The Unreasonableness of European Political Elites Prevents Peace in the Ukraine-Russia War

The war in Ukraine, now entering its fourth year, has left the European Union and much of the West on the wrong side of history. This conflict, deeply rooted in the complex geopolitics of Russia, Ukraine, and the broader Western alliance, was—at least from Russia’s vantage point—never merely about territorial disputes or nationalistic ambition. It was instead about NATO expansion and the ongoing subjugation of Russian populations in the Donbas by Kiev in the wake of the Maidan Revolution in 2014. The response to these legitimate Russian concerns by the US and Europe has been short-sighted and historically misguided, and owed to a substantial failure in the West’s security policy design and diplomatic foresight. 

Ukraine’s potential accession to NATO would have represented a significant shift in the balance of power on Russia’s doorstep. Rather than an imperial ambition, as often portrayed by the West, this was a matter of national survival for Russia.  Despite Russia's repeated warnings, Western policymakers, particularly in the US and the EU, dismissed these concerns, choosing to expand NATO right up to Russia’s borders.

 Maidan and the Neglect of Russia’s National Security Interests 

The situation took a decisive turn after the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine, which was largely instigated by the United States. The revolution overthrew then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who had been seen as pro-Russian, and installed the anti-Russian Petro Poroshenko as the new president. This shift, backed by Washington and much of the EU, sowed deeper divisions within Ukraine, particularly in the Russian-speaking eastern and southern regions.

Instead of seeking peace and reconciliation and preparing Ukraine as a neutral bridge for political exchange between Russia and Europe, the West pushed Ukraine into an arms race that ultimately escalated the conflict. [for the rise in Ukraine's defense budget from 2013 until before the outbreak of the war see https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2022/02/russian-statesmanship-against-ukraine.html]. Feeling its hand forced, Russia moved toward the annexation of Crimea in 2014. From Russia’s perspective, this move was a necessary and strategic response to the destabilization of Ukraine and the growing military presence of NATO forces near its borders. Crimea, home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, held immense strategic significance. The possibility of Ukraine joining NATO posed a direct threat to Russia’s access to the Black Sea, making the annexation of Crimea an inevitable step in Russia’s security strategy.

As the Maidan Revolution unfolded, Russian-speaking minorities in these regions felt increasingly marginalized by the new Kiev government. Poroshenko’s policies, including restrictive language laws and the suppression of Russian cultural identity, led to a violent backlash that escalated into a full-blown civil conflict, with Russia stepping in to protect its ethnic kin and safeguard its strategic interests.

To quell the conflict and to seek a peaceful resolution, the Minsk agreements were established in 2014 and 2015 . These agreements called for a ceasefire, decentralization of power to the eastern regions, and the protection of minority rights. However, the West, particularly the United States, France, and Germany consistently undermined these agreements by funneling military aid into Ukraine, effectively transforming the country into a NATO proxy. The militarization of Ukraine, with the tacit support of Washington and Brussels, should prepare the country for an eventual confrontation with Russia.

The misinterpretation of Russia’s actions as purely imperialistic is one of the most glaring mistakes made by Western leaders. Moscow’s repeated claims about NATO expansion as a ˃red line˂ were not mere rhetoric. For years, Russia warned that the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO would lead to severe consequences. Yet these warnings were ignored, and the expansionist policies of the West continued unabated.

 The Biden Administration’s Role in Escalation

As the conflict intensified in 2022, the role of the Biden administration became increasingly central. The Biden White House, influenced by neoconservative ideologues, rejected proposals for peace and explicitly instructed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy—elected in 2019—to continue the war and reject neutrality with Russia. This hardline stance pushed Ukraine further into the conflict, with the United States actively supplying weapons, intelligence, and military assistance.

Despite Russia’s repeated calls for negotiations, the Biden administration, supported by European leaders, refused to consider diplomatic solutions, ensuring the war's continuation with Ukraine caught in the middle as a proxy in a broader geopolitical struggle.

In essence, the negation of Russia’s security interests set the stage for the conflict we have witnessed for the past three years.

 A Call for Negotiation and a Peaceful Resolution

The war in Ukraine has been devastating for all parties involved, with countless lives lost, entire regions of the country devastated,  and immense economic damage all across Europe. Yet, despite this, the EU and its member states continue to push for a military solution. The misconception that Russia is the sole aggressor has dominated European political discourse, ignoring the broader historical and strategic context.

However, a closer examination reveals that Russia’s military operation could even be justified under international law, particularly referencing Article 51 of the UN-Charter, which allows for self-defense in the face of armed attack. In this sense, Russia was acting to protect its nationals in the Donbass region and to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO, which was perceived as an existential threat.

