Why the Russia-Ukraine war isn’t just about NATO and Putin

A new framework, "patrimonial imperialism," is presented as a structural explanation for Russia's invasion of Ukraine, arguing it transcends analyses focused on NATO expansion or Vladimir Putin's agency. This concept posits that Russia's imperial tendencies are embedded within its internal state structure and state-society relations, perpetuating its drive to maintain control over neighboring states like Ukraine and Belarus regardless of regime changes. The key implication is that Russia's geopolitical behavior stems from a deeply rooted, persistent structural feature, suggesting that genuine change would necessitate fundamental societal transformations beyond mere leadership shifts, posing a long-term challenge for international relations and regional stability.

Analysis

This analysis posits that Russia's foreign policy, particularly its actions in Ukraine, is driven by a deeply embedded structural condition termed "patrimonial imperialism," rather than being solely attributable to NATO expansion or the personal agency of its current leadership. According to this framework, an imperialist drive is integrated into the internal state-society relations of Russia, perpetuating itself across different political regimes, from the Tsarist era to the Soviet Union and the current Russian Federation. While the manifestation has evolved from direct annexation to exerting control over a sphere of influence including nations like Belarus and Ukraine, the core objective of regional dominance remains. The key insight is that this structural characteristic is persistent and not contingent on a single leader. Consequently, the geopolitical risk emanating from Russia is presented as a long-term structural feature, suggesting that a mere regime change would be insufficient to alter the state's fundamental foreign policy trajectory without a more profound transformation in its internal state-society relations.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Investors should treat the geopolitical risk associated with Russia as a long-term structural factor, not a transient issue tied to the current leadership, which may warrant a strategic underweight or exclusion of Russian assets in long-horizon portfolios.
• The assertion that Russia's behavior is structural implies that catalysts for de-risking, such as a leadership change, may not lead to a fundamental shift in foreign policy, suggesting caution against speculative positions based on potential near-term political changes.
• The framework's suggested applicability to other nations like Türkiye or China advises investors to incorporate deeper analysis of state-society structures into their sovereign risk models, as these can be leading indicators of long-term geopolitical volatility beyond surface-level events.