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 Right is the Actually Good! (What happened to Trump is now happening in Europe)

Success should be the primary criterion for evaluating the appropriateness of political parties' and governments' action plans. The key question should be whether the implementation of political concepts has led to an improvement in the common good or its decline. This outcome should be the sole determining factor by which political forces are legitimized in the democratic election process and entrusted with governmental responsibility, or conversely, deprived of it.

If this criterion is applied, it is undeniable that the progressive policies imposed on the populations of Austria and Germany in recent years—especially by left-leaning and EU-loyal coalition governments—have caused significant harm and worsened living conditions.

These policies, largely based on ideological utopianism, have resulted in:

• A failure during the pandemic, driven by irrational fears and an over-reliance on science rather than sober reason;

• A thoughtless, pseudo-humanistic attitude toward immigration, the prosecution of criminals, and deportation, characterized by moralizing without actual morals;

• Economic decline due to a fanatical climate policy that was practically imposed on the people by the political left, resembling a secular substitute religion;

• Amateurism in security policy, particularly marked by Russophobia.

The reality of life disproves the social and political theories of the left, which claim to be validated by continuous success and the improvement of human living conditions at all levels of society.

The failure stems primarily from the fact that ruling left-wing parties—such as those in Austria, which have traditionally attracted conservative, Christian-social forces like the ÖVP (Austrian People's Party), or in Germany, with the CDU (Christian Democratic Union)—prioritized ideological intentions over objective insights into various policy areas. Whenever this happens, every political initiative inevitably carries the seeds of its downfall.

Now, it is being suggested that these failures came upon us as if by some natural occurrence. In reality, they are self-inflicted, the result of educational and moral deficits among the elites.

The United Left—along with its allies on the so-called right—now stands before the ruins of its policies. Although fully aware of this, the left is too obsessed with power to admit its mistakes or learn from these painful experiences. If they had any sense of decency, the coalitions in Germany and Austria would have resigned long ago and called for new elections.

Given the damage done and their proven incompetence, the ruling administrations, along with the parties and media sympathetic to them, are now in desperation. As a result, they have turned to what they see as their only remaining strategy for maintaining power: the demonization of the remaining conservative bastions within the state and society.

The left has taken the offensive and is not afraid to use inflammatory terms like "fascism" and "right-wing extremism" inappropriately, seeking to discredit every conservative and Christian-social political force to maintain their grip on power.

In truth, it is the left that is undermining democratic political structures and processes. In a desperate attempt to remain in power, it has tried to establish a "dictatorship of opinion," creating a mental autocracy that no longer allows for classically conservative or Christian-social positions. With its anti-democratic approach, the left seeks to pave the way for a one-party rule dominated by left-progressive political movements. The recent leak of a secret document outlining a proposed ÖVP-SPÖ-NEOS coalition confirms this intent.

If we redefine the concept of fascism in the modern context as anti-liberal, anti-democratic, secular, and radically anti-Christian—and exclude the irrelevant elements of ethnic and racial elitism—we can see how the political left embodies the actual fascist elements in our societies. In an audacious way, it projects this strategy, which it itself practices, onto everyone who stands outside its narrow ideology.

Therefore, left-wing fascism represents the primary danger to our societies in the current culture war. The myth of "left is good" and "right is bad," which has been preached since the 1968 generation, is gradually unraveling. Increasingly, people are recognizing that the radical, indifferent-progressive left is the true adversary of humanity. The opening of the Summer Olympics in Paris served as a stark reminder of this in an archetypal way. It is nearly too late for our societies to wake up.

The right, in the well-understood sense of bourgeois-Christian thinking, is returning inevitably to realpolitik. More and more citizens are seeing through the left’s deceptive tactics. They are realizing that only a renaissance of conservatism can save Western civilization and its societies.

---

Comprehending Putin: The Unconsidered Resolution for the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

The statesmanlike strategist has always distinguished himself from ordinary ideologues and low-ranking politicians by his ability to assess an opponent’s politico-military capabilities and, more crucially, their political thinking, strategic goals, and disposition toward the use of force.

At the heart of understanding what has been termed a country’s “Strategic Culture” is the evaluation of its legitimate and genuine security interests. These arise from a variety of factors, including its geopolitical position, demographics, economic and military potential, its neighbors, and other pertinent aspects of statecraft.

