The date February 24, 2022, is etched into modern history as a moment of profound and violent rupture. Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine shattered peace in Europe, triggering a conflict that has redrawn geopolitical maps, disrupted the global economy, and unleashed untold human suffering. It has been called Europe’s “1937 moment”—a point of no return that solidified a new, more dangerous era in international relations .
Yet, this catastrophic event forces a compelling counter-factual question: what if Russia had chosen a different path? What if it had not attacked Ukraine? Imagining this alternative history is not an exercise in mere speculation, but a crucial tool for understanding the profound consequences of the war. This article explores how Eurasia might have developed across geopolitical, economic, and cultural spheres in a world where diplomacy prevailed over violence.
Geopolitical Landscape: A Continent Unfractured
Without the invasion, the geopolitical trajectory of Eurasia would have been starkly different, characterized by a fragile but persistent status quo rather than the current stark polarization.
NATO and European Security
Contrary to the widespread belief that NATO expansion provoked Russia, the alliance was, in the words of one expert, often treated as a “political exercise” in the post-Cold War era, accompanied by a “bewildering degree of disarmament across the collective West” . Without the invasion, NATO would likely have remained a politically important but militarily less urgent institution.
The historic applications of Finland and Sweden would not have happened, and the Baltic Sea would not have been transformed into a “NATO lake” . The alliance would have continued to grapple with internal debates about burden-sharing and strategic purpose, rather than experiencing a dramatic re-birth of unity and purpose aimed at deterring a specific, immediate threat.
Russia’s International Standing
Russia would not have become the “international pariah” it is today . While its relations with the West would have remained strained, particularly following the 2014 annexation of Crimea, diplomatic and trade channels would have remained open. The Kremlin’s narrative of a nation encircled by a hostile West would have been harder to sustain, potentially creating space for different political and social forces within the country over the long term. Its imperial ambitions, driven by a deep-seated “terror that if Russia does not control all the borders and zones near it, it will collapse,” would have remained latent rather than being activated into a full-scale military mobilization .
Global Power Dynamics
The West, particularly Europe, would have been able to maintain a more ambiguous and engaged relationship with Moscow. This would have prevented the current clear-cut alignment against an “authoritarian axis” of Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea . The United States could have maintained a more balanced focus between Europe and the Indo-Pacific, without the pressing need to rally a global coalition in support of Ukraine. Furthermore, without the war, the West would have been in a stronger position to engage with the Global South, which has been alienated by the economic fallout of the conflict and the perceived double standards of Western powers .
Economic Trajectories: A World of Missed Opportunities
The global economy, still recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, would have avoided the severe shocks induced by the war and subsequent sanctions.
Global Economy and Trade
The world would have been spared the massive spikes in food and energy prices that have fueled inflation and pushed millions toward poverty . Russia and Ukraine, as “major producers of wheat,” would have continued their agricultural exports unimpeded, stabilizing global food markets . Supply chains, already strained by the pandemic, would have had a chance to recover, avoiding the further disruptions caused by the war. The economic coercion through energy cutoffs and the weaponization of famine would not have become tools of statecraft in this conflict .
Russia’s Economic Potential
The Russian economy would be on a fundamentally different, and likely more robust, footing. While facing long-term structural challenges such as an aging population and reliance on commodity exports, it would not be grappling with debilitating sanctions, a mass exodus of human capital, and a catastrophic diversion of resources toward war production . Notably, the “brain drain” that saw over 300,000 mainly younger Russians, including tens of thousands of IT specialists, flee the country would not have occurred, preserving a vital engine for future growth . The economy would not be artificially sustained by “massive increases in government spending” on the war effort, but would instead be forced to confront its productivity issues in a more globalized, albeit competitive, environment .
Ukraine’s Development Path
Most tragically, Ukraine itself would have continued on its pre-war path of state-building and economic development. Instead of seeing its production capacity decimated, cities razed, and millions displaced, Ukraine could have continued its gradual integration with European markets and institutions . The nation’s immense human and financial resources would have been directed toward innovation, infrastructure, and education, rather than being consumed by the desperate needs of national survival. The question of post-war reconstruction, which is estimated to cost hundreds of billions of dollars, would simply not exist .
Cultural Dynamics: An Unwritten Chapter of Identity
Perhaps the most profound and unexpected transformations have occurred in the cultural and identity realms, changes that would have unfolded far more slowly, if at all, without the war.
Ukrainian Identity and “De-Russification”
The full-scale invasion acted as a brutal catalyst for a rapid and decisive consolidation of a distinct Ukrainian national identity. Without it, the process of “de-Russification”—the deliberate removal of Russian cultural influence—would have continued at the gradual pace set after 2014 . The symbolic acts of recycling Russian books, pulling down Soviet statues, and switching the language of daily life from Russian to Ukrainian would not have become powerful, widespread acts of national defiance . As one expert noted, the war made Ukrainians into a “porcupine, with a cultural shield,” a defensive consolidation that would have been far less intense without an existential threat . The bilingual and bicultural reality of many Ukrainians would have persisted, without the current sense of disgust and rejection toward the language of the aggressor .
Russian Culture’s Global Position
Globally, Russian culture would not have become so deeply tainted by association with the atrocities of the war. Russian literature, art, and music would continue to be engaged with on their own terms, rather than being canceled or boycotted. The Kremlin’s narrative, which frames the war as a civilizational struggle and draws on the ideology of Moscow as the “third Rome,” would have remained an esoteric notion of far-right religious nationalists rather than a justification for a major war . The information sphere would not be dominated by a “war against the West” narrative, and the Kremlin’s use of genocidal rhetoric and nuclear threats would not have shattered the world’s perception of Russia as a rational actor .
The Global Cultural Conversation
Internationally, the war in Ukraine has centered a global debate on democracy, sovereignty, and imperialism. Without it, post-colonial and decolonization discourses would have continued to focus primarily on transoceanic Western empires, with less urgency to examine the “contiguous expressions” of Russian imperialism . The clear-cut moral challenge presented by the invasion, which made “indifference simply not an option,” would have been absent, allowing for more ambiguous and complex geopolitical alignments to persist .
Conclusion
The path not taken—a Eurasia without Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine—is a world of lost potential. It is a world with a less militarized Europe, a more globally integrated Russia, and a Ukrainian state focused on building its future rather than defending its very existence. It is an economy not wracked by artificial inflation and energy crises, and a cultural landscape where identities were not forged in the crucible of violence and survival.
While this alternative reality would not have been an utopia—existing tensions in Eastern Europe would have persisted—it would have avoided the immense human cost and global instability that have defined the past few years. Reflecting on this road not taken underscores a sobering truth: the war has not only destroyed lives and cities but has also closed off a future that was, in many respects, more prosperous, stable, and open than the one we now inhabit. The full-scale invasion was not an inevitable unfolding of history, but a decisive choice, the consequences of which will continue to shape Eurasia and the world for generations to come.
Photo: Painting by Dmitry Alexandrovich Shmarin, ”Summer of 1941”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.