In 1938, Chancellor Adolph Hitler of Germany positioned troops along Czechoslovakia’s border with the apparent intention of invading its Sudetenland region on the false pretense that its predominant resident German population was under threat. In hopes of averting another world war after a number of provocative actions had already been undertaken in recent years by Germany, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain met with Hitler, Italy’s Benito Mussolini and France’s Édouard Daladier, with Czechoslovakia’s President Edvard Beneš notably absent. A Munich Agreement was signed on September 30, 1938, that ceded Sudetenland to Germany in exchange for Hitler’s promise that he would seek no further territorial gains. Six months later, Hitler overtook the remainder of Czechoslovakia and six months after that, he invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, launching World War II under yet another false pretense.
A matter of a week or so before Hitler’s incursion into western Poland, Germany and Josef Stalin’s Soviet Union signed a non-aggression agreement, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This seemingly guaranteed Russia’s security against invasion by Germany while affording it opportunity to invade Poland from the east which it did less than three weeks after Germany’s incursion. In keeping with past betrayals, Hitler went on to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941, laying waste to a vast territory before retreating under counterattack. From 1938 to 1941, Hitler’s deceit had carried forward long enough to claim the lives of 40 million people in the Eastern Front alone.
Another war has come about in eastern Europe involving territorial acquisition; this time, for what amounts to a fanciful notion of recovering the glory of a Russian Empire that failed miserably early in the last century only to be followed by an equally flawed Soviet Union that collapsed after 70 years. Now Putin’s regime threatens Russia’s future after only a few decades by bringing it to heel under the weight of monumental governmental and societal corruption while conducting an unjust war in Ukraine. Successive Russian autocratic regimes with their diminishing lifespans do not portend a comfortable future for a nation that seemed to have promise. It may be that Russia’s leaders ultimately fall prey to believing the deceit of their own propaganda that was originally meant for consumption only by Russia’s public and the world at large.
For Putin and his Russia, the irony that has played out recently has come in the form of enlargement of the military alliance that opposes him. In May 2022, less than three months following his invasion of Ukraine, both Finland and Sweden applied to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) gaining membership in April 2023 and March 2024, respectively. Perhaps worse for Putin has been his creation of what has turned out to be a formidable foe on his southern border. Following his 2014 invasion of Crimea, enough Ukrainians favored a geopolitical preference for the European Union (EU) and NATO to enter it into the constitution in 2019. Four months following his February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, a survey showed 81% of Ukrainians wished to join the EU and 71% to join NATO. Any sentiment favoring Russia fell to 2% and the nation has become strongly united from west to east. Considering Putin’s situation in Russia where he has claimed recognition for bringing his nation back from “the abyss” following the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991, one may question whether he has only now brought it to ruin by his own hand.
For one or another reason, corporate and world leaders and others of influence have gravitated toward Russia over time to gain privilege, recognition or wealth at their own peril. Affiliation with Putin’s regime has been fraught with risks of dependency, even the loss of national sovereignty or fatal personal consequences. To announce that you are a “friend” of Vladimir Putin is to say to Vladimir Putin and members of his regime that you are just another “useful idiot.” Putin, like several of his predecessors who have assumed leadership of Russia, regards the West as his enemy. Any level of concern on his part for your welfare or that of your nation is absent from his list of priorities.
Apart from profiting from his own manufactured kleptocracy, Putin’s agenda has focused on Russia’s recovery as a superpower to be feared and respected worldwide as any chauvinist would have it. In his delusion, Russian exceptionalism reigns above all else. You might even accept that such a nationalist sentiment is laudable until it is realized that to achieve its goal involves sacrificing another’s wellbeing, possibly your own. Indeed, Putin’s version of exceptionalism, more than one might say of America’s, includes the blatant invasion of neighboring sovereign countries. Coupled with this has been his strategy to undermine the political stability and social fabric of Western nations, particularly that of the United States (U.S.) This has gone on to include the formation of international agencies expressly to weaken Western economies and geopolitical standing, and to threaten their security through military alliances and attempts at technological superiority.
“The biggest geopolitical catastrophe of the century”
– President Vladimir Putin, State-of-the-Nation address, April 25, 2005; in reference to the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, 1991.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), with its Warsaw Pact nations in tow, became the 20th century version of the Russian Empire (1721 – 1917) until its own dissolution in 1991. Eager to break away from their repressive overlord in Moscow, the nations of the Eastern European bloc (i.e., the Warsaw Pact) took the opportunity to recover not only their economies, made meagre by Soviet policy, but their national dignities. In succession thereafter, they sought the security of NATO in order to safeguard against falling back under another Russian hegemonic nightmare.
Unfortunately for Russia, Putin has chosen to resurrect his version of empire by first subjugating neighboring former republics of the USSR. He manufactured a crisis in Chechnya early in his presidency to justify a Russian invasion, leveling its capital, Grozny, killing more than 50,000 civilians and leaving a record of “appalling violations of humanitarian law.” A puppet regime, currently led by Ramzan Kadyrov, was installed and accordingly, continued cooperation with Moscow, ensuring its allegiance in all affairs. This was followed by Russia’s incursion into Georgia in 2008 in support of a separatist rebellion of the states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia proceeded to improperly acknowledge the states as separate autonomous republics from Georgia. Moreover, it provided their citizens with Russian passports with the further implication that they were independent of Georgian governance. An international fact-finding mission clarified the legality of the claims and determined there was no basis for declaring the separatist states as independent from Georgia.
