Ukraine War: Who is Responsible for this Catastrophe?

Ukraine War: Who is Responsible for this Catastrophe?
By: Klaus-Dieter Kolenda

[This article posted on 3/25/2025 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://globalbridge.ch/ukraine-krieg-wer-ist-fuer-diese-katastrophe-verantwortlich/.]


Political scientists Benjamin Abelow, John Mearsheimer and Glenn Diesen and economist Jeffrey Sachs explain why the US and the West bear the main responsibility.

The war in Ukraine, which has been raging for more than three years now, is a terrible catastrophe. It is the biggest war in Europe since 1945, with hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers killed or seriously wounded, tens of thousands of civilians dead, and devastating destruction in Ukraine and Russia. Furthermore, this war has the potential to escalate into a third world war and a final nuclear war. Therefore, this war must be ended as soon as possible.

Since Donald Trump took over the US government a few weeks ago, there has been a dramatic 180-degree turnaround in previous US policy towards Ukraine, making an early peace agreement in this proxy war appear possible. However, this turnaround goes hand in hand with the fact that, in contrast to US policy, many European countries such as the UK, France and Germany want to continue supporting Ukraine with weapons and money, and a gigantic arms build-up is planned. This is a totally insane policy. But what is behind it?

One reason could be that in EU countries, the extremely effective propaganda narrative of “evil Putin's unprovoked war of aggression against Ukraine” is particularly well established in the mainstream media, without reasonable counter-voices being able to find a wider audience in public, as their representatives are regularly defamed and marginalized, for example as “Putin sympathizers”.

In the United States, the situation regarding the mainstream media is comparable. However, the tradition of free speech in accordance with the First Amendment of the US Constitution may have a greater social impact, so that critical voices about the war in Ukraine, such as those of the scholars listed below, cannot be silenced as easily as they are in Germany.

Therefore, it makes sense to repeatedly give a voice to important critical voices on the war in Ukraine and to bring them to the attention of the public. As long as the Western propaganda narrative of Putin's “unprovoked war of aggression” is not questioned by large sections of our population, the war in Ukraine will not be ended and will continue.

Benjamin Abelow

Benjamin Abelow holds a B.A. in European History from the University of Pennsylvania and a doctorate in medicine from the Yale School of Medicine. Prior to medical school, he worked in Washington, D.C., where he published and lectured on nuclear weapons policy. His other areas of interest include trauma psychology, including war trauma. His website can be found here (footnote 1).

A few days ago, the American Committee for US-Russia Accord (ACURA) drew attention to the book “How The West Brought War to Ukraine”, which was published by Benjamin Abelow in August 2022 and can now be downloaded from the ACURA website for free (footnote 2). This book is also available here in an excellent German translation, entitled “Wie der Westen den Krieg in die Ukraine brachte. Die Rolle der USA und der NATO im Ukraine-Konflikt” (Footnote 3).

Prominent U.S. politicians and political scientists have praised the book. Jack E. Matlock, Jr., US ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991, wrote:

“An excellent, remarkably concise explanation of the danger that the military involvement of the United States and NATO in Ukraine has created. This book must be read and considered by all who are able to think rationally and responsibly about American and European security.”

And US political scientist John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago wrote:

“For anyone interested in understanding the real causes of the disaster in Ukraine, 'How the West Brought the War to Ukraine' is a must-read. Abelow argues clearly and convincingly that the United States and its NATO allies – not Vladimir Putin – are the main culprits.”

Overview

The slim volume, which comprises only 69 pages of text and, as already mentioned, can be downloaded free of charge, begins with an “overview” in which it is pointed out that since 1823, with the “Monroe Doctrine,” the United States has claimed that the entire Western Hemisphere is its own security area.

That is the core of American foreign and security policy, says Abelow. Anyone who violates it risks war. We all remember the year 1962, when it almost came to a nuclear war between the U.S. and the Soviet Union because the USSR had stationed missiles in Cuba.

As for Russia, however, the United States and NATO allies would have been violating this principle for decades already. If Russia had behaved similarly to the US in relation to American territory, for example by stationing its forces in Canada or Mexico, Washington would have gone to war. Therefore, as Abelow concludes (p. 2):

"Seen in this light, Russia's invasion of Ukraine is not an unbridled expansionist policy by a Russian leader acting in bad faith, but a violent and destructive response to the West's misguided policies: an attempt to re-establish a zone around Russia's western borders that is not exposed to offensive threats from the United States and its allies.

