In this holy season of Christmas—a time for reflection, peace, and goodwill—America has reelected a leader who speaks of hope and diplomacy. Meanwhile, European politicians continue to speak only of war. They call for more weapons, a prolonged conflict, and even for sending troops into Ukraine. Not a single word is uttered about reconciliation with Russia or the possibility of peace.
But how can peace be achieved if Russia is truly an imperialistic aggressor whose ultimate goal is to conquer other countries and add them to its empire? Shouldn’t we then be prepared for the worst, ready to defend ourselves?
The real question is: Is that truly the case?
As John F. Kennedy once said, we must strive to understand the perspective of our adversaries—the challenges they face and the motivations behind their actions. And so, to understand how Europe has arrived at this dire moment, we must trace the origins of this war and seek to comprehend the complexities that have brought us here.
Origins of War
The roots of the Ukraine war can be traced to a complex web of historical grievances, geopolitical decisions, and broken promises. At the heart of this conflict are three pivotal events: the legacy of the Holodomor, the controversial transfer of Crimea to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev, and the post-Cold War agreements that were meant to ensure lasting peace.
First, the Holodomor, the devastating famine of 1932–1933, continues to cast a long shadow over Ukrainian-Russian relations. Often perceived as a deliberate Russian atrocity, the famine was in fact orchestrated by the Soviet regime under Joseph Stalin—who was a Georgian, not a Russian—with active participation by Ukrainian Soviet leaders. It was not an act of Russian aggression but a policy of the Soviet state that targeted various regions, including Kazakhstan and parts of Russia itself.
However, Ukrainian nationalists, with support from anti-Soviet narratives during and after the Cold War, reframed the Holodomor as a uniquely anti-Ukrainian genocide, falsely attributing sole responsibility to Russia. This narrative, fueled by resentment and amplified through nationalist education and propaganda, created a fertile ground for extremist ideologies. Generations of Ukrainians were taught a version of history that portrayed Russians not just as political rivals but as existential enemies, feeding into a cycle of mistrust and hostility.
Second, the 1954 transfer of Crimea from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic by Khrushchev—himself of Ukrainian heritage—was a symbolic gesture that became a source of enduring tension. At the time, the transfer seemed inconsequential within the unified structure of the USSR. However, after Ukraine’s independence in 1991, Crimea, with its majority Russian-speaking population and critical naval base at Sevastopol, became a geopolitical flashpoint.
Finally, the most consequential development was the end of the Cold War. In a spirit of optimism, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and U.S. President Ronald Reagan brokered a historic understanding. The peaceful dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the reunification of Germany were contingent upon a promise: NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” Gorbachev extended an open hand of friendship, dismantling Soviet military structures and trusting in the West’s commitment to mutual respect and peace.
This promise, however, was soon broken, and as it was not a written agreement, it has been frequently contested.. As the Soviet Union collapsed, U.S. neoconservatives and their allies saw an opportunity to assert global dominance. Rather than embracing a multipolar world order, they pursued a strategy of expanding NATO, encroaching on Russia’s borders, and leveraging economic and military power to weaken Moscow. The open hand of friendship offered by Gorbachev was met with a clenched fist of opportunism.
For Russia, NATO’s expansion and the West’s disregard for its security concerns were seen not just as a betrayal but as an existential threat. Combined with the simmering resentment over historical grievances, this created a volatile environment. The falsely perceived Russian responsibility for the Holodomor had already ignited nationalist fervor in Ukraine, and this was further weaponized by geopolitical tensions. Ukrainian nationalism, reinforced by decades of mistrust and a distorted historical narrative, became a potent force in the lead-up to the conflict.
Euromaidan Coup
The 2014 Euromaidan coup represents a defining moment in the unraveling of relations between Russia and the West, which leveraged nationalist sentiment and propaganda to spark a revolt. The coup ousted the democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, who had been attempting to balance Ukraine’s interests between Europe and Russia. While Western media framed the events as a heroic triumph of liberal democracy over Russian autocracy, the truth was far more complex and far less democratic.
Leaked communications, such as Victoria Nuland’s infamous call with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, laid bare the extent of U.S. involvement in shaping Ukraine’s political future. In this call, Nuland openly discussed the composition of Ukraine’s future government, even suggesting specific individuals for key roles. This level of interference made it clear that the new leadership was handpicked by Washington, undermining any claims of a democratic revolution. This was not the will of the Ukrainian people—it was the imposition of a Western-approved regime designed to serve foreign interests.
The coup was supported by a staggering $5 billion investment funneled through the CIA and the National Endowment for Democracy, aimed at destabilizing Ukraine and aligning it with Western geopolitical strategies. The agreement brokered between Yanukovych and the opposition—calling for a government of national unity, early elections, and constitutional reforms—was disregarded overnight. Instead, a “government of winners” was installed, one that was loyal not to Ukraine’s diverse population but to the foreign powers backing it.
The repercussions of the coup were immediate and severe. Eastern and southern regions of Ukraine, such as Donbas and Crimea, rejected the legitimacy of the new government, perceiving it as a threat to their identity and autonomy. These predominantly Russian-speaking regions viewed the Western-backed leadership as an affront to their cultural and political existence. This backlash sparked unrest that escalated into the annexation of Crimea by Russia and a protracted conflict in Donbas.
For Russia, the geopolitical stakes were enormous. Crimea had been a vital stronghold for Russian naval power for centuries, successfully withstanding challenges from adversaries like the Ottoman Empire. Its port in Sevastopol remains crucial for Russia’s access to the Black Sea and broader maritime routes. The prospect of NATO taking control of this strategic region posed an existential threat to Russia’s military capabilities and regional stability. Moscow saw the loss of Crimea not just as a political failure but as a catastrophic blow to its national security.
Moreover, with NATO already encroaching on Russia’s borders via Poland and the Baltic states, Ukraine’s full alignment with NATO would have meant the complete encirclement of Russia’s western frontier. Russia has long depended on maintaining buffer zones—regions like Belarus, Georgia, and Ukraine—to ensure a degree of strategic depth and security. The potential placement of NATO missile systems or military bases in Ukraine heightened these fears, reinforcing the perception that the West was aggressively seeking to weaken Russia and contain its influence.
The Euromaidan coup, far from being a genuine democratic uprising, was a calculated move by Western powers to expand NATO’s sphere of influence and undermine Russia’s position in the region. By presenting the coup as a democratic victory, Western media and governments successfully obscured their true intentions, manipulating public opinion to support their agenda.
What was celebrated in Western capitals as a triumph for democracy was, in reality, a subversion of it. The coup plunged Ukraine into turmoil, deepened divisions within the country, and destabilized the entire region. The consequences have been catastrophic—not only for Ukraine but for global stability—as the world faces the looming specter of renewed Cold War tensions.
War in Crimea and Minsk Agreements
Following the 2014 Euromaidan coup, the new nationalist government in Kyiv was perceived as illegitimate and hostile by many Russian-speaking regions, particularly in Crimea and Donbas. Fearing marginalization and potential repression, these regions sought to distance themselves from Kyiv.