The remainder of Georgia is now controlled by a ruling party, Georgian Dream, established and influenced by pro-Russian oligarch, Bidzina Ivanishvili, who has dutifully negated the aspirations of the majority of Georgians to join the EU. Analysis of Georgia’s October 2024 parliamentary elections by the International Republican Institute appears sufficient to declare the current government led by Ivanishvili’s party as illegitimate.
Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution of 2013-14 came in reaction to the decision made by then pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych, to abandon the nation’s EU association agreement in favor of a last-minute deal with Putin who offered cash and the promise of discounts on Russian imported energy costs. Yanukovych abandoned his presidency when he saw that his government no longer had standing and fled the country seeking haven in Russia. Putin, soon after on February 27, 2014, in what undoubtedly was a pre-planned response to Russia’s loss of influence over Ukraine, undertook a covert paramilitary operation to occupy Crimea. After a hastily assembled referendum, the territory was illegally annexed by Russia. In the meantime, eastern Ukraine was beset by Russian-instigated hostilities that threatened its economy and territorial integrity.
The eventual attempt to overtake the entirety of Ukraine with an outright Russian invasion took place in February 2022 under the bizarre assertion that it required denazification. The innumerable Russian war crimes that have followed in efforts to dehumanize and destabilize Ukraine have failed as has Russia’s military strategy, leaving Putin’s war economy nearing stagflation and the Russian people deprived of their welfare.
Despite Russia’s war crimes, leaders such as Viktor Orban of Hungary and Robert Fico of Slovakia have chosen to disregard their nations’ own turbulent histories with Russia and become reliant upon another failing Russian authoritarian regime and its despot. Both Slovakia and Hungary have come under increased scrutiny by the EU for their slide into illiberal governance by their respective leaders and may face expulsion for abandoning its principals of democratic rule. In return for their associations with Putin’s Russia, they are unlikely to receive much sympathy from his regime under the present circumstances of his war in Ukraine. Rather, as his financial clock and domestic popularity tick downward, Putin is focused with some desperation on gaining ground in Ukraine in preparation for anticipated negotiations proposed to end the war for which he remains entirely responsible. Moreover, Putin has demonstrated his recent lack of concern for previous commitments as in the recent debacle in Syria. One might say the same for Venezuela where a similar dependency upon Russia exists by Nicolá Maduro’s illegitimate dictatorial regime.
Deceit is a matter of habit for Putin’s regime as it was for Hitler’s, whether for domestic consumption or to appease international concerns. Despite the clear indications over several months of Russia’s intentions to invade Ukraine when its forces began amassing along Ukraine’s border, the lies out of the Kremlin were finally confirmed in February 2022. They have continued throughout the war. The longstanding habit of widespread disinformation and propaganda pertaining to Russian policies and activities are well-known and ingrained to such a measure that state pronouncements should be automatically disregarded as misleading at best.
It’s not clear what President-elect Donald Trump’s intentions are regarding his plans for ending Russia’s war. The idea put forward of stopping it in a day lacked detail but comes with the implication of giving up territory in Ukraine to someone who instigated the war – a bridge too far perhaps for Ukraine. Giving fuel to such a notion have been what appear to be grossly exaggerated claims that Ukraine had “lost” 400,000 troops in the course of the war if by “lost” he means “dead.” In any case, it seems disingenuous for the President-elect to speak of such human loss as he is better known as a transactional player than for humanitarian virtues. Absent in the rhetoric has been any mention of Russia’s accountability for the war, its inability to finish the war, its failing economy and, most concerning, Putin’s hatred toward the U.S. and the West. Putin has no more regard for Mr. Trump than he has for President Biden as they both belong to the U.S. and therefore remain accountable for its past perceived grievances perpetrated upon Russia. In short, he will attempt to play one or the other to his advantage whenever possible.
Retired lieutenant general Keith Kellogg is President-elect Trump’s Special Envoy for Ukraine and Russia. Kellogg is a believer in the “NATO expansionist” theory as the threat to Russia that launched the war in Ukraine, a sentiment similar to that evoked by others as if the nations of Eastern Europe somehow were coerced into joining NATO. Ukraine shared the same fears as these other nations, that Putin’s agenda was set on exerting influence over its society whether NATO was part of the picture or not. It is unclear what Elon Musk’s discussions with Putin have amounted to but they will undoubtedly add to certain demands upon Mr. Trump.