The West has misunderstood the reasons for Russia's invasion of Ukraine and is now making critical decisions based on false assumptions. In doing so, Western countries are exacerbating the crisis and could be heading for a nuclear war without even realizing it."

Introduction

Since the war in Ukraine is not an unprovoked war of aggression by Russia according to Abelow, he lists the most important provocations of the USA and the West in the introduction (p. 3 ff), which are then explained and commented on in more detail in the following eight chapters in the course of the book. These include:

The USA and the West have expanded NATO more than 1,500 kilometers to the east and extended it to Russia's borders, disregarding assurances previously given to Moscow.

They have unilaterally terminated the ABM Treaty (Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty/Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Systems) and deployed anti-ballistic carrier systems in the new NATO states. These can also receive offensive nuclear weapons, such as Tomahawk cruise missiles equipped with nuclear warheads, and fire them at Russia.

They helped prepare the way for and may have directly instigated an armed, far-right coup in Ukraine. This coup replaced a democratically elected pro-Russian government with an unelected pro-Western one.

They have conducted numerous NATO maneuvers near the Russian border. These included, for example, exercises with live missiles that simulated attacks on air defense systems in Russia.

You promised Ukraine NATO membership without any compelling strategic need and disregarding the threat such a step would pose to Russia. NATO later refused to abandon this policy even if it could have prevented a war.

They unilaterally withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, making Russia even more vulnerable to a US first strike.

They have been arming and training the Ukrainian military under bilateral agreements, regularly holding joint maneuvers in Ukraine. These had the aim of establishing military cooperation at NATO level (so-called interoperability), even before Ukraine's formal admission to the military alliance.

They have led the Ukrainian leadership to take an uncompromising stance against Russia, thereby further exacerbating the threat to Russia on the one hand and exposing Ukraine to the danger of a Russian military response on the other."

At the end of the introduction, Abelow says:

“Due to the severity of the crisis, its decades-long development and the fact that a thermonuclear war – a war with hydrogen bombs – poses an existential threat to all countries involved, as well as to all of humanity, I will present my arguments as clearly and systematically as possible.”

Final chapter with conclusion

The final chapter (pp. 61 ff.) contains a counterfactual story based on the premise of what might have been if the West had acted differently. This section also addresses the question of who bears the main responsibility for the ongoing catastrophe in Ukraine.

In conclusion, it says (pp. 68 ff.):

“That Russia would feel threatened by a Ukraine armed, trained, and militarily integrated by the West should have been obvious to Washington from the start. What rational person could believe that the presence of a Western weapons arsenal on Russia's border would not provoke a strong reaction? What rational person could assume that stationing such an arsenal would enhance U.S. security?

And if it wasn't clear, it should have been by 2008 at the latest. That was when the US ambassador to Russia, William Burns, who now heads Biden's CIA, cabled Washington that Ukraine was the reddest of red lines for Russia.

You don't have to be a genius to understand the reasons for this. Nevertheless, this obvious reality seems to be beyond the grasp of many in the US State and Defense Departments, NATO and the media, as well as the incumbent US president.

So what does this mean for the citizens of the US and its European allies?

Frankly, they (we) are in a very fix. It is a fix that is not only extremely dangerous and puts the whole world at risk of nuclear war: it is a fix that could only be achieved by a level of stupidity and blindness on the part of the US administration and a level of reverence and cowardice on the part of European politicians that is almost unimaginable. In a recent interview, Gilbert Doctorow (see below) was asked what U.S. citizens most need to know about the war. He responded, “Your lives are in danger,” and continued,

“Putin has put on record that he cannot imagine a world without Russia. And if the Americans intend to destroy Russia, then the American intention will be self-destruction.... [America] faces an existential threat that it has created itself. And the way out of this threat is obvious to everyone: a deal with Putin.”

The politicians in Washington and the European governments – along with the compliant, cowardly media that parrots their nonsense uncritically – are now up to their necks in the swamp. It is hard to imagine that those who were foolish enough to enter this swamp will now have the wisdom to extricate themselves before they sink completely and drag us all down with them.”

There is little to add to these prescient closing words by Benjamin Abelow, written just months after the Russian invasion began. They inspired me to read the entire 69 pages of this magnificent and easy-to-read little book in German translation with great insight (footnote 3), because

“The proxy war between the US/NATO and Russia is threatening to escalate into a nuclear war that could mean the end of human civilization. Abelson's book is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand this threat and why it has resurfaced 30 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union.”

