First, there was the intention to expand the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to include Ukraine and Georgia, effectively encircling Russia with NATO nations in the Black Sea region — namely, Ukraine, Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey, and Georgia — moving counterclockwise. The second provocation involved the West facilitating the violent removal of Ukraine’s pro-Russian President, Yanukovych, in February 2014, which led to the establishment of a Russo-phobic regime.1

The resurgence of geopolitical tensions between the West and Russia mentioned above provides only part of the original causes that triggered the current situation. To understand the conflict comprehensively, we will examine its underlying causes closely. 

The liberation of Europe during World War II was a collaborative effort, with the Allied forces- including the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and France- playing crucial roles in defeating Nazi Germany. The Soviet Union bore the brunt of the fighting on the Eastern Front, pushing back the German forces and liberating Eastern and Central Europe at the cost of millions of Soviet soldiers and civilians lost. 2

With an Allied victory likely to appear, the Yalta Conference was convened to determine the future of Germany following its defeat. At the conference, held from February 4 to 11, 1945, in Yalta, a Russian resort town, the “Big Three” leaders—U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Soviet leader Joseph Stalin—agreed to divide Germany into occupation zones following its unconditional surrender. They also discussed the post-war organization of Europe and the world and the establishment of the United Nations as an organization dedicated to international cooperation and the prevention of war. 3

While all countries liberated from Nazi control were guaranteed the right to hold free, democratic elections to select their governments, Stalin was granted a sphere of influence in Eastern Europe where communist ideals would prevail. In exchange, Stalin committed to joining the war against Japan once Germany was defeated. This was significant for the Americans, who were suffering heavy losses in the Pacific, even as they gradually pushed back the Japanese forces. 

Looking back, the Soviet Union’s entry into the war and the atomic bombings by the United States played a crucial role in Japan’s decision to surrender, bringing World War II to a close. 4

In the aftermath of World War II, the US and the Soviet Union emerged as superpowers. Despite being allies during the war, the United States and the Soviet Union maintained opposing ideologies and visions for the post-war world. 

The United States championed capitalism and democracy, while the Soviet Union promoted communism. This ideological clash fueled a Cold War between the two superpowers. The Cold War involved a struggle for global influence, with both Moscow and Washington, D.C., vying for control over nations and regions, often through proxy wars and military alliances. 

In a rare departure from the isolationist foreign policy of his predecessor, F.D. Roosevelt, President Harry Truman established the Truman Doctrine in March 1947, marking the United States’ commitment to contain Soviet expansion in Europe and worldwide during the Cold War.

The doctrine led to the establishment of the Marshall Plan, which provided economic assistance to Western Europe to help rebuild its economies and counter the influence of communism. 5

In 1949, the United States, Canada, and several Western European countries established NATO to address the Soviet Union’s perceived threat. In response, the Soviet Union and various Eastern European communist states formed the Warsaw Treaty Organization in 1955 as a countermeasure to NATO.

The Korean and Vietnam proxy Wars illustrated indirect confrontations between East and West, with the US and the Soviet Union supporting rival factions. While the space race, highlighted by the launch of Sputnik and the Apollo missions, epitomized this rivalry, the nuclear arms race further posed an ongoing threat of global annihilation, as both sides expanded their stockpiles. 

The construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961 and the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war, further symbolized the division between the capitalist West and the communist East. 

Records indicate that the U.S. and German 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, despite the security guarantees in Prague, Czechoslovakia, Western efforts to expand NATO began in December 1991, right after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, long before Vladimir Putin assumed office as Russia’s president. 6 

The archives show irrefutably that this is the root cause of the war in Ukraine – facts the West has been working relentlessly to distort, repeatedly and falsely claiming that the Ukraine War started with an unprovoked attack by Russia on Ukraine.

Cognizant that NATO was established to counter the perceived threat posed by the Soviet Union, it was hoped that the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the end of the Cold War would lead to the dissolution of the NATO alliance. 1

On the contrary, NATO seized the opportunity presented by the significant shift in the Eastern European geopolitical landscape. In the early 1990s, it began engaging with former Warsaw Pact countries through the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program. PfP enabled these countries to participate in NATO-led peacekeeping operations and foster military and political cooperation, paving the way for future membership and integration into Western political and economic institutions.

Although Russia regarded NATO’s enlargement as a provocation and a security threat, the timeline for NATO’s expansion eastward proceeded with remarkable precision.  

In 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland joined NATO, followed by Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004. 7

The eminent US scholar-statesman George Kennan referred to NATO enlargement as a “fateful error,” stating in the New York Times in February 1997 that, “such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western, and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; harm the development of Russian democracy; restore the atmosphere of the Cold War to East-West relations, and steer Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.” 1

With hindsight, President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Perry, contemplated resigning in protest of NATO enlargement. Reflecting on this pivotal moment in the mid-1990s, Perry stated in 2016 that “our initial action that truly set us on a negative path was NATO’s expansion, which included Eastern European countries, some of which border Russia.” During that period, we worked closely with Russia, and they started to accept the notion that NATO could be seen as a friend rather than a foe. Nevertheless, they expressed significant discomfort with NATO being positioned directly at their border, urging us not to proceed with that plan.

