The war in Ukraine has sparked intense debate about its origins, with many analysts focusing on NATO expansion as the primary driver of conflict. While Western policies certainly played a role, this perspective overlooks a crucial dimension: Russia’s own strategic choices and how they created the very threats Moscow claimed to combat. Understanding the full picture requires examining not just what the West did, but what Russia chose not to do—and how those decisions made conflict increasingly likely.

The Squandered Energy Wealth Window

In the early 2000s, Russia possessed unprecedented opportunities for integration with Europe. High energy prices generated massive wealth, while Europe’s growing energy needs created obvious pathways for deeper cooperation. Countries like Norway demonstrate how energy-rich nations can maintain sovereignty while building intimate economic ties with European partners. Russia had far greater resources, geographic advantages, and a highly educated population inherited from the Soviet era.

Yet Putin chose a fundamentally different path. Rather than viewing energy exports as a foundation for mutual prosperity, his administration increasingly treated them as instruments of geopolitical leverage. Energy cutoffs to Ukraine in 2006 and 2009, supply disruptions affecting multiple European countries, and explicit linkage of energy contracts to political compliance revealed a conception of international relations based on dominance rather than partnership.

The contrast with alternative approaches is stark. Germany’s post-war integration with Western Europe created unprecedented prosperity and security. Russia possessed the resources to pursue similar integration, potentially creating a continental economic zone rivaling any global bloc. Instead, Putin’s weaponization of economic relationships drove countries to seek alternatives, making the European Union’s appeal about predictable rules rather than political whims.

The Imperial Framework’s Fatal Flaw

Putin’s rejection of integration reflected an ideological framework viewing Russia as a distinct civilization with natural rights to influence over neighboring territories. This wasn’t merely about security concerns—it reflected a fundamental belief that certain regions belonged within Russia’s sphere regardless of their populations’ preferences.

This imperial logic manifested consistently across multiple countries. In Georgia, Russia supported separatist regions and recognized their independence after the 2008 war. In Moldova, it maintained forces in Transnistria without legal basis. In Belarus, it intervened to prevent Lukashenko’s ouster after fraudulent elections. These interventions prioritized regime stability over democratic legitimacy and treated sovereignty as conditional on alignment with Russian preferences.

Ukraine represented the ultimate test case. For European institutions, Ukraine’s potential membership offered an opportunity to extend prosperity and democratic governance. For Putin’s Russia, however, Ukraine’s European orientation posed an existential challenge to the imperial framework. A successful, democratic, prosperous Ukraine would demonstrate that former Soviet republics could chart independent courses while maintaining positive relationships with Russia—proving that arguments for Russian hegemony were false.

Putin’s Shadow Boxing Creates Real Threats

The irony of Putin’s strategy becomes clear when examining NATO’s actual condition before 2022. The alliance Putin portrayed as an aggressive military juggernaut was struggling with internal divisions, declining capabilities, and uncertainty about its post-Cold War purpose. Following 9/11, NATO reoriented away from collective defense toward counterinsurgency operations in distant theaters.

European military capabilities had atrophied dramatically. Germany could field fewer than 40 operational tanks by 2014. The UK military shrank to its smallest size since the Napoleonic Wars. Even Eastern European nations prioritized NATO interoperability over territorial defense. The “peace dividend” mentality persisted even as Putin’s authoritarian consolidation became apparent.

Putin’s 2022 invasion accomplished what decades of NATO expansion could not: creating a genuinely militarized, unified alliance directly on Russia’s borders. Within days, NATO displayed unity absent since the Cold War. Germany announced a “Zeitenwende” with €100 billion for military modernization. Poland committed to doubling its military size. Most dramatically, Finland and Sweden abandoned neutrality maintained throughout the Cold War to join NATO.

The Self-Fulfilling Security Dilemma

Putin’s approach reveals a classic self-created security dilemma. Actions taken to enhance Russia’s security inadvertently threatened others, leading to countermeasures that ultimately reduced Russia’s security. At every stage, Putin’s actions created precisely the challenges he claimed to address.

The 2014 Crimea seizure ended the post-Cold War European consensus and began NATO’s reorientation toward territorial defense. The 2022 invasion completed this transformation, creating the militarized alliance Putin claimed to fear. His aggression resolved NATO’s internal divisions by providing a clear threat unifying members around common purpose.

Putin appears to have fundamentally misperceived Western intentions. His rhetoric portrays NATO expansion as deliberate encirclement, yet Western behavior before 2022 suggests far more benign motivations. The measured response to previous Russian aggression—from Chechnya to Georgia—showed Western preference for stability over confrontation. Putin interpreted restraint as weakness rather than genuine preference for cooperation.