In Crimea, unrest quickly escalated. Russian-speaking residents, deeply tied to Russia culturally and historically, protested against the new government. In response, Russian paramilitary troops—often referred to as “little green men”—appeared in Crimea, supporting local self-defense groups and facilitating a swift referendum on the peninsula’s status. The referendum, held in March 2014, overwhelmingly favored joining Russia. While Moscow framed its actions as a protective measure to safeguard Russian-speaking citizens, the West condemned it as an illegal annexation. For Russia, however, retaining Crimea was of geostrategic importance. Losing its naval base in Sevastopol, home to the Black Sea Fleet since the 18th century, would have been catastrophic, leaving Russia vulnerable in the region.
Simultaneously, the situation in Donbas began to deteriorate. Pro-Russian separatists declared independence in the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, citing the coup and subsequent government policies as threats to their identity and autonomy. In response, the Ukrainian government launched military operations to regain control, escalating the conflict. Western nations, particularly the U.S. and EU, backed Kyiv, imposing sweeping sanctions on Russia. These sanctions targeted key sectors of the Russian economy, including energy, finance, and defense, marking a new phase of economic and geopolitical confrontation.
In an attempt to resolve the growing conflict, the Minsk Agreements were signed in 2014 and 2015. These accords were designed to bring peace by granting significant autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk while keeping them within Ukraine. The agreements also called for constitutional reforms, decentralization, and recognition of Russian as a second language in public life. However, the Ukrainian government, with tacit support from its Western backers, failed to implement these provisions. Instead, Kyiv continued military operations in Donbas and passed laws restricting the use of the Russian language in education and media, further alienating the Russian-speaking population.
Why Did the Minsk Agreements Fail, and Why Did Europeans Play Along?
While the Minsk Agreements provided a framework for resolving the crisis, implementation was inconsistent. On paper, the accords offered a roadmap to peace, but in practice, they were undermined by Kyiv’s reluctance to grant autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk. Despite these failures, overt escalation was temporarily avoided, and the situation appeared to stabilize—largely because neither side was prepared for a full-scale war.
During this time, U.S. President Donald Trump, known for his aversion to military intervention, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a proponent of diplomacy, maintained an uneasy status quo. Their leadership, combined with Ukraine’s lack of military readiness, postponed further conflict. However, beneath the surface, tensions simmered as Ukraine, backed by Western nations, began quietly rearming and strengthening its military capabilities.
Volodymyr Zelensky, elected on a platform of peace and reconciliation, initially offered hope for a resolution. With overwhelming public support, he promised to end the conflict in Donbas and de-escalate tensions with Russia. However, upon taking office, Zelensky found himself constrained by powerful forces both at home and abroad. Western intelligence agencies, particularly the CIA, exerted considerable influence on Ukraine’s security and political strategy. At the same time, Ukrainian ultranationalist groups—some openly neo-Nazi—exerted significant pressure, warning against any compromises with Russia.
Caught in this web, Zelensky shifted from a peace-oriented platform to becoming a symbol of resistance against Russia. This transformation was less a product of his own policy preferences and more a response to the overwhelming pressures of geopolitical realities and domestic instability.
The geopolitical landscape shifted dramatically with the election of Joe Biden in 2021. Unlike Trump, Biden was closely aligned with the U.S. military-industrial complex and took a more confrontational approach toward Russia. Germany’s new chancellor, Olaf Scholz, lacked Merkel’s ability to stand up to Washington and quickly became a compliant partner in America’s strategy.
Meanwhile, Ukraine’s military buildup over the preceding seven years had reached a tipping point. Billions of dollars in Western military aid had modernized and expanded Ukraine’s armed forces, positioning the country as a frontline state in NATO’s broader strategy to contain Russia. Far-right militias, armed and integrated into Ukraine’s National Guard, added another layer of complexity and volatility.
With Merkel gone, Scholz’s leadership proved weak and indecisive, leaving Europe without a strong advocate for diplomacy. Biden’s administration seized the opportunity to escalate the conflict, pressuring European leaders to align with Washington’s hardline stance. Germany, France, and other EU states, instead of pursuing their own interests, became subordinates in a larger U.S. strategy.
This combination of Western militarization of Ukraine, internal nationalist pressure, and weak European leadership set the stage for the conflict’s escalation. The Minsk Agreements, already a fragile construct, collapsed under the weight of these factors, leaving diplomacy as a distant memory and war as the only remaining option.
Start of the Special Military Operation
The failure to honor the Minsk Agreements, combined with NATO’s secretive militarization of Ukraine, significantly exacerbated tensions. For Moscow, NATO’s expansion had long been viewed as an existential threat, a perception that intensified after the 2008 Bucharest Summit, where NATO declared that Ukraine and Georgia “would one day become members.” This promise, coupled with NATO’s growing presence in Eastern Europe, reinforced Russia’s insistence on maintaining a buffer zone along its western borders. With Poland and the Baltic states already part of NATO, the prospect of losing Ukraine to NATO would have left Russia entirely encircled, heightening its sense of strategic vulnerability.
In 2021, Moscow presented NATO with a draft proposal for security guarantees, calling for a halt to NATO’s eastward expansion and a commitment to Ukrainian neutrality. These proposals, which Moscow viewed as essential for preserving regional stability, were dismissed by the U.S. and its allies. This reinforced Moscow’s conviction that diplomacy had failed, and that its security concerns were being deliberately ignored.
This hardline stance, combined with the massive influx of Western weapons into Ukraine, convinced Moscow that war was inevitable. Figures such as John Mearsheimer, Jeffrey Sachs, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and Douglas Macgregor have all pointed to NATO’s militarization of Ukraine as a key provocation. Advanced weaponry, training, and logistical support poured into Ukraine, creating what Russia viewed as a de facto NATO outpost on its border.
Ukraine’s internal policies further deepened the divide. Measures restricting Russian language, culture, and religion, including laws banning Russian-language education and media, as well as the persecution of the Moscow-affiliated Ukrainian Orthodox Church, alienated Russian-speaking populations in Donbas and Crimea. From Moscow’s perspective, these actions constituted an assault on the rights of its compatriots, providing justification for intervention.
The final collapse of diplomatic efforts came in early 2022. High-profile discussions, such as the Biden-Putin summit in Switzerland, failed to produce any guarantees regarding NATO or Ukraine’s status. For Vladimir Putin, the situation became a moment of reckoning—a Julius Caesar at the Rubicon moment. If he faltered and withdrew without achieving any concessions, his credibility on the world stage would be irreparably damaged. No Western leader would take him seriously again. The decision to proceed was not just a tactical one but a matter of political survival and Russia’s long-term strategic security.
On February 24, 2022, Russian forces, which had been stationed near the Ukrainian border for months under the pretext of military exercises, crossed into Ukraine.
Why Didn’t Biden Back Off With the U.S. Plan of NATO Enlargement?