A peaceful resolution will require direct negotiations between the United States and Russia—ideally between the Trump administration and Putin—without European interference. France, Germany, and the UK risk prolonging the conflict by insisting on continued military engagement. A resolution that respects Russia’s security concerns while maintaining a clipped Ukraine’s sovereignty is the only viable path forward.

 A Lost War—What Now? The Way Forward

Although it was clear to unbiased observers from the outset that Ukraine could not win a military struggle against Russia, European political elites insisted otherwise. Now, the responsibility falls upon President Trump—who, unlike the European Commission, acknowledges the need for accommodating legitimate security interests of other nations—to negotiate peace directly with President Putin.

Ukraine's leadership, under Zelenskyy, has demonstrated an unwillingness to pursue diplomacy, making it imperative that external actors, particularly the United States, step in to broker a ceasefire. European leaders, including Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and French President Emmanuel Macron, continue to justify prolonging the war with baseless claims of a potential Russian offensive against Central and Western Europe.

The reality is that Russia has won this war; Ukraine has lost roughly a quarter of its territory, and only a swift ceasefire and peace agreement can prevent further loss of life and destruction. The notion that Russia intends to invade the Baltics or Western Europe is a fabrication promoted by warmongers and arms manufacturers who benefit from continued conflict.

For three decades since the end of the Cold War, Russia has adhered to agreements while the West has repeatedly broken its promises, from NATO expansion to the Minsk Accords and the INF Treaty. A peace agreement signed by the relevant parties should suffice to maintain stability without the need for external peacekeeping forces. It can be expected that at least Russia will abide by the agreement.

Europe must now acknowledge its policy failures and cease obstructing efforts to end the war. Once Ukraine is pacified, Europe can find its lost relevance in international affairs by contributing to Ukraine’s reconstruction and promoting a new security framework that avoids antagonistic policies and unnecessary military escalation while bringing Russia back into the Western orbit.

With Trump poised to correct the mistakes of his predecessor, the world has a renewed chance at peace. If the West learns from past miscalculations, a stable and cooperative security order could emerge—one that was envisioned in the early 1990s before being derailed by unilateral and imperial hubris in Washington and Brussels.

 

Failed Foreign Policies Cause Human Catastrophes

Some 800 people recently died when an overcrowded refugee vessel collided with a merchant ship in the Mediterranean. Among the rescued were a handful of people-smugglers, thus giving testimony to migrant-facilitators' business, thriving in the Middle East as it does in Mexico and Latin-America. As an entry gate into the E.U., Italy can hardly cope with refugees' seemingly never-ending stream from the north-African state belt. Both the Italian Navy and Coast Guard are overwhelmed by the challenge. The European Union is scrambling to find solutions. For now, more funds are supposed to flow into the refugee programs Triton and Poseidon. 

This exodus of people fleeing the conflict zones and war-torn areas of Africa and the Middle East is a direct result of the U.S. and the E.U.'s failed foreign policies. I have criticized the blunder of U.S. foreign policy, supported by the European Union and NATO, in my blog entries of 2011 on Libya (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2011/03/us-and-european-foreign-policy-blunder.html) and 2013 on Syria (https://www.edwinseditorial.com/2013/05/disastrous-foreign-policy-failures.html), and warned against the policies of supporting violent and extremist insurgent movements while letting down established heads of state and governing political administrations. It began with the Muslim Brotherhood's support in Egypt against President Hosni Mubarak and then the US-led NATO campaign to take down Libya's Gaddafi. The support of a conglomerate of dubious insurgents in Syria was the third cornerstone of a U.S. foreign policy that is unethical and outright in the wrong, as it is ineffective and destructive. 

While the E.U. does everything in its power to help refugees and get a grip on the situation, it abides by its strict immigration policies, thus preventing the internal order from descending into utter chaos. In contrast, the U.S. is propping up its foreign policy blunder by national security foolishness, courtesy of presidential executive immigration orders that pave the way for more or less unlimited immigration, serving nothing but sealing the fate of future political and social disaster.

 

However, most concerning is the fact that these policies seem to find an ever broader acceptance and support on a bipartisan level. Powerful voices of senators, congress members, and presidential candidates for the 2016 race on the Republican side espouse similar, if not identical viewpoints on foreign policy and immigration. 

Given the U.S.'s two-party political system, one has to wonder how the State Department could alter its harmful stance on essential foreign policy and national security issues? If both major political forces align in their position on such topics, how could this ever change and U.S foreign affairs brought back to its senses?

