US vs Russia: A Historical Look at Geopolitical Tensions

 

 

The ongoing tension between the United States and Russia is deeply rooted in both nations’ historical efforts to secure their borders and protect their global influence. While the West often criticizes Russia’s actions—particularly regarding Ukraine and NATO’s expansion—there’s a noticeable double standard when it comes to how similar behavior by the US is viewed.

Russia’s Concerns About NATO and Ukraine

For Russia, NATO’s expansion eastward is seen as a direct threat to its security. With Ukraine moving closer to joining the European Union and NATO, Russia feels increasingly surrounded and vulnerable. Moscow views Ukraine as a critical buffer zone and fears losing this strategic territory to Western military influence.

From Russia’s standpoint, if Ukraine were to become a NATO member, it would bring Western forces right to its doorstep, fundamentally altering the balance of power in Europe. Russia’s concerns here aren’t much different from how the US has historically reacted to perceived threats near its borders—such as during the Cold War.

Monroe Doctrine vs. Putin’s Doctrine

In 1823, US President James Monroe introduced the Monroe Doctrine, which declared that European powers should no longer interfere in the Western Hemisphere. This was a bold move to secure American dominance in its region and to protect it from foreign influence. This doctrine has been lauded as a pillar of US foreign policy.

Today, President Vladimir Putin is essentially asking for the same kind of respect. He has repeatedly called for NATO and the EU to acknowledge Russia's sphere of influence and refrain from meddling in countries that Russia views as vital to its security—places like Ukraine, Georgia, and other former Soviet republics. Putin’s stance mirrors the Monroe Doctrine, with its emphasis on non-interference and the defense of regional influence.

Western Double Standards: The Case of AUKUS

The AUKUS pact—an agreement between Australia, the UK, and the US to help Australia acquire nuclear-powered submarines—is a clear example of the West’s selective application of geopolitical rules. While the West justifies this alliance as a way to counter China's rise, any military support China offers to Russia is met with outrage and sanctions from the US.

This exposes a double standard in how global powers are allowed to protect their interests. The West sees its own military expansions and alliances as legitimate, yet when Russia or China takes similar actions, they are labeled as aggressive and dangerous.

US Foreign Policy: Containment and Contradictions

Historically, the US has justified its global interventions as necessary to contain communism—most notably with the Marshall Plan after World War II, which aimed to limit Soviet influence in Europe. But today, when Russia attempts to contain NATO’s expansion near its borders, it’s criticized as imperialist aggression.

This raises a critical question: why is containment acceptable when done by the US, but not by Russia?

When Putin uses rhetoric similar to Monroe’s, calling for non-interference near Russian borders, he’s labeled a dictator. Yet Monroe’s policy is still celebrated as a defining moment in American history. This hypocrisy reveals the double standards that shape modern geopolitics.

A Multipolar World: Adjusting to New Realities

We’re no longer living in a world where the US holds undisputed power. The global landscape is shifting towards multipolarity, with rising powers like Russia and China asserting themselves. As these countries take steps to secure their geopolitical interests, they’re simply doing what the US has done for decades.

Russia’s actions in Ukraine and its stance on NATO expansion must be viewed through this broader lens of historical and geopolitical realities. While the West may call Putin’s foreign policy reckless, it’s driven by the same security concerns that have historically shaped US behavior on the global stage.