In 2021, as the Biden administration took office, the geopolitical landscape was already fraught with years of escalating tensions between NATO and Russia. The question remains: why did President Joe Biden, a seasoned politician with decades of foreign policy experience, refuse to halt the NATO enlargement plan despite clear warnings from Moscow, a military buildup on Ukraine’s borders, and growing signs that this strategy was pushing the region toward war?
The answer lies in a combination of ideological commitment to U.S. dominance, pressure from the military-industrial complex, and a fundamental miscalculation of Russia’s resolve. For decades, American foreign policy has been guided by the belief that NATO’s expansion consolidates Western power and prevents the resurgence of rival blocs. This belief, rooted in Cold War-era thinking, has consistently underestimated the destabilizing consequences of encroaching on Russia’s sphere of influence.
Biden’s administration revived many of the hawkish strategies and personnel that had dominated U.S. foreign policy during previous Democratic administrations. These figures, deeply entrenched in Washington’s foreign policy establishment, viewed NATO expansion not as a provocation but as a non-negotiable right of sovereign nations to choose their alliances. This perspective dismissed Russia’s objections as relics of imperial ambition rather than legitimate security concerns.
The Biden administration’s refusal to reconsider NATO enlargement, despite Moscow’s stark warnings and the increasing likelihood of conflict, might also be seen as a gamble: a belief that Putin was bluffing and that calling his bluff would consolidate Western dominance. However, this view fails to address a deeper, more calculated strategy—one that aligns with long-term U.S. geopolitical objectives and corporate agendas.
At the core of this strategy lies Halford Mackinder’s doctrine, which asserts that controlling Eurasia is key to controlling the world. According to Mackinder, a unified Russia and Germany, combining Russia’s vast resources with Germany’s industrial might, would form a geopolitical bloc capable of challenging U.S. hegemony. The primary objective of U.S. foreign policy, therefore, has been to ensure that such an alliance never materializes. Ukraine, situated at the heart of Eurasia, plays a pivotal role in this strategy.
The U.S. Secret Plan:
- Divide Russia from Europe, Especially Germany
Mackinder’s doctrine drives the U.S. agenda to sever Russia’s ties with Europe, particularly Germany. A strong economic and political partnership between Russia and Germany would create a Eurasian powerhouse, threatening U.S. influence. By escalating tensions in Ukraine, the U.S. forced Europe to cut its dependence on Russian energy, driving a wedge between these two powers. The destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline exemplifies this effort, crippling German industry and making Europe more reliant on U.S. energy exports. - Sell American Gas to Europe Instead of Russian Gas
The energy crisis caused by the war in Ukraine has opened a lucrative market for U.S. liquefied natural gas (LNG). With Europe severing ties with Russia, American energy companies have stepped in to fill the void, selling LNG at significantly higher prices. This shift not only benefits U.S. corporations but also solidifies Washington’s grip on Europe’s energy supply, creating dependency and reducing Europe’s ability to pursue independent foreign policies. - Cripple Russia and Fragment It into Smaller States
Under Putin, Russia resisted Western corporate dominance, refusing to allow its resources and industries to fall under foreign control. The U.S. strategy involves destabilizing Russia to the point of fragmentation, breaking it into five or six smaller states. This would allow Western corporations to exploit its vast oil, gas, and rare earth mineral reserves, as they have in other post-Soviet states. A divided Russia would also lose its status as a global power, ensuring its subjugation to Western interests. - Destroy German Industrial Competition
German industry, the backbone of Europe’s economy, has long been a competitor to U.S. corporations. The energy crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine and the loss of cheap Russian gas have devastated German manufacturing, accelerating deindustrialization. By weakening Germany, the U.S. consolidates its economic dominance over Europe. - Reassert Control Over Europe
The war has allowed the U.S. to tighten its grip on Europe, shifting its strategic focus from traditional allies like Germany and France to Eastern European nations like Poland and Romania. These countries, hosting increased U.S. military deployments, align more closely with Washington’s policies, contrasting with France and Germany’s occasional moves toward greater autonomy, such as Macron’s calls for “European sovereignty.” This pivot ensures Europe remains a compliant partner in U.S. foreign policy. - Seize Ukraine’s Arable Land
Ukraine, often called the “breadbasket of Europe,” holds some of the most fertile land in the world. With its vast agricultural resources, Ukraine plays a crucial role in feeding populations across Africa and beyond. Under the guise of war, Western corporations like BlackRock have moved to acquire large swaths of Ukrainian farmland. Control over Ukraine’s agriculture gives the U.S. leverage in global food markets and strengthens its geopolitical influence, particularly in Africa. - Secure Rare Earth Deposits and Energy Reserves
Ukraine is home to some of Europe’s richest deposits of oil, natural gas, and rare earth minerals—resources vital for modern technology and energy production. Western corporations see Ukraine as a treasure trove waiting to be exploited. Controlling these resources not only bolsters corporate profits but also ensures Europe’s dependency on U.S.-aligned suppliers. - Fuel the Military-Industrial Complex
The war in Ukraine has been a boon for the U.S. military-industrial complex. Billions of dollars in weapons contracts have been awarded to arms manufacturers, with no end in sight. Prolonging the conflict ensures a steady stream of profits for this powerful sector, which exerts significant influence over U.S. foreign policy. - Further Corporate Agendas
Beyond the military-industrial complex, corporations like BlackRock and others tied to the U.S. deep state have benefited immensely from the chaos. Ukraine is being restructured not as a sovereign nation but as a corporate fiefdom, with its industries and resources carved up for profit under the guise of rebuilding and modernization.
Course of the War
The initial phase of the war saw a rapid escalation. On February 24, 2022, Russian forces crossed into Ukraine, initiating what Moscow called a “special military operation.” Their stated objectives included the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, protection of Russian-speaking populations in Donbas, and ensuring Ukrainian neutrality. Russian forces advanced quickly, capturing key areas in southern Ukraine, including Kherson, and launching operations around Kyiv. The speed of the campaign suggested that Russia sought a swift resolution, possibly aiming to bring Ukraine to the negotiating table.
Peace Talks in Istanbul
In the early months of the war, there was a glimmer of hope for a diplomatic resolution. Peace talks were held in Istanbul in March 2022, where both sides appeared to be making progress. Reports indicate that Russia proposed terms centered on Ukraine’s neutrality, recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, and autonomy for Donbas. Ukraine, in turn, seemed willing to consider these concessions. The outlines of a potential peace deal were taking shape, raising hopes for an end to the conflict.
However, this fragile progress was derailed by external interference. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson reportedly visited Kyiv during the talks, urging Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to abandon negotiations. According to sources, Johnson promised continued Western military support, framing the conflict as an opportunity for Ukraine to achieve total victory over Russia. This intervention scuttled the peace talks, as Kyiv, emboldened by Western promises, rejected Moscow’s proposals and opted for a more confrontational stance.