In 2008, the then-U.S. Ambassador to Russia and later CIA Director William Burns dispatched a cable to Washington. In this cable, he extensively outlined the significant dangers of NATO expansion, stating, “The NATO ambitions of Ukraine and Georgia not only strike a sensitive chord in Russia but also raise serious concerns regarding the region and regional stability.” Russia senses encirclement and attempts to weaken its influence, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled repercussions that could significantly affect its security interests. 

Experts indicate that Russia fears the deep divisions in Ukraine regarding NATO membership, especially with a significant portion of the ethnic-Russian community opposed to it. This, they believe, could result in a major rift, potentially leading to violence or even civil war. In such a scenario, Russia would be forced to consider intervention, a choice it prefers to avoid. 

U.S. diplomats and Ukraine’s leader recognized that NATO enlargement could lead to war.  In a 2019 interview, former Zelensky advisor Oleksiy Arestovych stated, “our cost for NATO membership is a significant conflict with Russia.”

From 2010 to 2013, Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych advocated for neutrality, aligning with the views of the Ukrainian public. 

Unfortunately, Western powers worked covertly to unseat Yanukovych, as vividly illustrated by a recording of then U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussing the post-Yanukovych government weeks before his violent removal. Nuland clearly states on the call that she was coordinating closely with then-Vice President Biden and his national security advisor, Jake Sullivan, who later became a part of the Biden-Nuland-Sullivan team at the heart of U.S. policy regarding Ukraine. 

After Yanukovych’s overthrow, conflict broke out in the Donbas, and Russia annexed Crimea, as prominent U.S. diplomats had predicted over several decades. 

The newly formed Ukrainian government sought NATO membership, while the West provided arms and assisted in reorganizing the Ukrainian military for better integration with NATO. 

Before Russia’s invasion, NATO expansion was a significant topic, and Russia pursued diplomatic avenues to avert conflict. On December 17, 2021, Putin presented a draft US-Russia Treaty that called for an end to NATO enlargement. During a National Security Council meeting on February 21, 2022, Russian leaders cited NATO expansion as the instigator of the war. That same day, in his national address, Putin identified NATO enlargement as a primary justification for Russian intervention. 

Despite Putin’s call to stop NATO’s expansion in 2021, the West firmly backed Ukraine’s prospects for NATO membership and rejected any negotiations, insisting that Russia has no say over NATO’s growth. 

Concerning the significant question of whether an agreement between Russia and the West to pause NATO’s expansion and render Ukraine neutral, in exchange for solid guarantees of its independence and sovereignty, might have averted war, historian Geoffrey Roberts remarked: possibly.  

In March 2022, Russia and Ukraine indicated they were nearing a swift negotiated resolution to the war, contingent on Ukraine’s neutrality. Naftali Bennett, the former Prime Minister of Israel who acted as a mediator, stated that a deal was almost finalized before interference from the U.S., U.K., and France halted the process. 

The West hesitates to address the underlying causes of the war because doing so would weaken its governments in several ways. Firstly, it would reveal that the war might have been prevented or concluded sooner, thus saving Ukraine from its current suffering and potentially saving the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars spent so far. 

Secondly, it would reveal Western leaders’ involvement in the war, highlighting their participation in overthrowing Yanukovych, their earlier support for the military-industrial complex, and their advocacy for NATO enlargement. Additionally, it would compel them to enter negotiations, thereby challenging their government’s ongoing efforts to expand NATO. 

Additionally, recognizing that NATO enlargement is central to this conflict helps explain why U.S. weapons won’t lead to resolution, as Russia will escalate its efforts to prevent NATO’s expansion into Ukraine. This tit-for-tat escalation cycle can only result in a nuclear war with catastrophic outcomes for all involved. 

Achieving peace in Ukraine hinges on negotiations prioritizing Ukraine’s neutrality and preventing NATO enlargement. The Western push for NATO expansion into Ukraine has transformed the nation into a pawn of misguided and unrealistic U.S. military ambitions. It is essential to cease the provocations and engage in negotiations aimed at restoring peace in Ukraine. 1

Reference

1. Jeffrey D. Sachs (2023) “The War in Ukraine Was Provoked—and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace” Common Dreams

1. Johnsen, William T. (2016). The Origins of the Grand Alliance: Anglo-American Military Collaboration from the Panay Incident to Pearl Harbor. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-8131-6836-4. 

1. Diana Preston, Eight Days at Yalta: How Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin Shaped the Post-War World (2019), pp. 1–23.

1. Melvyn Leffler (2012) “Cambridge History of the Cold War,” Volume 1. Cambridge University Press.  
2. Weissman, Alexander D. (November 2013). “Pivotal Politics—The Marshall Plan: A Turning Point in Foreign Aid and the Struggle for Democracy.” Society for History Education. JSTOR 43264189. 

1. Bremer, Ian (28 May 2015). “These Are the 5 Reasons Why the U.S. Remains the World’s Only Superpower”. Time. 
2. North Atlantic Treaty Organization (December 3, 2009). “Partner countries”. Retrieved December 23, 2009.