In matters of war, belligerents rarely agree about why a conflict began. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is not at all different. Vladimir Putin did not sacrifice soldiers, resources, and national prestige merely to root out Ukrainian Nazis, even though that has been one of the Russian president’s favorite talking points. Neither was Russia’s invasion an unprovoked attack, as Ukrainian holdover president, Volodymyr Zelensky, often insists. Putin didn’t wake up one morning and rashly decide to jeopardize his regime’s continued stability on a risky military campaign serving no purpose.
Whether Western leaders wish to ignore his concerns or not, Putin has spent the last twenty years warning NATO against encircling his nation, and NATO has expanded toward Russia’s borders nonetheless. One can certainly argue that sovereign nations are free to do as they please without seeking Vladimir Putin’s blessing, but nobody can pretend Russia failed to telegraph its response should NATO allies continue their march toward Russia’s doorstep.
It is also quite clear that we Americans cannot see Russia through the same lens as those European countries that survived behind the Soviet Union’s “Iron Curtain” or under its repressive shadow. Americans fought the Cold War fiercely during the second half of the twentieth century, and our social consciousness includes the psychological torment of living with the prospect that either tit-for-tat gamesmanship or strategic miscalculation could rapidly unleash nuclear Armageddon. Still, our experiences with the Soviets pale in comparison to the iniquities endured by Finns, Poles, most of Central Europe, and the Baltic states. The Soviet Union inflicted great harm on the peoples of Europe.
Unfortunately, there are political leaders in Europe who will use old wounds as an excuse to scuttle any efforts for peace in Ukraine. Just as no two parties can ever agree upon the reasons for war, once war begins, no two parties will ever agree completely about the terms for its end. Moreover, when an entire continent has involved itself in the conflict, there will be no shortage of cooks in the kitchen pushing different recipes and angling to plate the last dish. Because many countries in Europe have lent Ukraine ingredients in the form of weapons and supplies (as well as beds for Ukraine’s fleeing population), there are now many countries that wish to design the menu for any potential peace.
Amid these competing efforts, though, it is important to remember that Europe’s ruling globalists have private interests of their own that are distinct from their public expressions of support for Ukraine’s “inviolable” borders. After Russia, Ukraine is the largest nation in Europe and has some of the continent’s most valuable natural resources. Ukraine has long been known as the “breadbasket of Europe” because of its abundant farmland and is similarly rich in rare earth metals and other critical raw materials. Ukraine’s control over Crimea before Russia’s 2014 annexation gave the rest of Europe strategic access to the Black Sea and therefore a strategic area of operations within Russia’s backyard. Even now, Ukraine still boasts one of the strongest militaries in all of Europe. Seen as a piece on Europe’s chessboard, Ukraine provides a buffer against Russia, a grocery store for the continent, and lucrative investment opportunities for European banks and industries.
The European Union has many reasons to add Ukraine as a member, and NATO allies in Europe have many reasons for adding Ukraine to the U.S.-led military alliance. Most of those reasons have nothing to do with defending Ukraine’s sovereign borders or saving the Ukrainian people from bloodshed. In fact, by repeatedly drawing Volodymyr Zelensky away from the negotiating table in the early days of the Russia-Ukraine War, European leaders proved time and again that they harbored few qualms about sacrificing Ukraine’s soldiers and civilians in a great game of chess against Putin’s Russia.
Then there is the one issue that European governments and their stenographers in the press never mention: Russia’s energy dominance has long been a problem for “Green New Deal”–obsessed European nations desperately trying to impose net-zero emission goals. When Russia can provide the continent with cheap hydrocarbon energies, it is difficult for Eurocrats to convince citizens to adopt much more expensive wind and solar alternatives.
After the war began, little Greta Thunberg showed up to be photographed with cosplaying soldier Zelensky. Many people wondered what Sweden’s infamous “global warming” fear-monger had in common with Ukraine’s comedian-in-chief. For European politicians, however, Thunberg and Zelensky serve the same purpose: They rally European support against Russia’s hydrocarbon resources. The “mysterious” sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines was certainly an unpunished act of war, but it was also a remarkably serendipitous assist to the Eurocrats’ beloved Paris Climate Accords.
Despite the European Union’s decades-long efforts to assert full control over the continent’s food and energy supplies, it has always struggled to justify the inordinate costs to its citizens. So-called “green” energy makes European businesses less competitive and makes everything European consumers buy more expensive. Increased poverty increases calls for urgent political change. Unexpected “crises,” however, allow European governments to pretend that chaotic world events — and not insane “green” policies — are really to blame.
Like COVID, the Ukraine War is a “crisis” that conveniently justifies exorbitant inflation. No wonder so many of Europe’s leaders would prefer for it to keep going.
Image via Pexels.