Ukrainian Counteroffensive and Russian Retreat
Following the breakdown of negotiations, Ukraine launched a series of counteroffensives, leveraging the influx of Western military aid. Advanced weaponry, including HIMARS rocket systems, drones, and anti-tank missiles, began arriving in large quantities, enabling Ukraine to push back Russian forces. By September 2022, Ukrainian troops had recaptured significant territory in Kharkiv and forced Russian troops to withdraw from the strategic city of Kherson. Western media celebrated these victories as signs of Ukraine’s resilience and Russia’s weakness.
Russia’s retreat, however, was not solely a result of Ukrainian advances. Moscow appeared to withdraw in good faith, believing that further escalation could lead to unnecessary civilian casualties and potentially reopen the door for future negotiations. This decision was misinterpreted in the West as a sign of Russian weakness, emboldening Ukraine to escalate its military efforts.
Russia Reorganizes and the Tide Turns
By late 2022, it became clear that Russia was adapting to the realities of the war. Underestimated at first, Moscow undertook a massive reorganization of its military and industrial base. The Russian defense industry ramped up production of ammunition, drones, and precision missiles, ensuring a steady supply for its forces. Simultaneously, Russia mobilized additional troops, bringing hundreds of thousands of reservists into active duty. This industrial and logistical recalibration marked the beginning of a strategic shift in the conflict.
The Russian military, often underestimated for its resilience and adaptability, adopted a methodical approach, reminiscent of its historical campaigns against Napoleon and Hitler. Russia’s strategy shifted from rapid advances to grinding attrition warfare, leveraging its superior artillery, air power, and resources to steadily erode Ukrainian positions.
The Beginning of the End
As the war entered 2023, the momentum began to shift decisively in Russia’s favor. Western promises of unlimited support for Ukraine started to falter as European economies, strained by energy crises and inflation, grew weary of prolonged conflict. Meanwhile, Russia’s relentless focus on methodical gains began yielding results. Ukrainian forces, overstretched and reliant on diminishing Western supplies, struggled to maintain their earlier momentum. The war had turned into a slow, grinding conflict, with Russia increasingly dictating the terms on the battlefield.
History, as the saying goes, often repeats itself. Just as Napoleon and Hitler underestimated Russia’s capacity to endure and adapt, the West’s belief in a quick victory over Moscow proved to be a miscalculation. The war demonstrated once again that Russia, with its vast resources and historical resilience, remains an adversary not easily defeated.
World’s Reaction
When the conflict erupted, Western leaders confidently assured their citizens that Russia would quickly collapse under the weight of unprecedented sanctions. The sanctions, they claimed, would cripple Moscow’s economy, ignite protests, and force a humiliating retreat. Victory was promised to be swift and decisive, achieved without direct Western involvement. And for a time, much of the world believed them.
European leaders, caught between aligning with the United States or pursuing balanced relations with Russia, ultimately succumbed to pressure—or were enticed by corporate interests. Companies like BlackRock and other entities tied to the U.S. corporative-deep state complex played a pivotal role in shaping policies to suit their agendas. This was compounded by Western media, largely controlled by American corporate interests, which constructed a narrative that made dissent politically untenable for European politicians.
This corporate influence extended to shaping Western narratives about the conflict, often masking underlying economic motivations such as securing Ukraine’s vast arable land and rich deposits of rare earth minerals. Ukraine is often called the ‘breadbasket of Europe,’ with its fertile lands accounting for 25% of the world’s black soil and being pivotal to global food security. Simultaneously, Ukraine holds significant deposits of rare earth minerals valued in the trillions, representing a critical asset for global technology and energy industries, including lithium, titanium, and zirconium, making it a strategic prize for Western corporations. As detailed in The Land Grab in Ukraine Under the Guise of War, companies like BlackRock have strategically acquired stakes in these resources, leveraging reconstruction aid to entrench their influence. This dual exploitation of land and minerals transforms Ukraine into an economic pawn, stripping its sovereignty under the pretense of aid and modernization.
Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz exemplified this capitulation. Initially hesitant to escalate the conflict, Scholz’s support for Ukraine was symbolic at best—limited to sending helmets and blankets. However, under relentless pressure from the United States and European media, Scholz gradually gave in. Tanks, artillery, and ammunition followed, marking Germany’s reluctant but full-fledged involvement. Even when the Nord Stream pipeline—Germany’s economic lifeline to affordable Russian energy—was sabotaged in a shadowy act of international aggression, Scholz offered no serious challenge or demands for accountability. Instead, he acquiesced, raising uncomfortable questions about whose interests he was truly serving.
The consequences for Europe were catastrophic. Germany, once the industrial powerhouse of the continent, saw its economic foundations crumble. Skyrocketing energy costs, deindustrialization, and declining global competitiveness left the nation vulnerable. Across Europe, energy shortages, inflation, and economic stagnation became the new reality. What was meant to bring Russia to its knees instead inflicted severe economic pain on Europe itself, exposing the shortsightedness of its political leaders.
In stark contrast, the Global South reacted with pragmatism and skepticism toward NATO’s narrative. Major powers like India and Brazil refused to align with Western sanctions, maintaining neutral or cooperative relations with Russia. China not only refused to condemn Moscow but also offered significant economic and diplomatic support. These nations saw the conflict not as a defense of democracy but as a power struggle that revealed Western hypocrisy and imperial ambitions.
Meanwhile, U.S. corporations thrived. Energy giants profited immensely from skyrocketing global prices, while defense contractors enjoyed billions in profits from military aid to Ukraine. Europe’s political class, marching in lockstep with Washington, sacrificed their continent’s stability and prosperity. Instead of prioritizing diplomacy and fostering balanced relationships between the United States and Russia, European leaders chose a path of confrontation and destruction.
In the United States, initial unity around the Ukraine war began to erode as the financial and social costs became apparent. Billions of dollars in military aid, surging inflation, and growing economic instability sparked skepticism among the American public. Voices like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Tucker Carlson, and Tulsi Gabbard openly criticized the conflict, framing it as yet another reckless neoconservative adventure that enriched defense contractors while destabilizing the world.
The promise of a quick resolution underestimated Russia’s resilience and strategic depth. Instead, Western leaders plunged their nations into a protracted and increasingly unsustainable conflict. The tragic failure of Europe’s political class to navigate a course of non-alignment or independent policy has exacerbated this crisis, jeopardizing the continent’s prosperity and stability. This capitulation to short-term political pressures and corporate interests must be confronted if the world is to move toward reconciliation and avoid repeating these devastating mistakes.
Europe at the Crossroads
John F. Kennedy once said, “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” But admitting mistakes is perhaps the greatest challenge for politicians, particularly for Europe’s current crop of leaders. Unlike statesmen driven by a genuine love for their country or a vision to enact meaningful change, many European politicians appear motivated by ego and the intoxicating allure of power. Their decisions are dictated not by national interest or courage but by the fickle tides of media approval and public perception.
In stark contrast to leaders like Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, who prioritize strategic national interests—however controversial their methods—Europe’s political elite often seem meager and complacent. Their focus is not on bold, transformative action but on preserving their tenuous grasp on power. They submit willingly to external pressures, crafting policies that please corporate overlords or align with media narratives, regardless of the cost to their nations.
