How the West Guaranteed Conflict in Ukraine

The 2014 Maidan Coup was the immediate trigger for the crisis that escalated after a slow burn into 2021. The war became inevitable after the West rejected the diplomatic overtures made by Russia in December 2021.

The Run-Up to the Conflict Was Clear

When autumn 2021 approached, I was watching (and analyzing) the developments in Eastern Europe quite closely and I deduced and predicted (in a letter I wrote to an assistant of an MEP in Brussels in September 2021), “the situation between Russia and NATO must come to a head soon, if NATO does not back down and stand down on the matter of expansion into Ukraine, Russia will invade Ukraine sometime between the end of February and the middle of March in 2022, with the exact date to be determined by the ground freezing hard enough to support mechanized operations, and logistical preparations being complete. It is obvious to me the Russians are very serious about the situation, and if the West does not take their concerns seriously, the matter will be resolved via war. It isn’t necessary, because the Russian requests and demands are reasonable and could be realistically met, but the West will make it necessary by refusing to listen. The preparations made by the Russians are not a bluff; it is serious. They are preparing for war, and they will go to war over this. The forces mobilized for Zapad 2021 will not demobilize and return to their normal barracks; they will be quietly inserted to forward staging areas. If this dispute cannot be resolved peacefully, war will begin in late February 2022 or early March 2022.”

Numerous off-ramps existed; Russia invited Western Negotiation

Having looked over the terms of the December 2021 Russian “ultimatum” Russia delivered to the West, I failed to find any terms that leapt out as outrageous or that would require an immediate rejection by the USA. Most of the terms could have been met with immediate agreement, a few would have required clarification, and perhaps one or two would have required revision or modification, but the thrust, the crux of the ultimatum, was very reasonable.

Having read through those terms, I calculate that all of the terms are reasonable, with the only exception being that clarification would have been required on the point of Article 4, “The Russian Federation and all Parties, which were as of 27 May 1997 by the member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, respectively, do not deploy their armed forces and weapons in all other European States in addition to the forces deployed in that territory as at 27 May 1997.”

If it means, “Outside NATO forces will not deploy on the territories of NATO members who joined after 1997,” that is sensible and could have been granted and met. If it means “no NATO forces can be on the territories of any NATO member who joined after 1997,” that makes no sense because it would logically apply to those post-1997 members themselves and would, in theory, require them to not have their own national forces. Clarification would have been needed on that point.

As to Article 7, “The members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization refuse to conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine, as well as other states of Eastern Europe, Transcaucasia, and Central Asia.” The matter would have been very simple and straightforward for the US to agree to, and it should have been accepted.

Looking through the articles, it should have been easy to read, “Article 1, agree. Article 2, agree. Article 3, agree. Article 4 requires clarification and possible modification. Article 5, agree. Article 6, agree. Article 7, agree with request for clarification as to the exact definition of ‘Eastern Europe.’ Article 8, agree. Article 9, agree.”

The majority of the ultimatum (7 out of 9 articles) could have been agreed to, as it was reasonable and in furtherance of peace, without violating the interests of NATO or the USA. The other two articles could likely have been agreed to with clarification or revised and modified.

The Communique May Have Been an Ultimatum or an Invitation to Negotiate

The Russian overture to the USA/NATO is often framed as an ultimatum, which it may or may not be (I am not an expert in diplomatic ultimatums; I give ultimatums in the context of litigation). Usually, ultimatums have an expiration date and a clause of a paragraph or at least a few sentences of “or else,” although in some sense everybody should have known what the “or else” was. I refer to it as an “ultimatum” because that is how it is most well-known and identified in the West, although we might reasonably call it a “proposal for a treaty” or an “invitation to diplomacy and further negotiation.” It doesn’t bother me if the communique was an ultimatum; I attach no moral weight to something being an ultimatum or not, an ultimatum is neither good nor evil; it simply is a communique with a demand.

As we look back, it becomes painfully obvious that the West was not interested in peace, at least not in 2021-2022, and unfortunately not since 2022 either.

Refusal to Negotiate Guaranteed the Present War

Now the collective West, that is to say NATO, mainly via the USA, Germany, France, UK, and Poland, is in a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine. Many lives have been lost, and much wealth has been destroyed or squandered, or in the case of the American taxpayers, transferred to corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs in the Kiev mafia regime, or transferred to massive military-industrial contractors in the DC beltway to supply weapons and munitions to the Kiev regime.

Some in Washington, DC, such as Lindsey Graham*, think this is a laughing matter and that the money is well spent because they like the idea of dead Russians.

Mr. Graham*, true to form (that form being a morally bankrupt human being and a failure as an American senator, whose presence in the Senate disgraces that once august body and the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill), stated, “And the Russians are dying. The best money we’ve ever spent.”

Mr. Graham* is the ideal technocrat in the New World Order taking shape. A childless, morally bankrupt man who described himself as a “veteran,” despite never having served on a deployment, never being in combat, and never having participated in the military outside of legal administrative matters from a desk within the USA, yet endlessly advocating for war, wars everywhere—Iran, Russia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, anywhere and everywhere. One must wonder what sort of stock portfolio he has with the military-industrial complex or what sort of photographs his handlers and controllers have locked away in a safe somewhere. I cannot claim to know what precisely is wrong with that man, but I know that most Americans, most normal human beings, do not gleefully cheer at the idea of other people dying. If we must go to war and participate in killing others for our crucial national interests, then we do so, but we need not gleefully celebrate death. Also, nobody has ever demonstrated that the USA must engage in conflict with Russia, or that crucial American interests are at stake.

