Since the end of the Cold War, Moscow and its political leaders have sought to retain territories in Eastern Europe as part of their sphere of influence. Despite being a powerhouse in international politics, Russia has lost most of its allies from the Cold War. Therefore, when NATO, a defensive military alliance comprising 30 countries,  expanded into ex-USSR territory, and took over the Crimean Peninsula in 2014, Russia’s sphere of influence saw large reductions in its ability to control Eastern European politics. In the past few weeks, under the pretext of security, Russia has moved thousands of troops to the Ukrainian border, along with truckloads of military equipment. In tandem with the Crimean invasion, the Russian foreign policy is increasingly similar to Germany’s expansion in 1938. Since appeasement did not work back then, it is unlikely to function once more. Therefore, it is likely that Russia’s aggressive foreign policy could very well be the trigger to the next global-scale war, as NATO cannot allow further annexation of sovereign territories without seeming weak. 

The significant rise in tensions between Russia and NATO over the first month of 2022, have the potential to escalate very quickly due to the highly incompatible views of the two sides. From Russia’s point of view, NATO is moving into a position where they could hold weapons of immense power on its Western front, particularly because Ukraine has been receiving weapons and economic assistance from NATO members. From purely a security standpoint, this would somewhat justify the calls for NATO to retract their troops and weapons from Eastern Europe; however, trying to place a permanent ban on a sovereign country from joining a defensive alliance is a very aggressive move. The avidity Russia demonstrates for Ukraine only strengthens the assumptions NATO has made from the 2014 Crimean invasion.

         Ukraine is certainly a key area of interest for Russia. Not only does Ukraine have cultural and linguistic ties to Russia due to its many Russian residents, but economically would also be very enticing for the Kremlin due to Ukraine’s access to the Black Sea because of increased trading potential. Given Russia’s limited access to warm water ports in Europe, it is possible the 2014 Crimean invasion could be part of a plan to gain better access to those commercial trading waters. These commercial ports can be used to ship goods all across the world, and having national access to them makes for lower transportation costs, thus increasing their trade sector potential exponentially.

The increased Russian military presence at the border with Ukraine is an indicator of a desire to reclaim the territory once belonging to the USSR. As of recently, the Russian army has approximately 130 000 troops with a variety of military equipment including tanks, artillery, air support and lethal weapons surrounding Ukraine. The movements undertaken by the Russian army seem too emphatic of a response, too sudden and too strategically important in terms of Russian interests for it to just have been a defensive strategy. To assuage international fears, President Vladimir Putin has made claims of maintaining Russian security as NATO approaches their borders. Furthermore, the issuance of the threat of “military-technical response” to a lack of response towards Russian demands is a ploy that has often been used to justify military action in key areas of interest. This is a similar tactic as to what was used in the US invasions of Iraq during the Iraq War of 2003 . 

         Joint military exercises between Belarussian and Russian armed forces appear to be another strategic ramp up by the Kremlin. Under the guise of practice and maintaining strong alliances, Russia can almost entirely surround Ukraine as a counter to NATO expansion. Although an argument could be made about the NATO alliance, given their desire to ally themselves with Ukraine, under the status quo, Ukraine is pro-NATO. This signifies that Russia could feel obligated to change that fact by installing a pro-Russia government to sway the state back towards their sphere of influence. Russia’s aggression in surrounding Ukraine is a clear signal to NATO that they are prepared to engage in combat over the expansion of the defensive alliance to encompass another Eastern European nation.

Although Russia's security concerns may be valid since their political centre is so near their Western border, it could be argued that having NATO so close to the capital presents an unjust security risk. However, the sheer size of the troop movement more closely resembles a move towards brinkmanship that would allow Russia to force NATO’s hand. Given the failure of the appeasement policy championed by the Allied Nations in the Second World War, there is no feasible way for NATO to continue to give in to Russia’s attempts at regaining the dominance it had during the Cold War, particularly after their failure to react significantly to the forcible takeover of Crimea. The lack of reaction to another move by Russia would demonstrate weakness from NATO and would incentivize Russia to continue towards grabbing power through force when they are so inclined. With neither side willing to concede it seems likely that conflict will occur in the coming months, as the Western nations and Russia vie for the Ukrainian territory.