This complacency has left Europe vulnerable, undermining its ability to act independently or pursue policies that genuinely benefit its people. It is a betrayal of leadership’s true purpose: to serve the country, even when it requires unpopular or difficult decisions. Instead, these leaders cling to their positions, shaping policies not through conviction but through the lens of self-preservation—a trend that has contributed to Europe’s current crises and weakened its geopolitical standing.
However, the stakes are escalating to dangerous new heights. Biden’s recent decision to greenlight ATACMS, advanced long-range missile systems capable of striking deep into Russian territory, represents a perilous shift in the conflict. These weapons will almost certainly provoke an escalatory response from Moscow, with Russia already signaling its readiness to climb the escalation ladder, potentially to nuclear levels. Is Biden willing to risk nuclear annihilation? Is his administration so committed to its proxy war that it cannot see the precipice it is teetering on?
The tragic irony is that Biden, who entered office promising stability and diplomacy, now seems more intent on pushing the world toward the brink of World War III. His administration appears unable—or unwilling—to back down, even as the costs mount. This stubbornness raises serious questions: is the U.S. truly prioritizing global stability, or is this relentless march to war driven by the interests of defense contractors and corporate lobbies?
Yet, Europe bears its share of the blame. Leaders like Olaf Scholz, Emmanuel Macron, and Keir Starmer exemplify the kind of political inertia that has paralyzed the continent. Even when faced with policies that harm their nations—skyrocketing energy prices, deindustrialization, and economic stagnation—they remain silent, acquiescing to Washington’s demands. Scholz’s muted response to the Nord Stream pipeline sabotage and his capitulation on sending tanks to Ukraine are emblematic of this failure.
But Europe is waking up. Leaders like Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Robert Fico in Slovakia, and Zoran Milanović in Croatia are unafraid to speak the truth, challenging the dominant narratives dictated by the entrenched corporate-bureaucratic establishment of Western oligarchies. These oligarchies, wielding immense influence, have even managed to undermine democratic processes, as seen in Romania’s annulled presidential elections. Yet, despite their grip, the tides are shifting.
Across the continent, people are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the status quo. Germany and France are approaching pivotal elections that could reshape their political landscapes. Poland, once a staunch ally of hawkish policies, is beginning to reconsider its stance. Even in the UK, figures like Keir Starmer represent the archetype of complacent bureaucrats, eagerly aligning with U.S. directives and corporate interests. However, their dominance is being challenged. With Donald Trump now elected as U.S. president, there is a growing push for diplomacy and de-escalation. A new sheriff is in town, and this time, the focus is on rebuilding trust and prioritizing peace.
This emerging wave represents a new paradigm—a rejection of endless conflict and a yearning for stability. The days of blind allegiance to destructive policies are numbered. Peace, long relegated to the sidelines, is making its way back to the center stage of European politics. The momentum is undeniable, and the era of unquestioned compliance with war-mongering elites is coming to an end.
The Costs, Blame, and Repercussions of War
The costs of the Ukraine war are incalculable, and its repercussions are felt globally. Ukraine has borne the brunt of the destruction. Millions have been displaced, millions more killed or injured, and entire cities have been reduced to rubble. The Zelensky administration’s unyielding policies, coupled with reckless mobilization efforts, have torn apart the very fabric of Ukrainian society. By drafting even teenagers into the conflict, the Ukrainian leadership is not defending its nation—it is sacrificing it on the altar of geopolitical gamesmanship.
Russia, too, has paid a heavy price. The war has resulted in thousands of casualties, economic sanctions that have strained its economy, and a degree of international isolation. Yet, despite the hardships, Russia remains resolute, framing the conflict as a necessary stand against Western encroachment and a defense of its strategic interests. The Kremlin’s security concerns, while ignored or ridiculed by the West, are rooted in historical precedent and a long-standing geopolitical reality.
Europe, meanwhile, finds itself in economic and political disarray. Energy crises, industrial decline, and soaring inflation have devastated the continent. Germany, once the industrial engine of Europe, is witnessing factory closures at an alarming rate. France’s industries are stagnating, and the United Kingdom’s economy is faltering under the weight of misguided policies. By aligning with Washington’s agenda, European leaders have prioritized geopolitical maneuvering over the welfare of their citizens, plunging their nations into a prolonged period of economic instability.
Globally, the repercussions are vast. The war has destabilized energy markets, disrupted food supplies, and intensified tensions between major powers. By pushing Russia into a closer alliance with China, Western leaders have inadvertently created a powerful bloc capable of challenging the global balance of power. The weaponization of economic policies, such as sanctions, has also eroded trust in the Western-led financial system, prompting nations across the Global South to seek alternatives.
But not everyone is losing. The American military-industrial complex and its allies are reaping enormous profits from the conflict. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), in 2023, the revenues of the world’s 100 largest arms manufacturers reached $632 billion, with 41 U.S. corporations accounting for half of the total. American companies alone pocketed $317 billion, further consolidating their dominance in global arms sales.
This surge in profits has emboldened arms manufacturers, who now see the war as a lucrative opportunity rather than a crisis to resolve. Firms like Raytheon have not only benefited from direct military aid but have also lobbied aggressively to keep the arms flowing to Ukraine. These efforts are supported by think tanks funded by the military-industrial complex, whose conclusions are strategically disseminated through the media to shape public opinion and policy.
It’s not just Ukrainians bearing the brunt of this profiteering; American citizens are also paying the price. Military companies, in their scramble to maximize profits before the potential inauguration of Donald Trump, have inflated prices for defense products, draining resources from the American public. Meanwhile, the outgoing Democratic administration has played along, prioritizing corporate interests over the well-being of ordinary citizens.
A Pyrrhic Resolution: Signing What Was Once Offered
One of the most tragic aspects of this war is the inevitability of its conclusion: Ukraine will likely be forced to sign a treaty nearly identical to what was offered by Russia in March 2022. At that time, peace talks in Istanbul hinted at a potential agreement based on Ukraine’s neutrality, recognition of Crimea as part of Russia, and autonomy for Donbas. However, these negotiations were sabotaged, partly due to external pressure from Western powers, particularly the intervention of then-British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who reportedly urged Zelensky to abandon the talks.
Now, after nearly two years of relentless conflict, Ukraine is in a far worse position. It has lost 20% of its territory, hundreds of thousands of lives, and much of its infrastructure. The very concessions Zelensky refused to make in 2022—concessions that could have spared his people immense suffering—are likely the foundation of the treaty he will eventually have to sign. The bitter irony is undeniable: a catastrophic war fought over terms that will, in the end, remain unchanged.
This raises an uncomfortable question for President Zelensky: How will he justify the enormous cost of lives, territory, and devastation to his people when the same deal could have been achieved earlier without such immense suffering? The delay in diplomacy not only extended the war but deepened the wounds of the nation and further alienated its citizens from their leadership.
