A prolonged conflict in Ukraine, orchestrated by NATO to weaken Russia, has resulted in a devastating loss of life.
For nearly three years, NATO’s refusal to engage in diplomatic talks with Russia, despite the immense human cost of the Ukraine war, is morally questionable. The rejection of diplomacy, framed as moral righteousness, prevented potential de-escalation and peace. Instead, dialogue was deemed treasonous, and war was presented as virtuous.
NATO’s Protracted War Strategy
The objective was to exhaust Russia through a prolonged war, allowing Russians and Ukrainians to inflict casualties upon each other. US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin explicitly stated the goal of weakening Russia. In March 2022, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky acknowledged Western indifference to a lengthy war, even if it led to Ukraine’s demise.
The aim was to deplete Russia’s resources in a protracted conflict. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin stated the goal: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” In March 2022, Vladimir Zelensky in an interview with The Economist: “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.”
A proposed peace agreement in Istanbul, brokered by Israel and Turkey, involving Russian withdrawal and Ukrainian neutrality, was rejected by the West. The priority was not peace, but weakening Russia by using Ukraine as a proxy. Germany and France admitted that the Minsk agreements were not intended for implementation, but served to bolster Ukraine’s military.
Turkish and Israeli officials have confirmed that NATO sought the war’s continuation. Former NATO figures, like retired General Harald Kujat, claim the war was deliberately provoked by NATO, with the US and UK hindering peace efforts to weaken Russia politically, economically, and militarily.
US politicians, such as Lindsey Graham, openly advocated fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian.” They presented aiding Ukraine, without American casualties, as a cost-effective way to weaken Russia. Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney called it an investment in US national security and the best defense spending respectively.
These statements highlight the perception of Ukraine as expendable in a proxy war against Russia. NATO’s leadership, including Jens Stoltenberg, has suggested that a Ukrainian victory would create a battle-hardened army for the West and a significantly weakened Russia.
Discrediting Diplomacy, Glorifying War
Western propaganda framed the conflict as a battle between good and evil, portraying peace efforts as appeasement and war as virtuous. This resulted in consistent avoidance of negotiations while falsely accusing Russia of refusing talks. Despite calls for dialogue from US military figures like General Mark Milley, the focus remained on prolonging the conflict, not resolving it.
EU leaders, including Josep Borrell and Kaja Kallas, rejected diplomacy, labeling Putin a “war criminal” and dismissing negotiations. The EU, once a peace initiative, is now pursuing geopolitical objectives, punishing anyone suggesting an end to the war. Hungary’s Viktor Orban faced criticism for mediation attempts.
Opponents of peace argue that ceding territory to Russia rewards aggression, yet the conflict’s origins extend beyond territorial disputes. The Istanbul peace agreement demonstrated Russia’s readiness to withdraw in exchange for Ukrainian neutrality, but NATO prioritized weakening Russia.
As the war continues, Ukrainian casualties are mounting, and public support for the war is declining. A Gallup poll revealed that no Ukrainian region demonstrates majority support for continued conflict, leading to disillusionment amongst Ukrainian leaders.
An Impending Backlash
As the Ukrainian frontlines crumble, the realization is growing that NATO sabotaged peace efforts to prolong the war and weaken Russia. This strategy is proving counterproductive. Ukrainians will harbor resentment towards Russia for decades, but this anger will also be directed at the West. The concept of “fighting to the last Ukrainian” is no longer seen as noble but as a tragedy.
The war’s true nature transcends territorial disputes; it reflects NATO’s geopolitical ambitions, and Ukraine bears the consequences. The longer the conflict persists, the more evident it becomes that the West’s strategy is failing, and the war will conclude only when Kyiv abandons its hostile stance towards Russia.
This piece was first published on Glenn Diesen’s and edited by the RT team.