Ukraine: A War That Was Provoked

Reidar Kaarboe
Hva Mener Partiene

Dramatically different versions—The Russian version of the war in Ukraine dramatically differs from the version we are presented with in Norway. One of the versions is heavily tainted with lies, deception, and propaganda. The problem is which one. Because the Western version is well covered, this post will look at the issues as seen from the East. Such an angle is not only legitimate - it is necessary.

The West did not want to help Russia.—Resentment towards Russia is old. Several of the countries in the old Soviet Union experienced economic problems when the union was dissolved and the Berlin Wall fell. Jeffrey Sachs - a well-known American economist - led the work on economic reform in Poland in the 1990s with financial support from the US. Afterward, he was asked by Russia to assist them in the same process, but this time Washington clearly said NO, helping Russia was out of the question. He has since publicly criticized the US and the IMF for letting Russia collapse, saying: "Washington wanted Russia to go under. There was no interest in a prosperous, stable Russia. The goal was control."

Even then, Russia was an enemy, and the Cold War was still hanging on.—The result for Russia in the 1990s was a massive economic crisis, hyperinflation, and a collapse in living standards. A small group of oligarchs took control of large parts of the country's resources - often with Western assistance and corruption, and Russian fortunes were invested in the West. As Putin came to power and began to re-establish state control over the energy sector (such as Gazprom, Rosneft, etc.), he was increasingly seen as an obstacle to US-style "reforms".

The promises that were made—Then came the fall of the Berlin Wall and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The USA and the West made a crystal clear promise to Mikhail Gorbachev: NATO would not expand the alliance eastwards. Without this promise, it is doubtful that the union would have been dissolved and Germany reunited at all. Among the key sources that expressed such a promise are:

The broken promises—In the documents released in 2017 in the National Security Archive publications at George Washington University, we find some 30 primary sources in the form of meeting minutes, diplomatic notes, telegrams, and correspondence documenting the promises.

Just a few years later, the US began planning its eastward expansion. Zbigniew Brzezinski, former US National Security Advisor, saw Ukraine as a key piece in the game of the Eurasian balance of power. He believed that without Ukraine, Russia would never be able to rise as a great power again. He was among the first to plan strategies for expanding NATO eastwards in the early 1990s (1993?).

Many Western politicians and diplomats stated that this was madness, as it would lead to war, a provoked war. When the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved in 1962, it was also with a verbal promise. And if the Soviet Union had gone back on its promise and resumed deploying missiles in Cuba, that too would have been a provoked war for the USA.

Red line and existential threat—During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US made it clear that if the missile ships didn't turn around, [the USSR] would be crossing a red line and exposing the US to an existential threat, and there would be war. The US did not want missile bases right outside its living room door.

When Russia said the same thing about NATO's eastward expansion, it was called "paranoia", because of course Ukraine should have the right to decide for itself who they wanted to be allied with and how. And war ensued. Many people have wondered why the US and NATO promoted this development, and what motives may have been behind it. One thing is for sure: there were motives behind it, a carefully planned strategy.

Maidan—Ukrainian President Yanukovych was democratically elected in an election that the OSCE and others recognized as legitimate. When he was overthrown and fled, it was seen by Russia as a coup, while the West called it a "popular revolution".

We know that the US had a hand in the coup and regime change in a way that the US itself would never have allowed others to do to its neighboring countries. On December 16, 2013, Senator John McCain stood on a stage in Kyiv with opposition leaders and pledged US support. This is extremely unusual - and would have been considered extremely provocative in any other great power situation.

U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland has said publicly that the U.S. invested over $5 billion in "promoting democracy and civil society in Ukraine" since 1991. This included support for NGOs, independent media, and civic engagement - which often means supporting opposition forces. There is every reason to state this more strongly: The US invested 5 billion dollars in regime change. And the money gave them exactly the result they wanted.

The coup regime—Victoria Nuland became famous (or infamous) for her phone conversation with the US ambassador to Kyiv, Geoffrey Pyatt. A week before the coup, they were discussing who should be in the new Ukrainian government - literally naming politicians - and she says, among other things: "Yats is the guy", i.e. Arseniy Yatseniuk, who became prime minister shortly afterward. She finished with the infamous phrase: "Fuck the EU", a clear signal that the US not only supported the demonstrations but tried to shape the outcome politically. The Russians intercepted the conversation and published it online.