The responsibility does not lie solely with Zelensky. Western leaders and corporate interests played a pivotal role in steering Ukraine away from reconciliation, promising military aid and total victory over Russia. These promises have now proven hollow, leaving Ukraine to grapple with the aftermath of choices driven more by geopolitics than genuine concern for its people.
In the end, this war may be remembered not just for its devastation but for its tragic futility—a conflict that inflicted untold suffering only to end where it could have begun, in compromise and diplomacy.
Why is the War Still Going On?
Recent polls suggest that Volodymyr Zelensky’s approval rating has plummeted to a mere 16%, reflecting growing dissatisfaction among Ukrainians as the war drags on. Complicating matters further, his presidency has technically been overdue since May 2024, with elections indefinitely postponed under wartime conditions. Zelensky’s precarious position raises serious questions about his motivations. He likely understands that as soon as the war ends, his political career—and potentially his life—could be over, as citizens hold him accountable for the immense losses and devastation.
Adding to the complexity, Western politicians face a similar dilemma. A ceasefire or resolution would bring heightened scrutiny to their decisions and involvement in prolonging the war. They fear being held responsible for the economic and human toll inflicted not only on Ukraine but also on their own nations. This hesitation to admit failure perpetuates the conflict, as leaders prioritize self-preservation over peace.
Amid this geopolitical quagmire, Ukraine’s elite oligarchic class continues to exploit the situation for personal gain. A significant portion of the billions in foreign aid provided to Ukraine is reportedly being siphoned off, enriching key political figures and their allies. This corruption undermines any genuine attempts to rebuild Ukraine, as funds intended for defense and humanitarian aid vanish into the coffers of the nation’s ruling class. The war thus serves as a cover for a massive wealth transfer, both domestically and internationally.
The convergence of these factors—Zelensky’s tenuous grip on power, Western leaders’ unwillingness to face the political fallout of failure, and systemic corruption among Ukraine’s political elite—ensures the conflict persists. Tragically, this only deepens Ukraine’s suffering, further diminishing its sovereignty and leaving its people to bear the costs of decisions driven by geopolitics and greed.
The Hidden Economic Repercussions of the War
One of the most overlooked consequences of the war is the large-scale transfer of Ukrainian land and resources into the hands of Western corporations, such as BlackRock and other financial giants that financed the conflict. Ukraine, often referred to as the “breadbasket of Europe,” boasts some of the world’s most fertile agricultural lands. However, with the Ukrainian government facing unprecedented economic collapse, much of this land has been sold or leased to foreign entities under the guise of reconstruction and modernization.
Moreover, the staggering debts incurred by Ukraine during the war—through military aid, loans, and reconstruction packages—pose another significant issue. While these funds were ostensibly provided to defend and rebuild the country, they come with strings attached. Western nations and corporations may demand repayment or control over key industries and assets in Ukraine, further stripping the country of its sovereignty. This situation echoes the structural adjustment policies imposed on other nations by institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, where financial aid leads to long-term economic dependency.
For Ukraine, this could mean that even after the guns fall silent, the nation may remain economically subjugated, with its land and resources controlled by foreign powers. This development raises serious ethical and geopolitical questions about the true motivations behind Western support for Ukraine. Was this aid genuinely intended to help the Ukrainian people, or was it a calculated investment to secure control over Ukraine’s assets and strategic position?
As the dust settles, it remains unclear whether Ukraine will be required to repay the billions of dollars in aid it received. If so, this debt could further cripple its economy, leaving future generations to bear the burden of a war they did not choose. This dynamic reveals a deeper layer of the war’s repercussions—one where corporations and financial institutions emerge as the ultimate victors, while ordinary Ukrainians are left to rebuild a fractured nation.
The Doctrine of Buffer Zones: An Unwritten Rule of Geopolitics
The blame for this war is a contentious issue, with many hesitant to defend Russia’s aggression outright. However, it is critical to consider the doctrine of a buffer zone for great powers—a geopolitical principle that, while never formally codified, has been implicitly upheld since at least the Cuban Missile Crisis. The doctrine asserts that great powers have the right to maintain a buffer zone around their borders to shield themselves from rival powers and that bordering nations must remain neutral. Violating this principle risks igniting conflicts that threaten global stability.
The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 serves as a textbook example. When the Soviet Union stationed nuclear missiles in Cuba, within striking distance of the U.S., Washington saw this as an unacceptable threat. The crisis was resolved when the USSR agreed to remove its missiles from Cuba, and the U.S. clandestinely removed its missiles from Turkey in return. This quid pro quo respected the principle of buffer zones, averting a catastrophic war.
Throughout history, this doctrine has repeatedly come into play. The Monroe Doctrine, established in 1823, effectively declared the Western Hemisphere as a U.S. sphere of influence, warning European powers against interference. Similarly, during the Cold War, the Soviet Union maintained a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe, creating a buffer against NATO. The U.S., for its part, has long enforced this principle in its backyard, intervening in Central and South America whenever it perceived external threats.
Against this backdrop, Russia’s actions in Ukraine can be seen not as unprovoked aggression but as a response to what it perceives as the West’s violation of this implicit doctrine. NATO’s eastward expansion—culminating in the potential inclusion of Ukraine—crossed a red line for Moscow. By placing military infrastructure on Russia’s doorstep, NATO ignored the historical understanding that great powers must be granted strategic depth to ensure their security.
Who Broke the Deal?
If the doctrine of buffer zones is acknowledged, then the blame for this war shifts dramatically. It is not Russia that broke the rules of the game—it is the United States and its NATO allies. By pushing for Ukraine’s inclusion in NATO and disregarding Russia’s repeated warnings, the West dismantled the unspoken agreements that had maintained relative peace between great powers for decades.
The irony is that the U.S. has consistently upheld this doctrine when it serves its interests. From enforcing the Monroe Doctrine to opposing Soviet influence in the Americas, Washington has never hesitated to demand a buffer zone. Yet, when it comes to Russia, the same principle is dismissed as outdated or irrelevant. This double standard lies at the heart of the current conflict.
The costs of ignoring this doctrine are now apparent: a devastating war in Ukraine, a fractured Europe, and a world sliding closer to a new Cold War. If lessons are not learned from this crisis, the violations of this unwritten rule will continue to destabilize the global order, with even graver consequences in the future.
The Case for Ukrainian Neutrality
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine underscores the need for a sustainable resolution rooted in the principles of geopolitical stability and mutual security. History offers a clear precedent for the role of neutrality as a stabilizing force in contentious regions. The Cuban Missile Crisis, the Great Game in Central Asia that saw Afghanistan act as a buffer between British India and the Russian Empire, preventing direct conflict between the two powers, and Austria’s neutrality after World War II similarly maintained peace during the Cold War by keeping Austria outside both NATO and the Warsaw Pact. These historical precedents illustrate how neutrality, when respected by all parties, can prevent conflict and foster stability.
Ukraine’s neutrality would address the legitimate security concerns of both NATO and Russia. For NATO, it would remove the immediate threat of Russian influence expanding further into Europe. For Russia, it would alleviate fears of encirclement and NATO missile systems stationed on its doorstep. Neutrality would transform Ukraine into a bridge between East and West, fostering cooperation rather than confrontation.
