Disclaimer: I am a friend of Europe and the US, but not necessarily of their ruling political class or policy decisions. None of my criticism is intended to be malicious or adversarial. It is only meant to enlighten the discourse, broaden perspectives, and improve political relations and decisions.
Although Western political elites and their media unanimously condemn President Putin's decision to recognize the breakaway regions of Donetsk (DPR) and Lugansk (LPR) in eastern Ukraine as autonomous people's republics, Putin's strategic maneuver can be seen as one of last resort.
Donetsk and Lugansk separated from Kiev following the Western-backed Maidan coup of 2014. They did not tolerate the deposition of the incumbent President Yanukovych and the installation of Poroshenko, whom they perceived as a puppet of Washington and Berlin. Poroshenko’s policies opened Ukraine to the political, military, and economic influence of the US and the West. Since then, the Ukrainian leadership has rejected—disregarding the Minsk I and II agreements—meaningful discussions on the status of its eastern territories, even resorting to a civil war-like conflict in an attempt to forcibly reintegrate the republics.
In 2014, following the Maidan revolution, it became immediately clear that Putin would not passively accept Ukraine's potential NATO membership, which could result in the expulsion of Russia from its Black Sea ports in Crimea. For the first time, Putin was confronted with an anti-Russian regime in Kiev. This prompted the annexation of Crimea and support for the separatists in Donbass, who opposed Ukraine’s transformation into a NATO base. The predominantly Russian population in these areas also resisted the Ukrainian regime's efforts to eliminate Russian traditions, language, and culture.
The annexation of Crimea and support for the eastern territories should have been predictable had the US and Europe taken the time to consider Russia's legitimate strategic interests and conducted an overdue, intelligent evaluation of the region’s security dynamics. How would the United States react, for instance, if Mexico allied with Russia and Putin stationed massive troops along the southern border?
Western political elites have not made a single meaningful effort to address Russia's legitimate security concerns. Instead, they have pursued ruthless regional and global dominance, which has shaped international relations—and particularly relations with Russia—for over a quarter-century.
Resolving the crisis in Ukraine would have only required a reassessment of Washington, Brussels, and Berlin’s strategic miscalculations and a respect for Russia’s legitimate security interests. Unfortunately, the current political leadership in the US and Europe lacks the necessary restraint to peacefully resolve the conflict.
For example, neither the weeks-long Russian troop build-up on the Ukrainian border nor Russia’s security demands—outlined in a letter to Western leaders prior to the military action—led to any acknowledgment of Russia’s national security concerns by the US, EU, or NATO. They denied Putin any opportunity for diplomacy. The blame for the collapse of dialogue and the first step toward Russian aggression lies solely with the West.
While public and international discourse on this issue often focuses on the Kremlin and the White House, little attention is paid to Ukrainian President Zelensky’s role in the current crisis. Had he defined his country’s national security interests wisely and sensibly within the broader geopolitical context, particularly in relation to Russia, he might have avoided the conflict and preserved his country’s territorial integrity. Instead, driven by his Western backers and perhaps megalomaniacal ambitions, he pushed Ukraine toward NATO membership and the stationing of nuclear weapons—decisions that overstepped the reasonable limits of an adequate security strategy.
A historical analogy might help illustrate this point. In 1955, a decade after World War II and following ten years of Allied occupation, Austria was asked to choose between NATO membership or accepting neutrality as a prerequisite for regaining its sovereignty. Had Austria rejected neutrality and joined NATO, it would have provoked the Soviet Union, which had already expanded its defensive alliance, the Warsaw Pact, to Hungary and Czechoslovakia. This would have been seen as a direct threat to the security of the USSR, inevitably leading to a military response.
In a geopolitically precarious situation, no country should use political resolve to fulfill power-hungry ambitions. In Ukraine’s case, a neutral stance—eschewing NATO membership and halting arms-related support from the US and its allies—could have paved the way for a diplomatic solution. Had President Zelensky pursued this course, he would have gone down in history as a statesman. Instead, he will likely be remembered as the comedian he once was before his presidency, a role he has stubbornly maintained in office.
In truth, Zelensky and his predecessor Poroshenko, along with their American and European allies, have been undermining the country since the Euro-Maidan coup of 2014. In just eight years, they have managed to destroy Ukraine’s economy, militarize the nation, and exacerbate a series of crises. According to the Ptukha Institute for Demography and Social Studies, Ukraine’s defense budget at the start of the war was six times higher than it had been in 2013, and the country experienced significant economic recession, energy crises, and demographic shifts. Between 2014 and 2021, over one million Ukrainians obtained Russian citizenship, and more than 600,000 received work permits in the EU. One in four Ukrainians wants to leave the country, and nearly two-thirds believe the nation is heading in the wrong direction—issues barely mentioned in Western media.
Putin never intended to go to war with Ukraine or NATO, nor is he driven by a desire to resurrect the borders of the old Soviet Union. These are absurd accusations, often repeated by the US president and European governments under the influence of the arms lobby and irrational Russophobia. The bottom line is that Western leaders missed their opportunities to de-escalate the situation, and now they must bear the consequences of their folly. They have tormented the Russian bear for far too long, neglecting its concerns, and now the bear has taken the strategic initiative.
The senile Biden, the neoconservative warmongers in the US State Department, the subservient EU leadership, and NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg—all now stand like doused poodles, helpless in the face of their own failures. In their desperation, they have imposed a new sanctions regime on Russia, further alienating the country, driving it into the arms of China, and hastening the economic decline of much of Central and Western Europe. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who follows US directives to the detriment of his country and its neighbors, immediately halted the ratification of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which was meant to provide much-needed natural gas to Central and Western Europe at low cost.
The amateurish circles of American and European policy experts—the so-called national security officials in the US State Department and the European Commission—still insist on the correctness of their failed strategic paradigm. They call Putin an imperialist invader and a violator of international law for recognizing the breakaway provinces in eastern Ukraine and coming to their aid. Yet, they conveniently forget that the US and its transatlantic partners have often violated international law in recent decades. They based much of their foreign policy on the deliberate disregard of international law, especially the principle of non-intervention. Despite having no legitimate justification for their interventions—such as in Libya and Syria—they now demonize Putin for a strategic move he was cornered into making, one with legitimate reasons from the perspective of Russia’s national survival.
The true causes of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as briefly outlined here, remain entirely ignored in the public discourse. Western governments, particularly the United States, refuse to acknowledge their role in this crisis.
If Western foreign policy circles fail to recognize that any approach to international relations—whether bilateral, multilateral, or global—that ignores the geopolitical and strategic interests of other nations is destined to fail, the consequences for European and global security could be catastrophic.
For now, it is crucial that the political centers of power in the transatlantic world maintain composure, admit their role in the escalation, and avoid plunging the world into a potential Third World War.