The new coup regime was strongly anti-Russian and based on old extreme Nazi strongholds. It was not representative of the whole of Ukraine. The regime created conflict with Russia from day one. There is reason to believe that this was intentional.

Western countries unanimously acknowledged the new regime as soon as they had broken into parliament and put on a tie and pretend to be legitimate - no coup regime has ever been recognized so quickly. No news media found this remarkable.

The regime's legitimacy was disputed in the East.—The ethnic Russians mostly lived in Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhya, in addition to Crimea, which had already been annexed by Russia in 2014 and incorporated after a referendum. Millions of ethnic Russians in Ukraine perceived the regime change as a Western-staged coup. The result was a government that they perceived as literally deadly hostile - both culturally and politically. One of the first decisions made by the new ultra-nationalist parliament was to abolish the law that gave the Russian language the status of a regional language in Russian-speaking areas.

There were also reports of threats, violence, and general hostility towards all things Russian - language, culture, and symbols. In Odessa, 50 ethnic Russians were burned inside a building and a few hundred were injured, while young men with Nazi symbols prevented them from escaping. Zelenskyj never launched an investigation into the crime.

Russia felt compelled to intervene to protect Russian speakers who were at risk of losing their lives, or losing their rights and cultural place in a new, ultra-nationalist Ukraine where they felt was under the US leadership.

Did the West also want regime change in Russia?—Several American political thinkers (such as Zbigniew Brzezinski and later Michael McFaul) have been open about their desire for regime change in Russia under Putin. Think tanks have created strategies for "democratic transformation" in Russia. Aleksei Navalny was probably the person the US had looked to lead a new government.

The color revolutions in Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004), and Kyrgyzstan (2005) were seen by Russia as a “test series". Putin has repeatedly said that the US wanted to do the same in Moscow. Especially after the Maidan in 2014, this fear became extremely real for the Kremlin. "If they can overthrow a pro-Russian government in Kyiv with Western support, what's stopping them from doing the same here?"

The aim of the war has been clearly defined: to weaken Russia, bring about regime change, and divide the country's vast resources between the EU, UK, and US. As one says: "follow the money".

Crimea and the will of the people—Crimea has a complex history, but historians put it this way: "If you privately ask any politician about Crimea, he will answer that Crimea is Russian, always has been, and always will be."

The 2019 book "Who Has the Right to Crimea" by Hendrik Weber gives us new insights into Crimea and the history of the war in Ukraine. For most Russians - and many in Crimea - 2014 was not an "annexation", but a return that was well anchored in the people and largely within the statutes that existed. It is reasonable to suppose that a referendum in Crimea today would produce the same result.

Donbass and the Minsk agreements—In the years after 2014, Russia, Germany, and France attempted to negotiate a peaceful solution through the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements. These included autonomy and linguistic rights for the regions in Eastern Ukraine. In retrospect, Western leaders such as Angela Merkel and François Hollande have stated that the goal was never to implement the Minsk agreements, but to "buy time" to equip Ukraine for war. To Russia, this manifested as a betrayal - and a harbinger of something more serious.

Ukraine was armed—The US helped Ukraine to build a massive army over these 8 years. The army consisted of active personnel with approximately 250,000 soldiers.

In addition, there were approx. 900,000 reservists (many of whom had some training after 2014) and thousands of volunteers, with rapid mobilization after the invasion. The total mobilizable force is estimated at 1.2-1.5 million, but there was great variation in training, equipment, and organization. Ukraine has undergone significant modernization and training after 2014, often in cooperation with NATO countries. As a result, the country had a significantly more powerful army in 2022 than in 2014 but was still inferior to Russia in terms of air force, missiles, and equipment.

With 250,000 soldiers, Ukraine had a larger army than most Western European NATO countries in 2022. Russia deployed 150,000-190,000 troops in the invasion, out of a total active force of around 900,000. By comparison, Germany had an army of around 180,000 active soldiers, France around 205,000, the UK around 150,000, and Poland around 120,000. With active intelligence support from the US using satellites and AWACS aircraft, Ukraine had the best targeting available.

