• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Dmitri Trenin"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
    "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center",
  "programAffiliation": "",
  "programs": [],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States",
    "Russia",
    "Eastern Europe",
    "Ukraine",
    "Western Europe"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

In The Media
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

Putin’s Fateful Choice

Prudence dictates that Russia should not invade Ukraine. However, if Putin decides differently, the Ukraine crisis will immediately become a Russia crisis, and then a European one.

Link Copied
By Dmitri Trenin
Published on Aug 10, 2014

Source: EL PAÍS

Ever since the Maidan revolution in Kiev last February, Vladimir Putin has been facing some of the toughest choices as Russian president. The choices he confronts in the next few weeks, and the decisions he takes, will be fateful not only for Russia and Ukraine, but also for Europe.

After the sudden toppling of his unreliable Ukrainian partner, Viktor Yanukovych, Putin faced the prospect of a Ukraine led by a coalition of radical nationalists from the country’s west who are anti-Russian by definition, and of pro-Western figures in the Kiev elite that are ready to lead Ukraine to an association with the European Union and, as Putin suspected, also to NATO membership and a de facto alliance with the United States. This would have been an intolerable challenge to Russia’s security, and a check on the Kremlin’s ambition to create a powerful Eurasian Union.

Putin’s response to that first challenge was two-fold. Immediately, he made sure that whatever else happens in Ukraine, Russian-populated and strategically important Crimea would not be part of it. This was accomplished with military precision and without a shot being fired. Broader hopes of mainly Russian-speaking regions of southern and eastern Ukraine forming a confederacy, dubbed Novorossiya—“New Russia”—and making Kiev agree to federalizing Ukraine, turned out to be largely a failure. Only two regions out of eight held referenda on self-determination, which Kiev refused to recognize. An insurgency followed in Donetsk and Lugansk, which Russia tacitly supported.

Putin’s second challenge came ahead of the Ukrainian presidential election of May 25, 2014. To the Russian leader, the people who came to power in Kiev in February were putschists and usurpers. However, he chose not to ignore the will of the Ukrainian people, who overwhelmingly chose Petro Poroshenko, the principal funder of the Maidan, as their next head of state. Putin chose a combination of supporting the insurgency in Donbass and seeking to promote, with Europe’s help, a diplomatic solution in Ukraine, which would have taken care of Moscow’s security, economic, and humanitarian interests in the country. Those included: no NATO membership or U.S. bases in Ukraine; preservation of vital economic links between the two countries; and a legal status for the Russian language. Putin’s strategy, however, was opposed by Kiev, which resolved to stamp out the insurgency no matter what, and by Washington, which began to pressure Russia into backing off from Ukraine.

The downing of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014, even before the start of the investigation into what caused it, has been squarely blamed on Russia by the United States and all of its allies. In short order, they placed Russia under strict sanctions designed to cripple its economy, drive wedges between Putin and his key individual supporters, and instigate widespread anti-Kremlin resentment among the Russian population at large. Putin’s response to that is still unfolding, but it is likely to be comprehensive, ushering in a new set of policies in all key areas, from economics, to ethnic relations, to the management of the elites.

Yet, Putin’s third choice will be harder than that. The war in Ukraine’s east has already produced around 1,500 fatalities and over 800,000 displaced persons and refugees, some 700,000 of whom have crossed the border into Russia. Donetsk, a front line city of about a million residents, is half-deserted. When Kiev’s army, with full support from Washington, undertakes a final offensive to take control of the capital of the rebel “people's republic”, the civilian death toll will begin to climb fast. Putin will be faced by the dilemma of either allowing Kiev to crush Moscow’s allies, with the Kremlin helplessly standing by, or of intervening with force, plunging Russia into a painful quagmire that could be much worse than the ill-fated Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Prudence dictates that, whatever happens in Donetsk, Russia should not invade. Putin can survive the defeat of the rebels and hope to fight back on the political and economic fronts: Ukraine will face very serious tests soon in both areas. However, if the Russian leader decides differently, and falls into the trap where some of his would-be detractors want to see him, the Ukraine crisis will immediately become a Russia crisis, and then, in very short order, a European one. Not even the United States will escape being affected. Those solemnly pondering now over the lessons of World War I would be surprised that, with their eyes turned back on history, they have overlooked a catastrophe unfolding right before them.

This article originally appeared in EL PAÍS.
©DMITRI TRENIN/EDICIONES EL PAÍS, SL. 2014

About the Author

Dmitri Trenin

Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center

Trenin was director of the Carnegie Moscow Center from 2008 to early 2022.

    Recent Work

  • Commentary
    Mapping Russia’s New Approach to the Post-Soviet Space

      Dmitri Trenin

  • Commentary
    What a Week of Talks Between Russia and the West Revealed

      Dmitri Trenin

Dmitri Trenin
Former Director, Carnegie Moscow Center
SecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyNorth AmericaUnited StatesRussiaEastern EuropeUkraineWestern Europe

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Article
    India–Africa Strategic Partnership: Challenges, Potential, and Possible Pathways

    A partnership between India, a country of subcontinental size, and Africa, a continent of fifty-four countries, may seem asymmetric until one notes that both are home to nearly the same number of people—1.4 billion. This essay spells out the existing challenges to the partnership, its optimal potential, and the possible pathways to realize it over the next quarter-century.

      Rajiv Bhatia

  • Commentary
    The Unresolved Challenges in U.S.–India Semiconductor Cooperation

    The U.S.–India semiconductor cooperation story is well-stocked with top-level strategic intent. What remains unresolved, however, are some underlying challenges that will determine whether the cooperation actually functions. Three such friction points stand out.

      Shruti Mittal

  • Commentary
    Emerging From the “Zombie State” of Trade Agreements: The India-EU FTA

    The India–EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is shaping up to be one of the most consequential trade negotiations, both economically and strategically. But, what’s in the agreement, what’s missing, and what will determine its success in the years ahead

      Vrinda Sahai, Nicolas Köhler-Suzuki

  • Commentary
    The Coming of Age of India’s Nuclear Triad

    The induction of INS Aridhaman, which features several technological enhancements, now gives India the third nuclear ballistic missile submarine to ensure continuous at-sea deterrent.

      Dinakar Peri

  • Article
    India’s Oil Security Strategy: Structural Vulnerabilities and Strategic Choices

    This piece argues that the present Indian strategy, based on opportunistic diversification and utilization of limited strategic reserves, remains inadequate when confronting supply disruptions. It evaluates India’s options in the short, medium, and long terms.

      Vrinda Sahai

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.