The Perils of Western Hubris
“I cannot forecast you the action of Russia. It is a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”
The recent verbal sparring between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office made for compelling television. The spectacle, like so much of contemporary political discourse, was however devoid of the substantive context necessary to grapple with the grim realities of war. If anything, it only reinforced the glaring truth that negotiations - true negotiations, with any hope of success - must take place behind closed doors, far from the performative grandstanding of Western politics and media.
And yet, beneath this farce lies a deeper and far more troubling reality: the intractability of the conflict in Ukraine, not simply as a matter of military strategy or territorial integrity but as a by-product of decades of Western hubris. Those who insist on depicting Vladimir Putin as a pantomime villain - a megalomaniacal aggressor acting in a vacuum - do so only by wilfully ignoring the broader historical context. The West has played no small role in stoking the flames of this conflict, and the grand narrative of "democracy versus dictatorship" is a fairy tale that crumbles under the weight of even the most cursory historical scrutiny.
NATO’s Encroachment and the Myth of Western Benevolence
Russia's actions, while brutal, cannot be understood in isolation. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States and its allies have treated Russia not as a defeated foe to be rehabilitated, as they did with Germany and Japan after World War II, but as a humiliated adversary to be kept permanently weakened, no doubt the product of persistent efforts by the military-industrial complex to retain perma-enemies on the U.S.’ geopolitical spectrum. In 1991, as part of the negotiations for German reunification, the U.S. assured Moscow that NATO would not expand "one inch eastward." That promise was summarily discarded. Over the decades, NATO crept inexorably toward Russia’s borders, absorbing former Soviet states and establishing military footholds in Poland, the Baltic states, and, most provocatively, Ukraine itself.
If the roles were reversed - if Russia had formed a military alliance with Argentina and Brazil, established bases in Venezuela and Colombia, and then sought to bring Mexico into its orbit - does anyone seriously believe that the United States would respond with docility? The Monroe Doctrine, which asserts America’s right to dominate its own hemisphere, would be invoked within seconds, and war would almost certainly follow. Yet we are expected to believe that Russia - a country that has been invaded by Napoleon and Hitler and which has a deeply ingrained and justified historical paranoia about Western encroachment - should simply tolerate NATO pressing up against its borders.
None of this absolves Putin of his authoritarian tendencies or his decision to launch a full-scale invasion. But to frame this war as a black-and-white struggle between good and evil is to buy into a narrative crafted not for truth but for the maintenance of American hegemony. The 2014 Ukrainian revolution, lauded in the West as a pro-democracy uprising, was, in reality, a U.S.-backed coup that overthrew the democratically elected, Russia-leaning President Viktor Yanukovych. The fact that this coup was orchestrated with direct involvement from American officials should, at the very least, complicate the notion that Washington's role in Ukraine is one of pure-hearted benevolence.
Ukraine: The Hapless Pawn in a Geopolitical Struggle
Ukraine, trapped between two titanic forces, is the ultimate tragic figure in this saga. It is a nation caught in an impossible dilemma, expected by the West to serve as a battering ram against Russia while being simultaneously abandoned to its fate when the real costs of this strategy become apparent.
The uncomfortable reality is that Ukraine cannot be wholly aligned with either the West or Russia without incurring permanent instability. Its eastern regions are ethnically and linguistically Russian, while its western half leans toward Europe. The Ukrainian government’s attempts to erase Russian identity within its borders - such as banning the teaching of the Russian language in schools - only exacerbated internal tensions. Drawing political borders along ethnic lines is always a perilous endeavour, but ignoring the deep cultural and historical ties between Ukraine and Russia has been an exercise in self-delusion.
Moreover, Ukraine’s military struggle against Russia is one of grotesque asymmetry. Russia, as history has demonstrated time and again, has an unparalleled willingness to throw bodies at a conflict until its enemies are exhausted - just ask Napoleon or Hitler. The West’s strategy of supplying Kyiv with endless weaponry without a clear exit strategy is tantamount to sending Ukrainian soldiers into a meat grinder, all the while prolonging a war that cannot be won on the battlefield.
The Realpolitik of Ending the War
If this war is to end before it escalates into a broader catastrophe, all sides must recognise that compromise is the only path forward. Ukraine may have to accept that its territorial integrity, as painful as it may be, will not be fully restored. The Donbas and Crimea, populated largely by ethnic Russians, are likely gone for good. In exchange, Russia must accept the presence of international peacekeeping forces along the new borders, while NATO must provide ironclad guarantees that Ukraine will never be absorbed into its ranks.
The alternative - years more of bloodshed, economic devastation, and the ever-present risk of escalation into a full-blown NATO-Russia war - is unacceptable. Yet, remarkably, European leaders appear to have no serious plan for how this ends. The European Union, which has provided over $100 billion in aid to Ukraine, has now been systematically excluded from any substantive diplomatic efforts, a stark reminder of just how little control Europe actually has over its own foreign policy.
Europe’s New Irrelevance and America’s Betrayal
If there is one unambiguous loser in this war, it is Europe. Once again, the continent has proven itself to be little more than a vassal of American power, willing to sacrifice its economic stability for the sake of Washington’s geopolitical ambitions. The most flagrant example of this came with the destruction of the Nord Stream pipeline, an act of sabotage that severed Europe’s direct energy link to Russia and left Germany, in particular, scrambling to secure expensive alternatives. The U.S. was not harmed by this move; Europe was. And yet, with the docility of a trained poodle, European leaders accepted their fate, unwilling to challenge their American benefactors.
Europe has long been content to rely on the U.S. security umbrella, diverting its resources to social programmes while allowing Washington to handle the ugly business of military might. But this arrangement has come at an immense cost: Europe now lacks the strategic autonomy to protect its own interests. If the continent is ever to reclaim relevance on the world stage, it must abandon its subservience to the U.S. and develop a military and foreign policy that prioritises European self-interest.
Ironically, Russia is not Europe’s natural enemy. It is a European country, historically, culturally, and geographically. The Tsars were relatives of the British monarchy, and Russian contributions to Western philosophy, literature, and science are immeasurable. Forcing Moscow into the arms of China and Iran - two powers far more fundamentally opposed to Western values - is a strategic blunder of colossal proportions.
The New World Order: Strength as a Prerequisite for Diplomacy
The world is not run by moral platitudes. It is governed by power. Diplomacy is only effective when it is backed by the credible threat of force, and nations that refuse to understand this principle do so at their own peril. In an era where power is shifting away from the post-World War II order, where China is rising and where U.S. dominance is waning, Europe must awaken to the new reality: It can no longer afford to be America’s lapdog.
The old adage remains true: “it is dangerous to be an enemy of the United States, but it is fatal to be its ally.” Europe, Ukraine, and indeed much of the world must now decide whether to continue playing America’s game, or whether it is time, at last, to set their own course.