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.

 

Ukraine War - Europe Destroyed by Vulgar Pacifism and Strategic Illiteracy among Western Elites

War of aggression! Criminal Putin! Heroic Zelensky! Barbaric Russians! Glorious Ukrainians! 

 

These designations and other absurdities have been regurgitated to dumb down the masses while the war raged for the past ten months. Despite the damage done, Western political elites are intensifying the propaganda in their desperate attempt to avoid losing face. They duplicate their pronounced security illiteracy, deepen the conflict, and reduce the chances of a negotiated peace. 

 

The false and vulgar pacifist attitude to designate the one who used violent military means first - no matter the reasons and overall context - still prevails in Western political and media quarters. It is totally left out of the picture that Mr. Putin had exhausted all peaceful means and was virtually thrust into violently resolving an existential threat to his nation's security. 

 

No war is an isolated act and should not and must not be regarded as such, as the armchair strategists and self-proclaimed security policy experts on TV have tried to make us believe. But I provided comprehensive political and philosophical analyses of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in previous blog entries and publications. Find details here and here.

 

Former radical pacifists of the European green and socialist parties keep pushing for further arms delivery to Ukraine and support of the war effort. Their hatred for Russia and subservience to a U.S. warmongering regime appear even to trump their long-held ideological convictions. And the public, by and large, still mirrors the pernicious bias of their political masters. 

 

According to polls, more than half of the population in Western European countries still prefer an unconditional victory of Ukraine over any deal that would respect Russia's interests. Even politicians and commentators who criticize sanctions want them lifted because they hurt Western nations' interests. They haven't figured or don't dare to mention that the sanctions are unjust and unethical in and by themselves. 

 

The lies - dictator Putin has launched a war of aggression out of pure lust for power to restore the borders of the Soviet Union - seem to persist successfully. The American president dared to declare that Putin started a war completely groundless and without provocation. A transparent falsehood, a convenient political lie in the face of all evidence and the truth of the matter. 

 

Critical voices, if they are even listened to, such as the purveyor of this blog, are denounced as Putin's pro-Russian stirrup holders, right-wing extremists, and anti-Europeans. A critical discourse no longer seems possible. Any vote against the prescribed dogma is considered a victim of Russian propaganda and anti-Western disinformation. But the truth never depends on majority numbers or the loudness of political agitation. And the truth, in the end, always prevails. No matter how long suppressed, shunned, demonized, and distorted. 

 

The blame for this war in Ukraine lies solely with the U.S. and its compliant proxies in NATO and E.U. But, above all, to blame is the megalomaniac President Zelensky. He willingly accepted the U.S.' imposition, had his nation instrumentalized in a proxy war against Russia, and drove his country into ruin. 

 

Although physically beginning a war, Russia is the only side waging a JUST WAR in the ongoing armed conflict. Let me spell it out once again in all clarity and emphasis: 

 

PREEMPTIVE WAR CAN BE JUSTIFIED WHEN ALL PEACEFUL MEANS AND ALL ALTERNATIVES TO USING FORCE HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED, AND ONLY IMMEDIATE MILITARY ACTION 

CAN PREVENT HIGHER THREATS FROM MATERIALIZING. 

 

Since Western elites have lost themselves in their hasty and self-destructive policies, there is little hope for a long-overdue course correction, and further escalation appears inevitable.

 

Now, heading toward the end of this year, 2022, and ever deeper into the winter, I wager to predict that a major Russian offensive will take place once the low temperatures have sufficiently consolidated the terrain. Russia will bring the war to a decision, secure the conquered and now declared Russian areas, close the southern arc to the border with Moldova by taking Odessa and thus forcing a negotiated peace.

 

As a strategic necessity for her security, Russia must prevail in this armed conflict; the U.S. and the West, having gone so far in their destructive support of Ukraine, won't pull back. Thousands of soldiers from NATO countries (such as the U.S., Poland, and Great Britain) are already fighting on Ukrainian territory; more U.S. forces are on standby in neighboring regions, and Patriot Air Defense systems about to be delivered. Since the Ukrainian military is defeated, most of NATO will soon be involved in the conflict to prevent a Russian victory. A nuclear escalation might ensue if conventional military parity is shattered to Russia's disadvantage. 