Mutual Security Guarantees
A model for Ukrainian neutrality could involve legally binding agreements between NATO and Russia, with guarantees for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. This agreement would need to include the following provisions:
- Non-Alignment: Ukraine would commit to remaining outside military alliances like NATO or the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization), ensuring it does not serve as a staging ground for rival powers.
- Demilitarization of Borders: Both NATO and Russia would agree not to station offensive weapons or conduct military exercises near Ukraine’s borders.
- Economic Independence: Ukraine would retain the right to engage in trade and diplomatic relations with both NATO and Russia, promoting balanced development without being drawn into exclusive spheres of influence.
- Cultural and Linguistic Rights: Ukraine would safeguard the rights of all its citizens, including Russian-speaking populations, ensuring internal harmony and stability.
- Security Guarantees: NATO and Russia would pledge to defend Ukraine against external aggression, with mechanisms in place for swift diplomatic intervention in the event of a violation.
Ukraine’s neutrality could follow these examples, becoming a cornerstone of European security architecture. A neutral Ukraine would eliminate the existential threat Russia perceives from NATO’s expansion while allowing Ukraine to maintain its sovereignty and chart its own future.
The doctrine of buffer zones extends beyond Europe to the Asia-Pacific, where tensions between the U.S. and China mirror the NATO-Russia dynamic. Taiwan and the Philippines are critical to China’s security. Their alignment with foreign powers like the U.S. is perceived as a direct threat to Beijing’s sovereignty.
A neutral Taiwan and Philippines, agreed upon by China and the U.S., would de-escalate tensions and prevent a catastrophic conflict. Similarly, Japan, a key U.S. ally, could adopt a neutral stance to promote regional stability, averting a potential flashpoint in the Pacific.
A Path Toward Reconciliation
For centuries, strategists have argued that enduring peace begins with accountability. In the Ukraine conflict, Western leaders must first acknowledge their role in provoking and perpetuating the war. NATO’s relentless eastward expansion, the Maidan coup, and the arming of extremist groups in Ukraine created the conditions for this crisis. These were not mere errors of judgment but deliberate strategies to provoke confrontation under the guise of defending democracy.
Reconciliation, however, cannot stop at blame. Truth and reconciliation commissions could address historical grievances and foster trust between nations. Granting autonomy to culturally and linguistically distinct regions in Ukraine, particularly in the east, is essential. While territorial compromises may be painful, they are necessary to prevent further bloodshed.
Neutral mediators, such as Turkey, China, or the Vatican, could play a critical role in facilitating negotiations. Their involvement would ensure the process remains focused on pragmatic outcomes rather than ideological agendas, moving all parties toward solutions that respect sovereignty and security concerns.
European leaders have failed to adopt a balanced approach. Instead of pursuing non-alignment or acting as a buffer between the U.S. and Russia, they have enabled the conflict. Figures like Ursula von der Leyen, Jens Stoltenberg, Olaf Scholz, and Emmanuel Macron have capitulated to U.S. corporate and military interests. Their decisions have not only caused immense human suffering but also pushed the continent toward economic and geopolitical collapse.
Under the guise of defending democracy, NATO has become a tool for projecting Western power globally and suppressing dissent within its own member states. This militarization of Europe has exacerbated the conflict while undermining the democratic values it claims to protect. For instance, Ukraine’s Zelensky government, under Western pressure, escalated mobilization efforts to unprecedented levels, even considering lowering the draft age to teenagers. Such policies are not just reckless but border on war crimes, devastating Ukraine’s population and history while turning the country into a battleground for Western ambitions.
Achieving lasting peace requires addressing systemic failures and redefining the narrative surrounding the war. Russia’s actions must be reframed not as unprovoked aggression but as defensive responses to Western provocation. NATO’s militarization of Ukraine and the suppression of Russian identity have fueled the conflict.
Equally, there must be a reckoning in the West. Key figures such as Jens Stoltenberg, Joe Biden, and Antony Blinken must publicly admit their role in escalating the crisis. Without such accountability, the cycle of hatred and blame will persist, trapping Ukrainians and Russians in mutual enmity.
President Zelensky must also face accountability. Elected on a platform of peace, he chose to escalate the war, banning negotiations with Russia and alienating Russian-speaking Ukrainians. His actions have deepened divisions and destroyed opportunities for reconciliation, leaving Ukraine in ruins.
The path to peace lies in shifting the blame away from ordinary Russians and Ukrainians—victims of geopolitical manipulation—and toward the Western political and corporate establishment that orchestrated this crisis. By acknowledging this, both sides can move beyond the cycle of revenge and build a shared future.
Only by addressing the systemic causes of the conflict and embracing reconciliation can the world prevent similar devastation from recurring. True peace requires not only stopping the war but ensuring no political cadre can again bring the world to the brink of destruction for their own gain.
The Need for Accountability and Renewal in Leadership
As the tragic consequences of the Ukraine war continue to unfold, it becomes increasingly clear that the current Western political cadre bears significant responsibility for the devastation. Leaders like Ursula von der Leyen, Jens Stoltenberg, Joe Biden, Antony Blinken, Olaf Scholz, Emmanuel Macron, Boris Johnson, Keir Starmer, and others have demonstrated their inability—or unwillingness—to prioritize peace, stability, and the well-being of their own citizens over corporate and geopolitical interests.
Their decisions have led to unprecedented human suffering, economic collapse, and geopolitical instability. Under their watch, the war in Ukraine was prolonged, diplomacy was dismissed, and entire populations were sacrificed on the altar of political expediency and corporate greed. These are not just errors of judgment—they are catastrophic failures of leadership.
For true peace and meaningful reconciliation to occur, these individuals and the systems that empowered them must be held accountable. This means that the entire Western cadre of politicians responsible for enabling this conflict must step down and commit to never re-entering politics. Their continued presence in leadership positions not only undermines the possibility of genuine peace but also perpetuates the same toxic dynamics that led to this crisis.
The failure of these leaders is not just a failure of policy—it is a moral failure. They have betrayed the trust of their constituents, abandoned the principles of democracy, and allowed themselves to become instruments of corporate and military interests. For the world to move forward, we must recognize that peace and progress cannot coexist with leaders who have proven themselves incapable of serving humanity over self-interest.
This is not merely about replacing individuals—it is about dismantling the structures and systems that allowed such catastrophic decision-making to dominate global politics. A new generation of leaders, untainted by the corruption and incompetence of the current cadre, must rise to guide their nations toward a future rooted in accountability, transparency, and a genuine commitment to peace.
The era of unaccountable, self-serving politicians must end. The stakes are too high to allow these same individuals to continue shaping the destiny of nations. Their time is over, and the path forward demands their complete and permanent removal from the corridors of power.
Lessons Learned
One of the most ironic and revealing aspects of this war is that it was not provoked by “autocracy,” as Western media often claims, but by the corporate oligarchy masquerading as democracy. The system the West seeks to export—one based on elite control under the guise of republican ideals—has proven unsustainable. The Ukraine conflict underscores the need for the West to confront its political hypocrisy and failures.