Gilbert Doctorow, author, historian and independent Russia specialist based in Brussels.

John Mearsheimer

John J. Mearsheimer (footnote 4) is a renowned American political scientist at the University of Chicago, an internationally recognized expert in international relations and one of the founders of the realist school of historical science in the United States.

Since 2014, he has argued in scientific articles, many discussion papers and numerous video interviews that can be easily found on the internet that the USA is the main cause of the Ukraine war, most recently in a detailed article on his website at Substack (footnote 5). I have translated this important article into German for the NachDenkSeiten (footnote 6). It can also be listened to as a podcast there.

In this detailed article, Mearsheimer deals with the prevailing opinion in the West that Putin is responsible for the war because he is an imperialist. In his opinion, however, the US and the West are primarily responsible for this war because they want to admit Ukraine to NATO.

In the first part, he deals with the seven main reasons why the prevailing opinion in the West about the war in Ukraine is wrong and should be rejected from his point of view. The scientist says:

“However, to prove that Putin was determined to conquer all of Ukraine and incorporate it into Russia, one must prove that he considered it a desirable goal, considered it a feasible goal, and intended to pursue that goal.” However, there is no public evidence of this.

In the second part, he lists the three main reasons why NATO expansion is the main cause of the war in Ukraine. These are:

The Russian leadership repeatedly stated before the war that it regarded NATO expansion into Ukraine as an existential threat that had to be eliminated.

A significant number of influential and highly respected individuals in the West recognized before the war that NATO expansion – especially into Ukraine – would be seen as a mortal threat by the Russian leadership and would eventually lead to disaster.

The central importance of Russia's deep fear of Ukraine joining NATO is illustrated by two developments that have taken place since the war began.

During the Istanbul negotiations, which took place immediately after the invasion began, the Russians made it unequivocally clear that Ukraine must accept “permanent neutrality” and could not join NATO. The Ukrainians accepted Russia's demand without serious resistance – certainly knowing that otherwise it would be impossible to end the war.

More recently, on June 14, 2024, Putin spelled out two conditions that Ukraine must fulfill before he would agree to a ceasefire and the opening of negotiations to end the war. One of these conditions was that Kiev “officially” declare “that it is abandoning its plans to join NATO”.

Jeffrey Sachs

Jeffrey D. Sachs (footnote 7) is a world-renowned professor of economics at Columbia University in New York, a bestselling author, an innovative educator and a global leader in sustainable development.

On February 19, 2025, he gave an important speech at the European Parliament entitled “The Geopolitics of Peace,” which is a stirring testimony to current events and at the same time an important contemporary document that I translated into German (footnote 8).

This brilliant speech deals in the first eight chapters with the disastrous US foreign policy and the course and background of the murderous war in Ukraine from the perspective of a US insider of these political events, which is exciting to read.

At the end of the extensive text, Sachs addresses some audience questions, such as: What are the long-term consequences of this lost war? He gives the following answer:

“We are in a period of the greatest technological progress in human history. It's really amazing what's possible now. You know, I marvel at the fact that someone who knows little about chemistry has won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry because he is an expert in AI and deep neural networks, and is indeed a genius, Demis Hassabis. He and his team at DeepMind figured out how to use AI to solve the problem of protein folding, a problem that had occupied generations of biochemists.

So, if we put our minds, our resources and our energies into this, we can transform the world energy system in the interests of climate protection. We can protect biodiversity. We can ensure that every child receives a high-quality education. There are so many wonderful things we can do.

What do we need to succeed? In my opinion, above all, we need peace.

And my fundamental point is that nowhere is there a deep reason for conflict, because every conflict I have studied was just a mistake. We are not fighting for living space. This idea, which essentially came from Malthus and later became a Nazi idea, was always wrong, a fundamental intellectual mistake. We have had racial wars, national wars of survival, out of fear that we don't have enough for everyone on this planet, so we are in a struggle for survival. As an economist, I can tell you that there is enough on our planet for everyone to develop sustainably. There is enough.

We are not in a conflict with China. We are not in a conflict with Russia. If we think calmly, if we ask for the long-term perspective, the long-term perspective is very good, that is, if we don't blow ourselves up first. So that's my point. The outlook is very positive if we build and maintain peace.”

