Ukraine challenges Putin's vision of Russian greatness

Global Watch | 2026-01-26

Russian President Vladimir Putin's repeated characterization of the Soviet Union’s collapse as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century has often been dismissed in Western commentary as ideological nostalgia or strategic manipulation.

However, a deeper analysis reveals that Putin's narrative is shaped by more than geopolitics -- it reflects profound anxieties over legacy, competence and the role of Ukraine in defining Russia's historical identity.

Putin's discourse, articulated in speeches and essays, consistently frames the dissolution of the Soviet Union as a strategic and existential loss.

He places blame on constitutional provisions that allowed union republics to secede, accusing leaders like Vladimir Lenin and Mikhail Gorbachev of foundational errors in statecraft. In Putin's view, the collapse was not merely an economic or political failure but a rupture in Russia's historical trajectory, a wound to its self-image as the central force in Eurasian history.

Central to this narrative is Ukraine, which Putin portrays not as an independent nation but as a symbolic repository of Soviet strength in economic, cultural and technological areas. To Putin, Ukraine's independence represents a direct challenge to Russia's historical primacy. Losing Ukraine undermined the narrative of Russian greatness, creating a version of history in which Moscow's influence is neither unassailable nor inevitable.

This dynamic explains why Putin's rhetoric often distorts historical nuance.

In his speeches, he has claimed that modern Ukraine was "entirely created by Russia, or to be more precise, by Bolshevik, Communist Russia."

Statements like this dismiss centuries of Ukrainian cultural and political development, reducing the country to a constitutional artifact of Soviet statecraft. This is a rhetorical strategy designed to reinforce Russian centrality in shaping the region's past.

From a psychological perspective, this reflects a form of jealousy and a deep frustration that Russia's legacy appears incomplete without Ukraine.

Ukraine's independence and post-Soviet achievements, particularly in technology and industrial adaptation, serve as a living testament to its agency outside Moscow's control.

For Putin, this is a direct affront to his vision of Russian resurgence, which relies on reclaiming Ukraine's symbolic and material contributions to Soviet power.

Interpreting narratives

Putin's fixation on historical grievances serves a dual purpose.

Domestically, it reinforces his legitimacy by framing Russia's struggles as the result of external betrayal rather than internal failure.

Internationally, it justifies assertive foreign policy by casting Ukraine and the West as antagonists responsible for Russia's diminished status.

This narrative externalizes Russia’s post-Soviet identity crisis, transforming historical loss into a rationale for conflict.

Putin's rhetoric is also deeply personal. His narrative reflects a psychological imperative to reassert Russia’s place in history, where Ukrainian independence is less a political reality than an affront to the continuity of Russian greatness. By reframing Ukraine's independence as a historical anomaly, Putin seeks to restore a vision of Russia as the unchallenged center of Eurasian power.

Understanding this dynamic is essential for audiences seeking to interpret Kremlin narratives.

Putin's statements are expressions of deep-seated anxieties about legacy and identity. Ukraine's independence challenges the historical self-image of Russia as a unified and dominant force, making the conflict between the two nations not just a geopolitical struggle but a battle over the meaning of history itself.

For Europe and the West, recognizing the psychological and historical dimensions of Putin's rhetoric is critical to crafting effective responses.

Ukraine's independence is not just a political reality, it is a symbol of resilience and agency that undermines Moscow’s attempts to rewrite history. Supporting Ukraine's sovereignty and success is not only a strategic necessity but a rejection of the narrative that Russian greatness depends on subjugating its neighbors.