However, in today’s corrupt political power centers of the US and Europe, this approach has been fundamentally reversed. Rather than evaluating a potential adversary, so-called national security specialists now resort to disdain, dismissing any legitimate security concerns the enemy may have. By doing so, they underestimate the opponent, inflate their own power, and ignore the will of the people, all driven by delusions of global dominance.

Similarly, anyone seeking to understand the adversary’s strategic concepts—whether to avoid war or, if unavoidable, wage it effectively—is now labeled a traitor, a puppet of Putin, or a turncoat who jeopardizes his own country.

The criteria for successful warfare—achieving politico-military objectives in the shortest time possible while minimizing loss of life and damage to both friend and foe—have been replaced by a strategy of prolonged conflict aimed at dubious strategic and economic goals, with little regard for lives lost or entire nations and regions devastated.

Peace cannot be achieved, and unjust wars will persist, if the enemy is not understood. One must take into account their strategic objectives, national security interests, and conduct international relations based on accepted principles of international law and underlying ethical considerations.

The security elites in the US and Europe must acknowledge their mistakes in the current Russia-Ukraine war. These include alienating Russia by disregarding its legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine, supporting the questionable Zelensky regime, and pursuing a damaging course of action toward the Russian Federation.

To end the war, the Zelensky regime—described by some as fascist—must be ousted. Ukraine should be divided, with the conquered territories temporarily under Russian control, and a new government should be established in Kiev. This government must be able to cooperate with both East and West and should commit to refraining from joining NATO or engaging in any form of military cooperation with the US and its allies.

Failure to address Russia’s national security interests and the continued disregard for the existential significance of Ukraine’s strategic orientation to Russia will only lead to further escalation, potentially culminating in World War III.

The World Peace Guide: All Members Must Employ Self-Practiced Morality for Peaceful International Relations

---

In my book Non-Truth, Moral Nihilism, and Jacobin Cynicism (see link to the left), I explain in detail why ethics, rather than economics, jurisprudence, or science, is and must be the unifying force of any successful human association. When we consider the primary parameters of human action—freedom and responsibility—the importance of morality becomes clear. Human freedom is realized and revealed by how individuals accept responsibility in all aspects of their existence, thereby exposing their inner moral sense.

The bond between freedom and responsibility is so strong that one cannot exist without the other. This realization may have inspired neurologist and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl to advocate for the installation of a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast of the United States, complementing the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast.

The importance of morality in sustaining human unity and prosperity—an issue that extends far beyond empirical and scientific study into the realm of metaphysics—suggests the need for a transcendent foundation. A religious-metaphysical frame of reference is essential for any social or political collective. As the current state of most Western societies, particularly in the United States, demonstrates, when this foundation is corrupted or lost, political entities are doomed to decline in the long run.

Morality, as the foundation for prosperous human relations, applies to both the individual and societal levels. It works in the vast majority of personal interactions. In family, friendship circles, and the workplace, people generally respect the worth and identity of others. Where it fails, the enforcement structures provided by society—through governmental organizations, law, and law enforcement—intervene to achieve what voluntary action could not. However, in international relations, there is no effective law enforcement mechanism. While we have ius gentium (people's law), which is largely enshrined in the United Nations Charter, there is no enforcement authority. As a result, international relations are often governed by power politics, national interests, unilateral and imperialist goals, and other considerations of dominance and exploitation.

The mechanisms of international law, established by the UN Charter—particularly the Security Council's primary role in maintaining and restoring world peace—do not function effectively. Aside from the lack of enforcement capabilities, ideological bias and a lack of objectivity within the organization exacerbate the UN's weakness. Current examples of the United Nations' ineffectiveness include the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict and the Hamas-Israel standoff.

But what if warring parties and their backers adhered to timeless principles of international relations and national security ethics, rather than engaging in the old game of greedy power politics while promoting outdated enemy images? What if all nations recognized each member of the international community's equal standing and right to exist, regardless of their size, economic and military power, demographics, or ideological identity? What if all nations voluntarily adhered to the principle that no country may secure its own safety at the expense of the safety of others? What if even the most powerful nations accepted and welcomed the resulting balance of power within the international community?

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.

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.

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.