[12 March 2025] Throughout modern history, Russia has consistently demonstrated a pattern of violating international treaties, especially those aimed at preserving the sovereignty of neighboring states. This pattern should serve as a stark warning to Western leaders who may believe they can strike a reliable deal with Moscow to curtail its ambitions of reestablishing an Eastern European “security zone” reminiscent of the Cold War era. The historical record makes it clear: Russia’s strategic objectives often override its treaty obligations, undermining any illusion of durable agreements based on mutual trust.
The Soviet Union’s record of flouting international agreements is well-documented. One of the most striking examples is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Despite being a signatory to the United Nations Charter, which emphasizes the sovereignty and territorial integrity of member states, the Soviet Union deployed over 100,000 troops to Afghanistan to prop up a faltering communist regime. This blatant violation of international norms not only destabilized the region but also drew widespread global condemnation.
Similarly, the Soviet occupation of Eastern European countries after World War II provides another case study in broken promises. The Yalta and Potsdam agreements of 1945, which included commitments to support free elections and self-determination for nations liberated from Nazi control, were swiftly disregarded by Moscow. Instead, the Soviet Union installed puppet regimes across Eastern Europe —in Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and others— using military force and covert operations to suppress democratic movements and cement its influence.
The collapse of the Soviet Union did not fundamentally alter Russia’s approach to international treaties. Perhaps the most glaring example in recent history is Russia’s breach of the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Under this agreement, Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal —then the third-largest in the world— in exchange for assurances from Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom that its sovereignty and territorial integrity would be respected. However, in 2014, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, flagrantly violating its commitments under the memorandum. This act of aggression was followed by the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine, where Russia has supported separatist movements, further eroding the nation’s territorial integrity.
Moreover, Russia’s actions in Georgia in 2008 echo this pattern. Despite international agreements recognizing Georgia’s sovereignty, Russia invaded under the pretext of protecting ethnic Russian populations, ultimately recognizing the independence of the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia — a move widely condemned by the international community.
These historical precedents highlight a consistent reality: Russia views treaties not as binding commitments but as strategic tools, to be observed only as long as they serve Moscow’s interests. The idea that Russia might be genuinely willing to abandon its imperialistic ambitions through diplomatic negotiations alone is dangerously naive. The Kremlin’s actions have shown time and again that it prioritizes geopolitical expansion and the reassertion of influence over former Soviet territories, even at the cost of breaching international law.
Western leaders must approach negotiations with Moscow with a clear-eyed understanding of history. Russia’s track record reveals a persistent pattern of treaty violations and territorial aggression. Any diplomatic solution aimed at containing Russia’s ambitions in Eastern Europe must therefore be coupled with strong deterrence measures, unwavering support for vulnerable neighboring states, and a realistic acknowledgment that trust alone cannot safeguard peace. History teaches us that agreements with Russia are only as reliable as the strength and resolve behind their enforcement. [EIA]