Provoked to war—In the months leading up to February 2022, things came to a head. Ukraine's army reached NATO standards. The first report from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) showed a quadrupling of artillery fire on Donbas. For Russia, the war had begun. The invasion was not "unprovoked", as the West claims, but a response to a political, military, and cultural provocation that just escalated and escalated.

For the West, this was probably in the calculatations. By forcing Russia to react, the West would gain the moral high ground and be able to impose sanctions and isolate Russia. In the days leading up to the invasion, the OSCE recorded several thousand violations of the ceasefire in Donbas - and according to the OSCE's own observers, the majority came from the Ukrainian side. Russia saw this as the start of an offensive against the Russian territories that it had to respond to.

The West has called Russia's invasion an "unprovoked" war. The Russians, on the other hand, are crystal clear that the war was provoked. They were caught up in a clever chess game where they had no choice. Double standards also apply here: One war that was definitely unprovoked was the US war against Iraq in 2003, but no one in the West says anything about that. In other words, the reactions to a war are determined by who is fighting it, not why.

Istanbul negotiations—Soon after the fighting escalated and the war became a reality in 2022, peace negotiations took place in Istanbul. Ukraine offered neutrality, and Russia signaled its willingness to enter into an agreement that was prepared and ready for signing. However, according to several sources, the negotiations were broken off after pressure from the West.

Boris Johnsen suddenly appeared in Kyiv at the behest of Joe Biden and MI6 and persuaded Zelenskyj to walk away from the entire agreement. The war was to be won by Ukraine with massive support from the US, NATO, the UK, and Europe, and Russia was to be weakened and dismantled. Thus, basta!

Does Russia want peace?—The media sometimes present the situation as that the Russians do not want peace. This is wrong. Russia has definitely not appeared uncompromising. In both the Minsk agreements and the Istanbul negotiations, Russia has signaled its willingness to enter into an agreement that was close to what Ukraine demanded. Today's demands are essentially the same as before:

At the latest at the time of writing on April 23, Putin has signaled that instead of taking over the four Russian-speaking counties of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhya, he can accept that only the area that has been defeated by Russia will fall under Russia, i.e. just over half. This means, not least, that the port city of Odesa will remain Ukrainian and ensure that Ukraine can continue to have access to the Black Sea and its own ports.

At the same time, Russia has been crystal clear that it does not want an end to the war without a peace agreement. They don't want a long-term "ceasefire" where Ukraine can reorganize before the war continues, or negotiations that continue for years, or over 70 years as between North and South Korea. Russia appears the victor of the war and wants peace on the victor's terms. Despite this, Russia has given clear signals that it could deviate from this, with the port city of Odessa as an example.

Does Zelenskyj want peace?—Zelenskyj has so far said flatly no. Crimea must be returned from Russia, and all occupied territory must remain Ukrainian. Russia must withdraw without any rights to land. Zelensky does not seem to understand that there has been a war in which Russia has defeated Ukraine.

It's possible that Zelenskyj just wants to stake out a position before peace talks, he may be threatened by his ultra-nationalist government where there is no willingness to compromise, negotiate, or acknowledge a military defeat.

Two powers—In the midst of this madness, the world has seen two powers in operation. One is Russia, where President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov hold press conferences and are open to critical questions even from American reporters, giving interviews with long, coherent reasoning, with references to history, geopolitics, and international law.

The other is the US under the administration of Joe Biden, who did not quite manage to convince us that the president is even mentally present. The US has shown its moral indignation and used undiplomatic emotional language, referring to Putin as a "butcher", "war criminal" and "tyrant" - in other words, highly personalized and morally charged rhetoric where factual arguments have been completely absent.

How would the US have fought such a war?—This speculation is interesting, and the only answer that can be given is to look at the wars the US has fought since the Second World War. Generally, they begin with massive air strikes, where military installations, state administration, infrastructure, and civil society are razed to the ground. Then they move into areas where the resistance has been crushed and establish strongholds for further fighting. After a short time, they present pre-prepared key people for a new "democratically elected government".

