“Ironically, it was the US under President Trump which has broken with the US national security establishment’s bi-partisan strategy of incremental encirclement and escalation against Russia. That break offered Europe the opportunity to escape the trap created by its past lack of policy vision. Instead, Europe has proved plus royaliste que le roi (more royal than the King) and has remained loyal to the US national security Deep State.” —Thomas Palley [1]

In her recent “Threat Assessment” testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee, Director of Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, reasonably described Russia as a “formidable competitor.”  However, in keeping with Trump’s desire for improved diplomatic and economic relations with Moscow, she avoided the word “adversary.” And, in a thinly disguised reference to Biden’s “Ukraine Project,” Gabbard said that Russia has gained significant information about US intelligence and weapons from the Ukraine war. As for Biden’s plan to weaken or overthrow Putin, Gabbard concluded that the Russian leader “is presently less likely to be replaced than at any point in his quarter-century rule.” Gabbard’s assessment was considerably at odds with those under Biden which referred to Russia’s “malign influence” and a threat to the United States and its allies. Most important is the conclusion that, “This grinding war of attrition will lead to a steady erosion of Kyiv’s position on the battlefield, regardless of any U.S. or allied attempt to impose new and greater costs on Moscow.”  This is not an equivocal statement and Trump surely knows it’s true. 

One encouraging consequence of the report is that it leaves Democrats and liberals in the awkward position of supporting, not just a lost cause but one that’s increasingly becoming known as a war provoked by the United States.[2] Those who’ve long asserted that Ukraine was used as a proxy have been provided further vindication — as if any was needed — by the “expose” in The New York Times, titled “The Partnership: The Secret History of the War in Ukraine.” [3] The roughly 13,000 word piece is “secret” only if one relies on the Times as their only source of information. In any event, the article details how American military and intelligence officers shaped Ukraine’s strategy.  Planning began with the US and Ukraine at a clandestine meeting in Wiesbaden, Germany in 2022, a gathering known “only to a small circle of American and allied officials.”  As the war progressed, “One European intelligence chief recalled being taken aback by how deeply enmeshed his N.A.T.O. counterparts had become in the Ukraine operation. They are part of the kill chain now.”

One surely unintended takeaway for the reader from the Times’ investigation is US hubris. According to the authors, the Biden administration provided everything to Ukraine but boots on the ground and the effort was succeeding until the Spring of 2023. At that point, Ukrainian generals went rogue, became disobedient, and denied their US overlords a devastating victory over Russian forces. The latter are barely stick figures waiting to be chopped down by Ukrainian forces who’ve been given every advantage by the omniscient American advisors.  Zelensky also receives his share of blame because he was too obsessed with good PR to be an effective wartime leader. 

It’s also noteworthy that none of the 300 (mostly anonymous) interviewees were Russian, so that perspective is absent. Not surprisingly, there’s neither a scintilla of remorse nor even a tacit admission of the price Ukrainians paid for allowing their country to be used by the United States in this manner.  Finally, one is forced to wonder whether this duplicitous account of the war will be the “blame game” narrative for the Democrats when the war is lost. [4]

Checkmate in Ukraine isn’t imminent but nothing can be done to prevent the loss of this US initiated war.  Putin has a strong hand to play and all indications point toward the conclusion that the longer the fighting continues, the more territory will fall to Russian advances. Whether Trump will be able to end the war remains an open question. We know that Starmer, Macron, Mertz (once he assumes the German chancellorship) and Zelensky all seek to sabotage peace. And in Kiev, the Azov Battalion has morphed into the Third Army Brigade and its leader is Andriy Biletsky, today’s Stephan Bandera. He and his Hitler-worshipping Nazis followers oppose any negotiations with Russia and will continue some rearguard action until they are finally vanquished.

Trump also faces strong opposition from neoliberal warhawks like Waltz and Rubio. My sense is that if Trump wants an actual peace settlement — and I believe he does — he must instruct more capable and trustworthy negotiators that Moscow sees Ukraine as an existential threat and its demands are non-negotiable. Russia is clearly winning and continues to absorb more and more territory. Finally, I wouldn’t bet against Trump going back on his promise and walking away from the Ukraine Project, leaving the remaining parties to resolve matters. 

Because the billionaire sector of the US ruling class behind Trump has a different world order in mind, the present iteration of European oligarchs find themselves up that proverbial creek without paddles. Trump isn’t even bothering to say “Thank you for your service in fighting Russia” because he knows these vassals enthusiastically cooperated with a doom-to-fail war that killed well over a million soldiers. In a final desperate attempt to save themselves, Europe’s soon to be politically extinct vassals want Trump to give them a “security guarantee” before inserting their own “peacekeepers” into Ukraine. That will never happen.

Some critics have employed words like delusional, crazy and stupid to describe European leaders. However, it’s more accurate to say that these heads of state are so heavily invested in the fable, the fiction of the “Russian threat” for over seventy years in order to maintain their junior accomplice role with Washington. As Thomas Palley argues, they’ve turned themselves into a “US foreign policy satrap, a condition which still endures.” [5] These leaders are certainly not “stupid” and they know that if the truth about the “Ukraine project” gains traction — and Trump seeks closer relations with Russia — suspicions will rise within the European public that Russophobia was manufactured and remains a hoax. 

Finally, as I’ve argued in the past, what makes Ukraine so difficult to grasp is the edifice of lies, the false narrative about the “Russian threat” that’s so pervasive in the popular mindset and used to disguise the actual motives behind US imperialism. This is what political scientist Michael Parenti once characterized as “suppression by omission,” in this case the entire context of the war in Ukraine.  We must use every means at our disposal to bring those omissions to light.

Notes

[1] Thomas Palley, “The Ukrainian War and Europe’s Deepening March of Folly, Z, March 25, 2025.  

[2] Jeffrey Sachs, “The Geopolitics of Peace,” was his speech to the European Parliament on February 19, 2025. Other News, February 24, 2025. Even though the facts of the case were known in many quarters, it’s nearly impossible to overestimate the importance of this speech by Prof. Sachs.  

[3] The New York Times, March 30, 202    

[4] For a cogent point by point critique of the article, see, Alexander Mercouris, “NYT, U.S. waged coalition war against Russia,” The Duran, March 30, 2025
[5] Palley, Z, “The Ukrainian War…” 

---