The most significant lesson from this crisis is the necessity of rejuvenating true democracy—one that prioritizes citizen participation, transparency, and accountability. The corporate-dominated republic model currently prevalent in the West fuels tensions and undermines global stability. As I argue in my book, Flawed Democracy, this transformation must begin with dismantling the elite-driven structures that dictate policy.
The war has also highlighted the importance of respecting multipolarity in international relations. A new global order must recognize the security concerns of major powers and avoid reckless provocations. The current United Nations framework, built in the aftermath of World War II, is inadequate for today’s evolving power dynamics. Reforming or replacing it with a system that better reflects 21st-century realities is imperative.
A key proposal for achieving global peace is the establishment of buffer zones for great powers, akin to the Monroe Doctrine, which safeguarded American interests in the Western Hemisphere. Such zones create spheres of influence where major powers can coexist without fear of encroachment. NATO’s relentless expansion into Eastern Europe, as detailed in my article What is Democracy?, violated these principles, provoking predictable responses from Russia.
The doctrine of buffer zones should extend beyond Europe. In the Asia-Pacific, similar dynamics are at play. Taiwan and the Philippines are critical to China’s security, and their alignment with the U.S. is seen as a direct threat by Beijing. Neutrality agreements for Taiwan, the Philippines, and potentially Japan could de-escalate tensions, promoting stability and preventing conflict.
This new international order would prioritize negotiation, balance, and mutual respect over unilateral dominance. The West must abandon its exceptionalist rhetoric and embrace a system that allows diverse political and cultural models to coexist.
The transformation must start at home. Western nations must evolve from republics dominated by elite interests into genuine democracies that empower their citizens. This includes restoring public control over governments, dismantling corporate oligarchies, and fostering civic engagement. The West cannot credibly promote democracy abroad while ignoring its erosion domestically.
The lessons of this conflict are clear: achieving global peace requires addressing the systemic provocations that lead to war. This demands a fundamental shift in governance—both domestic and international—that respects multipolarity, sovereignty, and true democratic principles. Only then can the world hope to avoid repeating the mistakes that brought us to this brink.
Fatima Prophecy: The Role of Russia in World Peace
Beyond geopolitics, there is a profound spiritual dimension to Russia’s role in world history—one that resonates deeply with the Fatima prophecy. According to this prophecy, Russia was destined to undergo a transformation and become an instrument of peace for the world. While many have interpreted this as a “conversion to Catholicism,” its meaning could be broader and deeper: Russia, as a force, revealing the sins of the world and leading humanity toward truth, reconciliation, and renewal.
Russia’s involvement in Ukraine transcends the conventional framework of war; it has become a spiritual event. This conflict has exposed systemic flaws in the Western order: the deceit of its narratives, the corruption of NATO, and the hollow foundations of the U.S. political system. These revelations present an opportunity for transformation—a chance for the West to move toward a governance model grounded in authenticity and public empowerment.
This shift could herald the birth of what I call New Democracy—a system where power resides with the people rather than corporations or oligarchs masquerading as representatives. Such a vision demands governance characterized by transparency, accountability, and direct citizen participation, breaking away from the entrenched interests dominating today’s Western republics.
As suggested by the Fatima prophecy, Russia’s role may not be merely that of a geopolitical power but of a catalyst for global reflection and reform. If this conflict ultimately leads to the West embracing New Democracy, empowering citizens, and respecting multipolarity, then Russia will indeed have fulfilled its spiritual role as a “bringer of peace.”
The war in Ukraine, despite its devastation, may yet serve as a turning point—not only in global politics but in how the world conceives of governance, justice, and peace. Through this struggle, the seeds of a renewed and harmonious world order might be sown.
Conclusion
Reconciliation is not weakness—it is strength. It takes courage to admit mistakes, to forgive, and to prioritize humanity over pride. True reconciliation, however, cannot occur as long as the current political elite remains in power. Figures like Ursula von der Leyen, Jens Stoltenberg, Mark Rutte, Boris Johnson, and Keir Starmer have led Europe into an unprecedented crisis of human suffering, economic collapse, and geopolitical instability. Their decisions are not mere errors but catastrophic missteps that have plunged the world into conflict.
To achieve peace, Ukraine’s policies must also be addressed. Lowering the draft age, mobilizing teenagers, and perpetuating a zero-sum war have turned President Zelensky into a war criminal in the eyes of history. These actions are not defending Ukraine—they are destroying it. The Ukrainian people are paying the price for a misguided geopolitical gamble orchestrated by Western elites and NATO expansionists.
The blame must shift from ordinary Russians and Ukrainians, who have been manipulated into this tragic conflict, to the real architects of this catastrophe: Western politicians, corporate interests, and the Zelensky regime. Only by exposing these truths can Ukrainians and Russians find common ground again—and only then can lasting peace be achieved.
The Ukraine war epitomizes everything wrong with our current political system: the republic. Public information is manipulated on two fronts—by politicians controlled by corporations and by mass media owned by those same corporations. Foreign policy operates beyond public scrutiny, shrouded in secrecy and inaccessible to ordinary citizens. When governments decide to start wars or join conflicts, the public is powerless to intervene and often misinformed by carefully crafted narratives that obscure the truth.
This system, designed to serve the powerful, has turned democracy into a façade, leaving citizens voiceless in decisions that shape their lives and the world.
This holy time of Christmas—a season of reflection, peace, and goodwill—offers a poignant moment to reconsider our path. While America has elected a leader who speaks of hope and diplomacy, Europe’s leaders remain entrenched in the rhetoric of war. They call for more weapons, troops, and increased armament spending, with even the suggestion of deploying soldiers to Ukraine—policies that only prolong the conflict. There is no acknowledgment of the need for reconciliation with Russia, no effort to explore a path toward peace.
John F. Kennedy once said, “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” Today’s European leaders have refused to heed this wisdom. Under the guise of defending democracy, they have transformed NATO from a shield into a tool of control—both over Europe and their own populations. Their policies of escalation, combined with Zelensky’s hardline refusal to negotiate, have turned Ukraine into a devastated nation, its population annihilated, its future scarred.
The Fatima prophecy offers a spiritual lens through which to view this conflict. It suggests that Russia might yet play a transformative role in bringing peace to the world. Perhaps this transformation will not be immediate or direct, but the exposure of the West’s flawed leadership and corrupt systems could catalyze profound change. If we acknowledge these mistakes, embrace reconciliation, and reform our political systems, we can pave the way for a more peaceful and just future.
This Christmas, let us reflect on hope and renewal. The rejection of arrogant elites begins with rejecting their destructive policies. True peace in Ukraine requires not just an end to fighting but a fundamental transformation of how we govern and coexist. Europe must decide: democracy or oligarchy, peace or endless war.
The time to act is now. Let us have the courage to correct our mistakes, embrace reconciliation, and make peace a reality.