Berechnete Provokation und rücksichtslose Führung: Ukraine als Opferzone in einem westhändischen Machtspiel.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37750.htm
Berechnete Provokation und rücksichtslose Führung: Ukraine als Opferzone in einem westhändischen Machtspiel.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_37750.htm
4 Kommentare
Putin invaded.
He’s a war criminal. No doubt about that.
But he’s not the only one to blame.
And definitely not the first.
The West:
Expanded NATO right to Russia’s borders, fully aware Moscow would see it as encirclement.
Pushed Ukraine out of Russia’s economic sphere, without offering any real military or diplomatic protection.
Fed Ukraine the illusion of Euro-Atlantic integration, something that was never going to happen, but just enough to provoke retaliation.
This wasn’t a mistake.
It was a geopolitical design.
Then there’s Zelensky.
An actor-turned-president, turned into a symbol because it served the narrative.
He pushed his country into a war it couldn’t win.
Provoked a nuclear superpower with no backup plan.
Chose martyrdom as strategy.
The result? Cities reduced to rubble. Families erased. Generations lost. No real victory in sight.
Meanwhile:
The West profits: sanctions, military buildup, renewed NATO cohesion, and gas sold at triple the price.
Russia tightens internal control, radicalizes its power, and builds new global alliances.
Ukraine is left hollow — economically, demographically, strategically.
This is not a war between good and evil.
It’s a war between strategic stupidity and imperial cynicism.
And who pays?
Always the same:
Civilians. Soldiers. The voiceless.
But don’t worry —
A medal here, a flag there, a trending hashtag…
And we all feel righteous again.
Wasn‘t this conflict triggered because of eastward expansion of NATO? Now that the significance of NATO is reduced, what justification is there that this conflict continues? Unraine also could have stayed on good terms with Russia instead of acting on behalf of the US. They played their cards wrong which is a good lesson to Poland as well. Now it‘s confusing who‘s on what side since the original party that pushed for eastward expansion of NATO is increasingly a Russian ally.
From the perspective of Germany, I think Merkel‘s strategy made a lot of sense here in the sense that getting involved in a power play between the US and Russia doesn‘t end well and the best course of actions is to look after one‘s own interests.
Also with the far right takeover of Europe, the situation would be even more complicated since they would want to purchase gas from Russia again which might lead to eastern Europe being sacrificed to Russian sphere of influence.
I get your point and yes, from Ukraine’s perspective it’s a fight for survival.
But that survival strategy relied heavily on Western backing, politically, militarily, symbolically.
That is a West-vs-Russia frame, whether intended or not.
Zelensky didn’t invent the conflict. But by pushing for NATO, leaning into symbolic defiance, and expecting serious support, he locked Ukraine into a game with players far more powerful and far more cynical.
You’re right, fighting alone wasn’t an option.
But fighting with illusions of help can be even more dangerous.
And that’s the tragedy, not that Ukraine fought, but that it was encouraged to fight under false assumptions
The world becomes a more dangerous place not when the stupid (moral stupidity) act stupidly but when the intelligent act stupidly.
It is a rule.
Leaving Ukraine to Russia is absolutely stupid, both morally and strategically, the rest is stupidity (not only moral but also structural).