 

The West, whose glorification of the megalomaniac Ukrainian President Zelensky reflects the precarious state of mental incapacity of its political elites, has been waging an expendable and easily avoidable war against Russia for almost a year now. A regional armed conflict, based on atrocious falsehoods and outright lies, threatens to turn into a world war unless the political elites are brought to their senses by public pressure.

The Responsibility for this War in Ukraine is on the West's Side

---

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Russophobia - Achilles’ Heel of US-Russia Relations

The demonizing of Russia and specifically of Vladimir Putin has been profoundly regretful and damaging to global affairs in recent years. It appears the U.S. could not rise above the old animosity vis-à-vis the follower nation to the Soviet Union that dominated bi-polar relations during the Cold War. In the quarter-century since, the United States, in its leading role in NATO and cooperation with the European Union, has pursued interventionist policies. Those aimed at global predominance and strengthening its position as the sole remaining superpower.

The U.S. and its partners wasted the opportunities to establish a righteous new world order the post-Cold War security environment offered. As I've made clear in my blog entries over the past years, geopolitical misconceptions paired with strategic hubris and ideological delusions as rampant in the White House and the State Department regimes led to utterly folly in foreign affairs international relations. Besides the undermining and destruction of nation-state structures in the Middle East and the intentional armed support of extremists and insurgents, color revolutions have been backed by the U.S. and E.U., for example, in Georgia and Ukraine. Central to the failed policies was the stunning neglect of legitimate national and strategic interests of other players in international relations.

The latter fact became painfully visible in the wake of the regime change in Ukraine. Every reasonably informed scholar of strategic and security studies could have foreseen the control of Crimea and eastern Ukraine's support by Russia. The installation of a puppet regime in Kiev by Washington and Berlin was unacceptable to Russia after the U.S. had pushed toward her borders through aggressive NATO expansion. To drive Russia out of its Black Sea ports and potentially prepare full-fledged membership of Ukraine, as the geostrategic 'Near Abroad,' in NATO would be intolerable for Russia. The blatant disregard of legitimate Russian interests went along with the infamy of blaming Russia for imperialism that had been clearly and unashamedly pushed by the U.S. and the transatlantic alliance.

It is impossible to accurately verify the degree to which strategic ignorance, national hubris, indifferent imperialism, pseudo-democratic universalism, or apparent economic interest and pressure from the military-industrial complex have led to the failed policy design. Yet, the miserable Pax Americana attempted in the last quarter-century was certainly a conglomerate of all these and probably more factors. In conjunction with Putin's demonization and the artificial preservation of Russia as the primary geopolitical enemy, western powers set the course for missing out on establishing a functioning global post-Cold War world order, including meaningful collaboration for containment of radical Islam. The outrageous claim of the Democratic Party that Russian hacking and cyber intervention lost the election for Hillary Clinton –probably one of the biggest scams in politics ever suggested– further exacerbated the relations with Russia. Mr. Obama's decision to expatriate Russian diplomats and impose additional sanctions under the pretense of Russia's alleged interference in the U.S. presidential elections will rank prominently among the many political follies this man has perpetrated.

The new administration under President Donald Trump, which alone gave hope to conquer the old resentments toward Russia and alleviate the damage the previous administration had caused, appears to be succumbing to the Russophobe and Putin-hating pressure forces in the U.S. Senate, the U.S. Congress, and the media. The new U.S. Ambassador's aggressive speech to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, and the ousting of security advisor General Flynn based on informal conversations with the Russian ambassador provides sad testimony to that assessment.  

Overcoming the hysteria vis-à-vis Russia and its leader Vladimir Putin has to be considered the number one priority in U.S. foreign affairs. Maintaining Russia artificially as an enemy image for a new Cold War and conventional arms race must be ended. A mindful and critical, yet simultaneously constructive and respectful relationship with Russia from the part of the United States is long overdue, for whose materialization the numerous challenges to international relations and global security offer ample opportunity. Russia has to be part of fighting the Islamic State and radical Islamism worldwide and has to play a role in stabilizing the Middle East. While mutually respecting legitimate national interests, a balance of power should result in the pursuance of common objectives and joint ends in global affairs.

But this might require prominent representatives of society and state in the U.S. to stop calling Mr. Putin a murderer, abandoning the sanctions regime, and acknowledging Russia's legitimate strategic and economic interests concerning the Caucasus, Europe, the Mediterranean, and the Middle East. It will also necessitate the easing up of U.S. and NATO forces' aggressive posture in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe.

