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.

War is always ugly but sometimes inevitable. Neither its justification nor condemnation should be decided from the gut!

Being against violence does not make for a beautiful soul (Aristotle)

If we consider war as a continuation of political activity by other means, it never arises out of nowhere. Every war has a history that led to it. The topic of war is complex and delicate, and assessing its justification or inevitability in specific instances is even more so.

The general public often views war as the worst of all evils. The prevailing opinion is that the side that starts a war is inherently wrong and evil, while the side that resists is right and good. But as history and rational reflection show us, this is not necessarily true. If it were so easy to distinguish between right and wrong in war, many instances would reveal the United States and its Western allies as the aggressors. If the question of war could be answered based purely on emotion, we would never need to discuss the "Just War" theory, which has occupied philosophers from Augustine and Thomas Aquinas to Michael Walzer and others, including myself. I devoted my doctoral thesis (and the book based on it) to the morality and immorality of violence (and non-violence) on both individual, collective, and politico-military levels.

The evaluation of war and its political-ethical implications can be approached from two essential perspectives. First, what triggered the war, and what prompted political leaders or governing bodies to go to war? What is the causa iusta—the just reason, as the primary consideration of the principle of ius ad bellum (right to war)—that justifies or seems to justify waging war?

The challenge in assessing this crucial aspect is that the justification for the use of force—no matter when it occurs—is always subjective, based on the intentions of political leaders or decision-making bodies. To assess this adequately, observers—whether individuals, political administrations, or international bodies—must rise to a meta-level of thought, striving to judge the events leading to the dispute as objectively and impartially as possible. Unfortunately, this rarely happens, as pacifist and political-ideological emotions often cloud judgment. The United Nations, which should ideally play this role, seldom succeeds in maintaining this objective and impartial perspective.

Two essential criteria of transcendental moral philosophy (independent of experience and comprehensible by reason alone) for ius ad bellum are necessity and inevitability. War must always be a last resort, necessary and inevitable as the only option for resolving a conflict. While this is relatively obvious in cases of clear defense, it becomes more complicated in cases of preemption or prevention. A pre-emptive war represents a proactive breach of the peace, aimed at addressing an imminent threat or gaining a strategic advantage before an inevitable armed conflict. Pre-emptive war may be justified if all alternatives to the use of force have been exhausted, or if immediate military intervention is needed to prevent a much larger threat. Examples of pre-emptive military strikes include Israel's Six-Day War in 1967 and the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. In the latter case, the assumption that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) was used as a justification for war, though this proved to be inaccurate.

The ius in bello (law in war) is the second aspect of warfare to be evaluated. Do the warring parties and their military forces abide by the laws of war, such as the Geneva Conventions? Do they wage wars based on universal human principles that must not be endangered or abandoned, even in armed conflict? Do the warring parties distinguish between combatants and non-combatants? Are military targets the focus, with efforts made to minimize collateral damage? Are prisoners of war and wounded enemy soldiers treated in accordance with the Geneva Protocols, and are war crimes avoided?

While both sides appear to violate the ius in bello in the ongoing Ukraine war, only alleged Russian war crimes are widely reported in the West. For example, there is no mention of Ukrainian troops using civilians as human shields, choosing defensive positions in residential areas, or arming non-combatants in violation of martial law, actions that organized crime exploits to wreak havoc, while the blame is shifted to Russian forces. Furthermore, there is no mention of the restraint Putin has imposed on his armed forces, with a focus on military objectives. The West misinterprets this as incompetence on the part of Russian troops.

To understand the causalities that led to the war and provide criteria for its potential resolution, we must focus on the question of ius ad bellum—the reasons and motives for starting a war that lie within the hands of political leaders.

As discussed in my previous blog, the situation that led Russia to resort to military force arose from the uncompromising stance of Western political decision-makers. Apart from Ukraine's repeated provocations in the Russian-friendly regions of Donbas and Luhansk, the continued disregard for Russia's legitimate security interests, and Ukraine's insistence on pursuing full NATO membership, led to the war. From Putin's perspective, the decision to go to war was justified—whether or not the West agrees. For him, it was about protecting Russia’s security interests, and he didn’t take this decision lightly.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's role in the escalation is also significant. In complete disregard of security policy contexts, he pushed his country’s national self-determination far beyond a sensible security strategy. Ignoring geopolitical realities, historical ties, and Russia’s security concerns, he pushed for NATO membership, even suggesting that Ukraine should adopt nuclear weapons.

Zelensky neglected timeless principles of national security, disregarding the need to balance national goals with the security interests of neighboring countries. He failed to consider NATO's eastward expansion, which, over the past three decades since the Cold War, has brought the alliance ever closer to Russia's borders. His stance on NATO membership, and even potential nuclear armament, provoked Russia.

From Russia’s point of view, the war became inevitable. Putin exhausted all non-violent options for conflict resolution. He never wanted war, but the West’s Russophobic political elites gave him no other choice. Could he have waited or refrained from action? Yes, but Western leaders were equally responsible for the escalation, hoping he would eventually concede. In that context, Russia’s military action met the criteria of necessity and inevitability.

The events leading up to the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, including Zelensky’s naive actions, have been addressed in previous blog posts. On the day Russia initiated its military operation, I wrote how easily the political elites of the West could have prevented this war and why they bear responsibility for it.

From the perspective of future generations, it will be a shameful chapter in political history that highly paid security experts, national security advisers, and warmongering politicians failed—and, indeed, refused—to prevent Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It is astonishing how politicians and media commentators continue to condemn Putin while ignoring their own role in the conflict.

Now that the war is underway, the Western political elites are doubling down on their stance, escalating matters further. A few voices in the U.S. and Europe, such as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard and Fox News' Tucker Carlson, who offer more objective analysis, are labeled as traitors. Europe, too, suffers from thought policing, where any deviation from the mainstream narrative can result in serious consequences. The democracies we once prided ourselves on are making a mockery of themselves.

In conclusion, the war is entirely pointless and could have easily been avoided. The Ukrainians, led by their naive and megalomaniacal president, have waged an unnecessary war. Through their arrogance and submission to Western influence, they have devastated their own country. It’s now clear that Washington, Berlin, and Kiev must offer Putin what they should have before the conflict began—if there is any hope of ending it.

This situation mirrors the events of August 1914, when a localized dispute between Austria and Serbia escalated into World War I. We must not allow the Russian-Ukrainian conflict to spiral into World War III.

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.