Economic growth and crisis capitalism—The war in Ukraine created a new momentum in the West. The EU is planning a defense buildup of more than EUR 800 billion to be financed by government bonds and used in the EU's defense industry. Here we can look for rich people who are going to get much richer! And here all the new lessons from the war in Ukraine will be put to good use.

Denmark has removed a day off to "finance the defense". The people will pay the price.—In Norway, war rhetoric is used to remove NOK 30 billion in wealth tax for the richest because the country "needs an economy that can sustain a war" - despite knowing that tax relief for the richest does not improve the country's economy but only makes the richest richer.

This is reminiscent of crisis capitalism - where fear and crises are used to promote economic and political interests and decisions that the citizens never would accept under normal conditions. War is a profitable business for the very richest, so peace may not be what they want.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has expressed concern that a peace agreement in Ukraine could be more risky than the ongoing war. In an interview, she stated: "We risk that peace in Ukraine could actually be more dangerous than the war that is going on now". Another Western politician hoped that the war would not end until 2029, or "even better" in 2030. Has the war in Ukraine become "the perfect war"?

The demonization of Russia—Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Russia has been subjected to an unprecedented "anti-Russia campaign" from the West. Western media have devoted enormous energy to demonizing Russia, Putin, and everything "Russian".

The are many examples. Everything bad that has happened can be blamed on Russia. There have been no limits to sanctions, boycotts, condemnations, and criticism, and even outright acts of sabotage have been carried out against Russia. The question is whether the Western version of Russia's role in the war in Ukraine is also the result of demonization and propaganda. The answer is probably YES, it is based on lies, deception, and disinformation.

Does Russia want to conquer all of Europe?—It has been extremely important for Europe to spread propaganda that Putin wants to take all of Ukraine, then the Baltics, Poland, and the rest of Europe. But there is nothing to suggest that Russia wants to take anything beyond guaranteeing Russians in Eastern Ukraine a decent life. And Putin, like Kennedy, will not put up with having the other side's missiles right outside his living room door. Russia wants geopolitical security, not world domination. It is unthinkable that Putin would take the rest of Ukraine and risk a long life of guerrilla warfare and bullshit.

It is also highly doubtful whether he has the resources to fight several fronts simultaneously, on the level that is currently happening in Ukraine. But when all countries, Russia included, are now investing heavily in war materiel instead of peace relations, there is little hope for the future.

Coalition of the willing—The Western narrative that "Putin wants to take over all of Europe" is probably intended to mobilize public opinion and justify military rearmament - not because it is a true threat. It's been good for NATO, for the arms industry, and for the EU. While everyone spends billions on "defense", no one spends money on various peace initiatives. This happens because we have incompetent and corrupt politicians who are unable to see what would be the best options for today's world.

Unless something dramatic has happened during the Pope's funeral, Ukraine will continue to fight. It seems that the US is on its way out of the war it started and is responsible for. Europe seems more than willing to take over the US role in a proxy war against Russia. In particular, France, the UK, and Poland have signaled that they will send military personnel to Ukraine. Other countries are supporting the war politically or with money and weapons. But will France, the UK, and Poland declare war on Russia with boots on the ground and planes in the air? If so, we will have a world war of terrifying dimensions.

The price to pay—If the Istanbul agreement had been realized, it would probably have saved a million Ukrainians from being killed and seriously injured. But the deal was rejected by the US.

Now Zelenskyj says Ukraine must replace 30,000 soldiers a month. A generation has been sacrificed. Is this the madness Europe is so keen to prolong?

The lost peace that was not concluded in 2022 may, in retrospect, stand as one of the most costly decisions in modern European history - not only in strategic terms but also in human lives.

And as Jeffrey Sachs has said many times: "This war was completely unnecessary for the US to launch".

____________________________________________________________________________________________

(Translation: DeepL (free version) + Grammarly (free version)). Image-1: © Russian Defence Ministry (AFP); Image-2: © Valery Melnikov / RIA Novosti tvc.ru; Image-3: © jp.reuters.com. Attention! In line with our policies, we address notices of alleged violations under the United States "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA). If you believe that your copyright has been infringed on our site, please contact us, and we will promptly remove your photo from display. Email: editor@a-w-i-p.com. AWIP: https://a-w-i-p.com/index.php/2025/04/29/ukraine-a-war-that-was
____________________________________________________________________________________________