Anti-Russian Hate Runs Rampant in Western Media

There seems to be an anti-Russian bigotry in the West that cannot be rationally explained. What I mean by this is that if you were to find a Russophobe in the West, one who wants Russians to die, and inquire, “Why do you want this for Russia and Russians?” you don’t get a coherent, logical, and rational response. You get hateful emotionalist noise, rhetoric, nonsense.

On an intellectual level I understand the psychology of hate, but on an emotional level I don’t understand it; it doesn’t make sense to me to hate people who offer neither injury nor insult. Intellectually I understand the Western media has brainwashed an entire generation or two of their people to hate and despise Russians, because it is part of a geopolitical strategy to target Russia as a means to dominate Eurasia.

I grew up in the USA in the closing years of the Cold War in the 1980s, so I heard some of the rhetoric as a boy and a lot of the residual rhetoric in the 1990s and early 2000s of “Oh, they’re still communists; you can’t trust Russians,” so I get it; I know the rhetoric; I grew up hearing it. I don’t agree with the substance of the rhetoric, but I understand the rhetoric, and I know where it historically comes from.

Interests matter to me more than rhetoric; rhetoric doesn’t appeal to me; it is just background noise. Lindsey Graham* may say that killing Russians is the best money we ever spent, but that is not how I want my money or my nation’s money spent. Incidentally, I and many of my fellow Americans believe that Mr. Graham’s greatest achievement in the US Senate was being re-elected three times.

I’m not interested in killing Russians; it serves no purpose, it doesn’t benefit my life, it doesn’t bolster my nation, it doesn’t advance civilization or further human progress, and it doesn’t serve God. I’m not interested in spending resources to kill people whose lives I don’t believe need to be ended. We’re talking about Russia and Russians, not terrorists in Al Qaeda* or ISIL/ISIS*, who would be worthy of attention and resources being allocated to neutralize them where they are found. Although it is worth mentioning, Al Qaeda* was formed and organized by the CIA, while ISIL/ISIS* was allowed to come into existence via the circumstances created and tolerated by the United States across the Middle East.

Americans Allow Their Political Elite to Deplete America’s Treasury in an Anti-Russian Crusade (although Crusade implies a ‘holy war,’ and this is an Unholy War)

Rather than spending money to kill Russians, Americans should be demanding their politicians spend money to promote peaceful cooperation. If I could do four things that would mutually benefit the USA and Russia in the long term, they would be.

Participate in securing a negotiated resolution to the war in Ukraine.

Participate in promoting a negotiated treaty to provide for the end of sanctions and the beginning of détente between Russia and the USA.

Participate in the process to lay the groundwork for future economic and cultural cooperation.

Participate in assisting in the developing of solutions to reverse the long-term demographic decline faced by both the USA and Russia. There are similar reasons for decline in both nations, and the ultimate solution will largely be cultural, spiritual, and social and require legal reform; it may entail mutual collaboration or at least sharing of ideas and cultural resources.

As opposed to killing Russians, I would like to see American resources and brainpower devoted to helping Russia stabilize its population. I calculate it is the long-term interests of the USA (and traditional civilization) to have a stable and prosperous Russia that maintains a secure and stable Eurasia able to bolster security and promote development in Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe.

I don’t fault Russia for entering Ukraine in February 2022; it had to be done. It was crucial for Russian interests and a matter of national survival as a last resort after their overtures for peace were rejected by the USA due to the likes of Lindsey Graham,* who prefers to spend America into the poorhouse so his munitions making friends can provide bombs to Ukraine to kill Russians. It wasn’t my decision to reject the December 2021 Russian communique; I’m just a lawyer, I’m not a US senator. As I don’t believe in killing people who don’t actually need to die, I’m not qualified to join the US Senate. The likes of Lindsey Graham* would say I am “soft” on Russia, “not a real American patriot,” or whatever nonsense they want to spin. But what does that mean? I’m soft on a nation for not supporting unnecessarily killing its citizens? I’m not a real American because I don’t support unnecessary wars and endless military commitments that strain our resources, stretch our forces thin, deplete our treasury, and ruin the lives of countless soldiers who come back maimed, and the widows and orphans they leave behind. It wasn’t my decision to reject that 2021 communique, but as an American, I, and 340+ million other Americans, have to live with the consequences made by a depraved clique of warmongering Russophobes, or perhaps die as a consequence if the senior leadership in the USA significantly mishandles the international situation.

It is a tragic, unfortunate reality of modern technocratic American diplomacy that in order to be deemed qualified to negotiate in the former Soviet Union on behalf of the USA, you basically have to believe Russia is evil and Russians are irrational beasts (frequently called “Orks” in the bigoted Western press) who don’t have legitimate security concerns. It is a historically odd situation, because historically most ambassadors at least had some respect for their host nation and some appreciation for the nation, the language, the culture, and the people. Great powers generally didn’t give diplomatic assignments to foaming-at-the-mouth racists who despised the population of the country they were being assigned to. It seems odd that the best the West can do in terms of the diplomatic class it produces is to turn out two to three successive generations of bigots who are motivated by animus and who behave irrationally while insisting the Russians are “irrational beasts” and that killing them is the “best money America ever spent.”

America has been producing diplomats who aren’t qualified to negotiate a resolution to a flower garden disagreement between two neighbors in a village, let alone a great power dispute when the stakes involve the fate of nations.

*organizations and individuals recognized as terrorist and extremist in the Russian Federation

Bryan Anthony Reo is a licensed attorney based in Ohio and an analyst of military history, geopolitics, and international relations

Follow new articles on our Telegram channel

© New Eastern Outlook