“Si vis pacem, para bellum” is a Latin expression originating in the fourth century, translating to “If you want peace, prepare for war.” The idea was echoed by the Roman emperor Hadrian, to whom the axiom “peace through threat” is attributed.

President George Washington understood this well. “To ensure peace as a vital means of our growing prosperity, it must be clear that we are always prepared for war,” he stated to Congress in 1793. 

No American President since Ronald Reagan has embodied America’s commitment to peace through strength like President Donald Trump. In his foreign policy, the 45th and 47th President promotes peace through strength, underscoring his commitment to global security and a world free of war. 

In 2019, he brokered the Abraham Accords, bringing peace and normalization between Israel and the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. The accords received bipartisan acclaim at home and broad support worldwide. They are considered the most significant diplomatic achievement of the century in the Middle East peace endeavor.

Unlike the four American presidents who were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, President Trump has not been duly acknowledged for his efforts and achievements, despite embodying the Prize’s ideals. 

Discussions in the media suggest that the President is dictating the terms for a Russia-Ukraine peace agreement, which would leave Europe vulnerable. They argue that this has raised concerns among Europeans and does not satisfy the Nobel Selection Committee of five members appointed by the Norwegian Parliament. 

While the International Community has been misled into believing that the conflict in Ukraine began with Russia’s unprovoked attack on February 24, 2022, the archives show that the war was a response to NATO’s eastward expansion, aimed at effectively encircling Russia.

Based on data and statistics, Western governments consistently assured Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not move “an inch eastward” when the Soviet Union disbanded the Warsaw Pact military alliance in July 1991. However, the West has not been truthful. NATO has been steadily and accurately expanding eastward.     

It is indisputable that NATO’s eastward expansion violates the Prague Agreement, the United Nations Charter, and the International System’s fundamental principle: Respect for Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity.

To quote the Charter’s preamble, the U.N. aims to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Whatever else it may do, the U.N.’s irreducible purpose is peace and security. 

Article 2 of the Charter offers clarity: “All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means … All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.”

NATO was formed primarily as a unified military force against Moscow. It contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union and has continued to the present, undermining the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation.

Although the U.N. Charter was supposed to end imperial conquest, and nations widely recognize that respecting sovereignty and territorial integrity is fundamental to the current multilateral framework, NATO’s eastward expansion is a particularly egregious example of states attempting to seize territory and alter borders by force.

In 2022, Ukraine’s pursuit of NATO membership, right on Moscow’s doorstep, posed a significant military threat to the Russian Federation. Russia was compelled to intervene under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which permits using force for self-defense, a choice it would have preferred to avoid had Europe listened.  

Europe thinks its problems are the world’s problems, but Russia’s legitimate concerns are not considered to be Europe’s problems. Historically, Europe instigated the First and Second World Wars, dragging the rest of the world into two devastating conflicts with which they had nothing to do. 

Today, the region stands at the center of a potential Third World War, beating dire warning drums about the threat emanating from Russia and Europe’s current lack of preparedness, fully aware that they are the cause of the conflict.  

This questionable but compelling East-West confrontation fib has led Norway’s fellow Scandinavian countries, Finland and Sweden, to abandon their long-cherished neutrality in favor of Brussels’ warmongering. 

Suppose the Nobel Peace Prize is contingent upon the truce details between Russia and Ukraine. In that case, the Nobel selection committee must recognize that President Trump is prioritizing addressing the underlying causes of the conflict rather than promoting war. He also acknowledges Russia’s sacrifices toward building a more promising future for the world. 

Indeed, if not for the sacrifices made by millions of Russians, Norway would lack a parliament, and German might be its spoken language today. 

Considering the magnitude of the debate and the outbursts of ‘emotions-deep’, not presenting the root causes of the Russia-Ukraine war in its entirety, either inadvertently or deliberately, is unhelpful to the discussion, controversial, and weak (too weak) for such a unique opportunity to finally set the record straight.