Empirical evidence and the reality of failures don't appear to have any impact. Established authorities and political counterparts are merely doubling down and adding fuel to the fire. In previous commentaries, I have criticized the geopolitical madness vis-a-vis Russia that has been unfolding in Ukraine. Ideological prejudice and a certain arrogance appear to be the dominant forces in a media-driven political business that seemingly doesn't allow concessions to be wrong. What is supposed to be a sign of strength and compelling character is now considered a weakness. 

What can be a solution to this predicament in global affairs, for the most part, instigated by the failed policies of the U.S. and the Transatlantic alliance? Let me reveal a secret here not debated in the political realms, even at the reproach of talking pro domo.

I see the only hope for betterment in the return of philosophers to the ranks of political advisers and proper philosophical instruction to higher education curricula. As far as the former aspect is concerned, the political business, specifically the advisers to political stakeholders and executive decision-makers, has to be enriched and balanced by adding the holistic philosophical thinker to the equation. As far as the latter aspect is concerned, I am talking about conveying the broad history of ideas of philosophy. No lip service to philosophy by providing courses in which so-called philosophy professors and lecturers try to indoctrinate a liberal-progressive political agenda. What is needed is a focus on ontology and social and moral philosophy, thus enabling critical thinking and independent and profound judgment.

No longer must the hubris of jurists and economists, who too quickly get stuck in sterile materialism and superficial rationalism and whose consciousness is lacking profound philosophical reflection, dominate politics and policy-making.

UKRAINE AND THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY

After the follies in the Middle East – letting down the established political leaders in Egypt, Libya, and Syria and supporting dubious insurgent movements – the U.S. and the European Union's irreparable foreign policy screw-ups continue in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

The Ukraine debacle, instigated by the U.S. and the European Union, is being exacerbated by the U.S. The respective governments have maneuvered themselves into seemingly irreversible positions. In the U.S., the disregard for geopolitical factors and geostrategic interests appears to be ubiquitous. In addition to the always clueless U.S. president and his administration – this author has long stopped wondering what type of "experts" advise this government – a host of senators and congressmen from both parties joined the inane chorus of foreign policy ignorance. Many pundits and op-ed writers set the stage for yet another policy failure when they pushed Russia's pathetic hostility and the Russian president.

How about some perspective on the whole affair? Besides the historical fact that the Crimean peninsula has been Russian and under Russian influence ever since Catherine the Great?
 
Mr. Yanukovych, the legitimate president of Ukraine, was elected in 2010 in free and fair elections as attested to by the OSCE.  However, he sealed his fate when he chose a custom union offered by Putin over a deal presented by the E.U. - $15 billion in loans and favorable rates on natural gas and oil versus loans and credits tied to economic reforms monitored by the IMF but no certainty of full E.U. membership.

The protesters subsequently forming in Kyiv – not all of them, but many of them – struck up tents and quarters, set up barricades, engaged the police in violent struggles by using Molotov cocktails, seized and burned down the headquarters of the ruling political party, and demanded the overthrow of the regime. It didn't help President Yanukovych much that he approved a full amnesty to all those arrested during the uprisings and offered to form a coalition government with the opposing party until the new presidential elections scheduled for 2015. The radical left overthrew Viktor Yanukovych, impeached him after seizing the parliament, and chased him out of the country. Does this look like democracy in action or rather like a coup d'etat no sovereign nation could accept? Is this the kind of political demonstration to which US-senator McCain should lend his support by flying into Kyiv and help taking sides against a legitimate government?

It is not the alleged old-Soviet type of imperialism of the ex-KGB officer Vladimir Putin that has maneuvered him into this precarious situation of possibly losing Ukraine and forcefully annexing the Crimea and perhaps the eastern parts of Ukraine, alienating himself and setting the stage for a new Cold War. The transatlantic realm's failed policies generated this quagmire and pushed it to the point of no return. If anybody finds themselves on the wrong side of history in all this, it is Mr. Obama in conjunction with Democratic ideologues and Republican neocons.

This author participated in the educational civil-military efforts within the framework of NATO's Partnership for Peace initiative in the 1990ies in eastern and southeastern Europe. He knows all too well what would have to happen now had the proponents of ignorant foreign policies gotten their way and brought Ukraine (and Georgia for that matter) to full NATO membership.

The military outreach of Russia to Crimea and probably other parts of Ukraine would invoke Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, meaning an attack on one is considered an attack on all. Armed intervention and an outright war would now be inevitable.