������

Since Russia invaded Ukraine just over four years ago, roughly 500,000 soldiers and civilians have been killed and 1 million people injured. Millions of Ukrainians currently live under Russian occupation. At least 20,000 Ukrainian children have been kidnapped and deported to Russia. Millions have fled the country.

These sobering statistics were shared by Brian Taylor, professor of political science and director of the Moynihan Institute of Global Affairs, as he introduced Oxana Shevel, a leading scholar who grew up in Ukraine, for a talk reflecting on the ongoing war and the possibilities of what’s to come.

Before Shevel took the microphone, Taylor, a renowned expert on Russian politics himself, asked the audience to observe a moment of silence “for those who have suffered as a result of this war.” Students, faculty and staff who filled the Hall of Languages conference room quietly bowed their heads.

Shevel, who grew up in Kyiv during the Soviet era, directs Tufts’ International Relations Program, is president-elect of the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies and vice president of the Association for the Study of Nationalities. Her talk at Syracuse, titled “Russia’s Invasion, Ukraine’s Resistance and Prospects for Peace,” was hosted by Moynihan’s Center for European Studies with support from the College of Arts and Sciences’ Russian Program within the Department of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics.

The talk was the latest in a series of events and initiatives by the Maxwell School intended to expose community members to unique perspectives and lend greater understanding to the conflict’s legal, strategic and humanitarian dimensions. Maxwell is home to a community of faculty including Taylor, Michael Williams, the Hon. James E. Baker and Vice Admiral Robert Murrett (U.S. Navy, retired) who research the rule of law, international politics, and peace and security, and are helping build networks of scholarship and training to support democracy in Ukraine. They have spearheaded programs such as the US-Ukraine Veterans Bridge to support the country’s bourgeoning veteran population and have contributed to research and commentary in major media outlets.

Growing Identity

During her talk, Shevel shared a view from her co-authored book, “Russia and Ukraine: Entangled Histories, Diverging States” (Polity Press, 2024), that the roots of Russia’s war on Ukraine lie not in NATO enlargement but in the growing identity and regime divergence between the two states since 1991. She cited Russia’s confidence in its security, the improbability of Ukraine’s NATO entry from the beginning, and Russia’s desires for far more than Ukrainian neutrality.

“Russia is deporting children, trying to re-educate them, banning Ukrainian books, destroying Ukrainian culture,” she said. “These actions have nothing to do with hard security and everything to do with identity.”

The lecture centered on what Shevel calls the “escalatory cycle”—the cycle of events and growing differences between Russia and Ukraine that eventually led to war. “It progressed gradually,” she said. “The more Ukraine pulled away, the more Russia pushed. The more Russia pushed, the more Ukraine pulled away.”

Throughout the escalatory cycle, Shevel identified several critical junctures—times of ideological split between Russia and Ukraine that could have been mended, but were not. Each was an opportunity to end the cycle, and each an identity divergence that built on the last, leading to the point of no return, she said.

The start of the cycle came with the 1991 Soviet collapse, often called a “civilized divorce,” dissolving the 15 united republics peacefully. “In Russia, this was seen not as a divorce, but as an opportunity to draw closer together again later, perhaps not in the Soviet Union, but in some other form,” she said. “The idea that Ukraine would permanently separate was not widely accepted in the Russian political class.”

As Shevel identified further critical junctures—such as the 2004 Orange Revolution and 2014 Euromaidan protests—her own experience of the post-communist region offered a personal dimension.

“I remember how things were taught,” she explained. She recalled clicking to the presidential website after Yanukovych’s election and finding that all mention of the 1932-33 Ukrainian famine had vanished.

War Not Likely to End Soon

Shevel expressed doubt that the Russo-Ukrainian war is likely to end anytime soon.

“The war has been horrendous for Ukrainian society. The people are tired. I have family there, sleeping in tents in Kyiv,” she said.

Though data shows that Ukrainians are slowly becoming more open to compromise in some areas, they do not believe that negotiations alone will lead to peace. “Ukrainians know what they’re fighting for,” she said.

When her formal remarks concluded, several students asked Shevel a range of questions, including about the role of the United States in supporting Ukraine.

Shevel said the U.S. could help Ukraine by applying greater pressure on Russia. “We do have leverage,” she said, “both economic and military—we just aren’t using it how we should be.”

Shevel ended the lecture on a note of hope. For the war to end, she said, Russia needs a fundamental mindset shift—whether that comes from new leadership or outside pressure. Russia needs to understand it will not gain more than it already holds.

“There has to be a leader in Russia who decides Russia can still be important without Ukraine,” she said.

Story by Catherine Scott