crisis reminds us that national interest, power, and security are the sensitive nerves of international relations. The theory of Realism in International Relations (IR) makes us look at this conflict as something beyond simple territorial disputes, more as a battle between ideologies in a changed global order.

At its core, Russia’s actions can be interpreted as an answer to what it perceives as an encirclement from a NATO rival block. From the viewpoint of realism, states have an inherent competition for power and security. For Russia, the historical giant that lost its status after the Cold War, NATO expansion towards the east is perceived as a direct threat to its security buffer zone. Given such perceived vulnerability, Russia feels aggrieved and wants to regain its lost influence.

On the other hand, Ukraine seeks to carve out its path. Russia views Ukraine’s desire for self-determination and a democratic future, possibly with a link to the West, as undermining traditional bonds and posing strategic nightmares every day. This situation leads to a classic security dilemma: Russia sees Ukraine seeking protection through possible alignment with NATO, which it perceives as a threat to its safety. Thus, increased insecurity culminates in the use of force.

The West, led by the United States, views Russia’s actions as an assault on the principles of liberal democracy and the established international order. It responds with military and economic aid to Ukraine, further escalating the tensions. This dynamic highlights the realist framework’s zero-sum nature of power politics—one state’s gain is perceived as another’s loss.

The historical baggage between Russia and Europe further complicates the situation. Centuries of suspicion and mistrust color their interactions, fueling the perception of the “Other” and hindering genuine dialogue. The poem “The Truce of the Bear,” referenced earlier, exemplifies how the West has historically viewed Russia with a sense of unease and distrust.

The Ukraine crisis starkly reminds us of the enduring relevance of Realism in understanding interstate conflict. It underscores the centrality of power, security concerns, and national interest in shaping state behavior. However, a purely realist approach might be insufficient. Exploring historical grievances, cultural identities, and the potential for cooperation within a multipolar world order can also provide valuable insights.

The road to a resolution is likely long and arduous. Finding common ground, addressing security concerns on both sides, and fostering an operation are crucial first steps. However, the hope remains that diplomacy and a genuine desire for peace can eventually prevail over the destructive logic of power politics.

---

If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.

The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.