Economic Transformation Locks in Military Shift

Putin’s actions transformed European security economics in ways ensuring sustained Western military superiority. Before 2022, political will rather than economic capacity constrained European defense capabilities. European nations possessed the industrial base and financial resources for formidable militaries but chose not to deploy them.

By creating an existential security threat, Putin removed political constraints limiting European defense spending. European defense industries, moribund for decades, are experiencing unprecedented growth. Military technologies long neglected receive renewed attention and funding. This massive shift in military balance will persist long after the current crisis resolves.

The Price of Strategic Failure

Putin’s stated goals—preventing NATO expansion and maintaining Russian influence—could have been achieved more effectively through different means. A Russia continuing post-Cold War integration while respecting neighbors’ sovereignty would have been far more successful in limiting NATO’s military capabilities and maintaining influence over European security policy.

Instead, Putin’s aggressive actions united NATO around a common threat, ended European complacency, and created a military balance heavily favoring the West. Finland and Sweden joined the alliance, Germany began its most significant post-war military buildup, and European defense spending increased dramatically.

The NATO Putin faces today is larger, more unified, better funded, and more focused on the Russian threat than at any time since the 1980s. This transformation represents one of modern history’s most significant strategic failures—a case study in how threat inflation and misperception can create the very security challenges they were designed to prevent.

Putin’s shadow boxing with an imaginary NATO threat has ended with the Russian leader facing a real opponent of his own creation, one far more formidable than anything he originally claimed to combat.

This collection of articles by Lieutenant General (Retired) Pasquale Preziosa presents a comprehensive analysis of the rapidly transforming global geopolitical landscape, examining how traditional international orders are eroding while new power dynamics emerge.

The New Nuclear Age: The report identifies a dangerous “second nuclear race” driven by China’s nuclear expansion plans, fundamentally destabilizing the existing strategic framework. This new competition differs from the Cold War era, featuring shortened reaction times due to hypersonic weapons, increased reliance on artificial intelligence in command systems, and the emergence of a three-way nuclear competition between the US, Russia, and China. Traditional deterrence models are breaking down as hypersonic technologies render existing missile defense systems obsolete.

European Strategic Challenges: Europe faces an existential choice between three scenarios: maintaining current structures while risking irrelevance, pursuing systemic organizational reform, or undertaking radical transformation into a federal defense union. The analysis emphasizes Europe’s urgent need to develop autonomous defense capabilities, particularly in hypersonic defense, space operations, and cyber warfare, while avoiding fragmentation that could undermine unity.

Global Power Realignments: The report examines shifting dynamics in South Asia, where traditional U.S. influence is waning as regional powers like India pursue strategic autonomy while China leverages infrastructure projects (such as the massive Yarlung Tsangpo dam) as geopolitical tools. Turkey’s neo-Ottoman aspirations and Russia’s re-emergence as an arms partner further complicate regional alignments.

Technology and Geopolitical Power: A critical theme throughout is how technological supremacy, particularly in artificial intelligence and semiconductors, is reshaping international competition. China’s systematic approach through five-year plans to achieve AI hegemony by 2030 contrasts with more fragmented Western responses. The rise of transnational tech elites creates new power centers that transcend traditional state boundaries.

Institutional Decline: The analysis documents the erosion of multilateral diplomacy, replaced by media-driven foreign policy and spectacle over substance. Traditional diplomatic institutions like the OSCE and UN Security Council are increasingly marginalized as unilateral actions and public communications dominate international relations.

Key Implications: The report concludes that the current transition represents not merely a shift between great powers, but a fundamental transformation of the international system itself. Success will depend on the ability to adapt to technological change, maintain strategic autonomy, and develop new forms of cooperation that can address transnational challenges while managing intensifying competition between major powers.

This analysis provides essential insights for understanding how technological advancement, nuclear proliferation, and the rise of new actors are fundamentally reshaping the global order in ways that demand realistic and significant strategic responses from traditional powers.

This podcast discusses the article “Rethinking Military Training for the High-End Fight: From Kill Chains to Kill Webs” by Robbin Laird.

It highlights the transition from traditional, platform-centric warfare and linear “kill chains” to networked, interoperable “kill webs” essential for engaging peer competitors. The article emphasizes that military personnel, particularly fighter pilots, must now operate as nodes within a vast interconnected system, requiring significant changes to training methodologies across all services, including the Navy and Marine Corps.

It also discusses the critical role of Live Virtual Constructive (LVC) training and the imperative of allied integration for future success in high-intensity conflicts.

Ultimately, the article argues that reimagining military training is crucial to prepare skilled warriors for the complexities of 21st-century warfare.

This podcast was produced by Notebook LM and there was a statement that Laird had already gone to the Italian training facility in Sardinia. The correct statement is that in Rome last year he was briefed on the new center and is planning to visit this Fall.