Glenn Diesen

Glenn Diesen is a professor at the University of Southeast Norway (USN) and co-editor of Russia in Global Affairs. He is the author of a recent book on the war in Ukraine, entitled “The Ukrainian War & the Eurasian World Order”, in which he presents its geopolitical background and significance. On his website at Substack (footnote 9), there are a plethora of interviews with many prominent experts, for example, on the Ukraine conflict, against the backdrop of the emerging new multipolar world order.

Finally, I would like to draw your attention to a very informative lecture by Diesen on YouTube, translated into German, entitled “How NATO crushed Ukraine's sovereignty and democracy” (Footnote 10).

In this lecture, Diesen presents the developments in Ukraine since 2014 on the basis of a whole series of more recent facts that can deepen and supplement the previous presentation of the other authors.

The main goal of the 2014 coup was to draw Ukraine into the NATO sphere, he said. However, this did not correspond to the will of the Ukrainians at the time. In fact, all surveys from 1991 to 2014 showed that only about 20 percent of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership.

“And also, the NATO countries knew that this would provoke a war because trying to drag Ukraine into NATO would trigger a civil war because it was unpopular,” the author says. ”This was especially the case in the east, and many warned against it, according to former CIA director William Burns when he was ambassador to Russia. So this was a war waged against the Ukrainians in the east, as we saw in 2014. In the east, they did not recognize the legitimacy of this government. Therefore, a war against them was supported.”

At the end of his remarks, Diesen says:

“The majority of Americans want to end the war. Trump is pushing Zelensky to the negotiating table. His message is reasonably clear. This war cannot continue without us and we are pulling the plug.

Both sides, Americans and Europeans, are making decisions for Ukrainians. The Europeans are demanding that they continue fighting against the will of the Ukrainian people. And the Americans are often even more blunt. In a proxy war, it is not up to the proxy to decide when the war ends. That is for the controller to decide...

Ukraine has been systematically deprived of its sovereignty, democracy and freedom since 2014. And these can only be restored if it is accepted that Ukraine should not be a battleground between the great powers and not a proxy. To do that, a broader negotiation is needed. Not just a ceasefire between the Russians and the Ukrainians, but negotiations aimed at finding an agreement between NATO and Russia to prevent other countries like Ukraine, for example Moldova, Georgia or others, from being similarly used as proxies.”

Footnotes:

https://benjaminabelow.com/

2. Free Download: Benjamin Abelow's 'How The West Brought War to Ukraine'.

Ben Abelow March 17, 2025

https://usrussiaaccord.org/free-download-benjamin-abelows-how-the-west-brought-war-to-ukraine/

3. Benjamin Abelow: How the West brought war to Ukraine. The role of the USA and NATO in the Ukraine conflict. Silad Press 2022

https://benjaminabelow.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/ABELOW-GERMAN-DEC-16-A.pdf

4. https://www.mearsheimer.com/biography/

5. John Mearsheimer: Who caused the Ukraine War? John's substack 05.08.2024 https://mearsheimer.substack.com/p/who-caused-the-ukraine-war? utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1753552&post_id=147357385&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=i1inl&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

6. John Mearsheimer: Who caused the war in Ukraine? Thought-provoking pages 31.08.2024 https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=120486

7. https://www.jeffsachs.org/

8. Jeffrey Sachs: “Being an enemy of the US is dangerous, but being a friend is fatal.” Globalbridge 16.03.2025 https://globalbridge.ch/ein-feind-der-usa-zu-sein-ist-gefaehrlich-aber-ein-freund-zu-sein-ist-fatal/

9. https://substack.com/@glenndiesen

10. Glenn Diesen: How NATO crushed Ukraine's sovereignty and democracy. YouTube 09.03.2025 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQDso14ysA4

Author and Translator: Klaus-Dieter Kolenda, Prof. Dr. med., specialist in internal medicine – gastroenterology, specialist in physical and rehabilitative medicine/social medicine, was head physician of a rehabilitation clinic for diseases of the cardiovascular system, respiratory tract, metabolism and musculoskeletal system from 1985 to 2006. Since 1978, he has been working as a medical expert for the social courts in Schleswig-Holstein. He is also a member of the Kiel group of IPPNW e.V. (International Physicians and Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War and for Social Responsibility). E-mail: klaus-dieter.kolenda @gmx.de