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.

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.

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.