The new administration must not continue the insanity of the Obama years. The step from considering Russia as a geopolitical enemy toward Russia as a geostrategic counterpart and potential collaborator in global affairs must take place now. In light of Western Christian societies' Islamic subversion, this appears to be a strategic necessity and social obligation.

Ukraine - Another Failure of Western Interventionism

As I've made clear in my previous blog of March 2014 below, by overthrowing a democratically elected government in Ukraine, Washington, with support from the European Union's leading powers, has brought the United States and the West into a confrontation with Russia.

In about a year, the West has managed to topple the democratically-elected Ukraine government, install the Washington and Berlin-backed Poroshenko administration in Kyiv, and drive the nation into a fratricidal civil war. It turned the country into a failed state, virtually destroyed its economy, and severely damaged Russia's.

In its usual reversal of cause-effect realities, the mainstream media, in its typical reversal of cause-effect facts, blamed Russia and Putin's aggression and expansionism for protecting incumbent administrations and concealing their sad and ill-defined policies. Had the U.S. and Europe conducted just and wise policy procedures, they could have foreseen the support of Ukrainian separatists and annexation of Crimea by Russia as inevitable for its national interest.

Think about this: A year before scheduled presidential elections through which the Ukrainian people could have gotten rid of president Yanukovich's allegedly corrupt administration and chosen an administration espousing a more EU-oriented course, the U.S. and E.U. instigated an unnecessary coup. Why, for what reasons? To install a Western puppet administration that the people of Ukraine might have never elected themselves? To prevent a Russian-prone government (that was simultaneously establishing good relations with the West) from being democratically confirmed in OSCE-monitored elections? To put Ukraine into NATO and E.U. and drive Russia out of its Black Sea ports in Crimea?
 
Whatever the reason or ensemble of reasons, the applied policies provide evidence of a colossal misunderstanding of foreign affairs in a post-Cold War global setting and an astounding lack of any practical political philosophy of international relations in Washington. However, the incompetence and dilettantism that is hiding behind the democratic principle is widespread and not limited to the White House. Senators and politicians of both parties in Washington are pushing the notion of arming Ukraine and an increased show of force in Eastern Europe by the U.S. and NATO. GOP Senator James Inhoffe just introduced a bill in the U.S. Senate to arm Ukraine with "Lethal Military Aid" against pro-Russian separatists, which means the hawks are doubling down on the political foolishness. They perpetuate the damage to global affairs and continue to push Ukraine into a proxy war with Russia.

However, the overbearing arrogance and hubris of Washington appear to drive a wedge into transatlantic relations, as ever more European nations distance themselves from the idea of arming Ukraine and potentially dragging NATO into war with Russia. Western Europe's economic ties with Putin's country are too close, and a significant portion of Russia's natural gas delivery to Europe runs through Ukraine. Aside from that, European nations, even when NATO-members, know that their populations are not ready to subscribe to go to outright war with Russia over Ukraine.

What are the options for future development? From Ukraine breaking apart with the eastern and separatist parts integrating into Russia to outright war between the West and Russia over Ukraine, almost anything appears possible. Given the strength and commitment of the Russian-backed separatists, it seems unlikely that the Ukrainian Armed Forces, lacking in coherence and dedication to the cause, would reconquer the eastern and southeastern parts of the country. A diplomatic solution along the lines of the Minsk negotiations results will depend on the ending of military and armament support from the U.S. and other western nations. I am convinced, though, that the arms support will seize soon or never get up to speed as it has become quite clear by now that Kyiv has lost and is unable to wage a full-scale war with or without weapons from the West. While the U.S. and individual European nations might be willing to prolong the agony, Kyiv can't fight a war without the will of its people behind. And in the long run, even the most hawkish politicians in Washington couldn't possibly want to throw NATO in and fight World War III against Russia over some folly and utter political blunder they have instigated and committed in Ukraine by themselves in the first place?

It is mind-boggling to note that, like in the Middle East, western political authorities could have easily prevented the meaningless bloodshed in Ukraine and the state's unnecessary disintegration. The hubris of liberal interventionism and U.S. activism worldwide - resulting from distorted interpretations of history, misguided doctrines of international relations, and an unjustifiable sense of moral superiority - appears unconquerable.

No matter how many times history proves them wrong and presents the horrendous damage, these policies are causing worldwide, self-righteous pride and defiant inertia prevail over any judiciousness or informed judgment.