Kellogg, a founding member of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), argues that American foreign policy be geared toward national security interests. Leaving morality and democratic principles aside, he appears set on undertaking a transactional approach with Putin, the war criminal, and to cede Ukrainian territory to Russia in return for the latter’s agreement to rebuild Ukraine and the false hope of future security against further aggression. For a start, Russia’s economy is in no state to finance Ukraine’s recovery and reliance on both Putin’s word and Russia’s future energy sales is a tenuous proposition at best. Fast-tracking a settlement for Russia’s war in Ukraine is destined to fall short of the mark if it doesn’t meet Putin’s goals which are yet to be defined given his present predicament domestically and his odds on the battlefield. Recent indications are that Russia has no interest in a negotiated settlement.
For Ukraine, its sustainability and self-identity as a nation, factoring in its economy, long-term security and self-determination, requires a full restoration of its territory including Crimea, alignment with the EU and rearmament so as to make it regrettable for any nation to consider overtaking it. It was wrong for the AFPI to have criticized the efforts of the U.S. to render the necessary support for Ukraine when it fell victim to an unprovoked attack by Russia. Despite reporting that Putin made his decision to invade Ukraine a year beforehand, It is highly probable that the idea of reconstituting some version of his empire began considerably well beforehand when he voiced the absurd notion that Ukraine was simply a creation of Lenin and Stalin during the previous century. In fact, at the 2008 NATO conference in Bucharest, Putin announced publicly that Ukraine was not a state. The prevailing wisdom, however, has it that Ukraine’s origins date to the 9th century and predate those of Russia.
It is unfortunate that much of the recent commentary in the West regarding cessation of the war has focused on what Ukraine is prepared to give up rather than consider how best to end the conflict in its favor. The history to be written of this war should not record how it was that the aggressor was rewarded for a criminal undertaking and a once sovereign nation was forced to capitulate and perhaps ultimately to cease being a nation. Such a history would certainly forever shame those involved in the effort for being duped once more by the petulant behavior of a weakened rogue actor much as what occurred following the aforementioned 1938 Munich Agreement. Yet, a rather tortured business argument has been put forward in which Russia would be largely free to resume business as usual provided considerable concessions by Ukraine and the West, at the same time offering opportunity for select Western elites to gain substantially in the process.
Doesn’t Ukraine have something to offer the West? Who wouldn’t want it at their side as an ally after having demonstrated to the world its innovative military capabilities, courage and tenacity against a foe three times its size? Who understands the Russian strategic mindset better than those of any Western nation? The rebuilding of such a nation would not only benefit it but those who supported its defense and who would most likely then engage in the effort of its reparations. The financing would continue as it has currently by extracting the interest gained from frozen Russian assets until completion of the reconstruction. Actual confiscation of these assets would expedite the effort. Foreign corporate undertakings with Ukrainian industry would bring in substantial investment in an environment abundant with agricultural products, energy resources, particularly shale gas, and mineral deposits and the promise of substantial gain. Ukraine’s uranium reserves are the largest in Europe while iron ore, titanium and manganese rank second. Otherwise, large deposits of lithium, graphite and rare earth minerals are included among the 117 of 120 of the most used minerals globally. A self-sufficient Ukraine would continue its role as a global food supplier and engage with the U.S. and the West in any number of opportune enterprises well into the future, much more reliable than Russia has proven to be.
From both a geopolitically and commercially strategic standpoint, a sovereign, self-sufficient Ukraine could enter into agreements that provides deep sea port access at Odessa or Crimea where deep sea ports are situated at Sevastopol, Yalta, Feodosia and Kerch. The availability of one or a number of ports may be agreed upon as part of a Lend-Lease arrangement in partial repayment for the financial support that has been provided thus far by the U.S. and the West. Denial of Russian control of Crimea would end Russia’s practice of inhibiting or interdicting maritime shipping while it chooses to conduct naval exercises or interferes with the provision of much-needed food distribution globally.
Interestingly, Russia’s state-run media indicated that NATO planned to encroach into Crimea and that Russia was therefore further justified in occupying and annexing it. The argument was ludicrous as there was no reason for NATO to undertake such a venture. Ukraine was far from being considered for membership and, for two decades, NATO already had a presence in the Baltic states adjacent to Russia and actually much closer to Moscow. However, now that Russian deception has been exposed and its unlawful intentions demonstrated by its invasion of Ukraine, an argument for such a scenario might seem suitable. Should Ukraine further its application to enter NATO, Crimea would provide a strategically ideal location to establish a military fortress that would help to secure a long-term guarantee against Russian aggression while providing additional security of its eastern flank, including Turkey.
In some ways, international diplomacy has provided the ability to bring about conflict resolution where outcomes have not been decided by military engagement. In several situations, however, it has only succeeded in creating a lull in the argument, sufficient in time for the aggressor to rearm and return to the agenda that was originally set. There are two issues at hand with Putin and Russia. The first focuses upon Putin’s requirement that Ukraine be subjugated in its entirety as he believes it is simply not worthy of existing separately from Russia. He has demonstrated this by kidnapping large numbers of Ukrainian children, by the indiscriminate destruction of civilian infrastructure, displacing and killing its people and dehumanizing them. The second concerns Putin’s need to fulfill his long-held delusion of returning Russia to the status of a nation that matters on the world stage despite his failure to provide it the foundation that would guarantee its own sustainability. He is left with a war he cannot win but a war he must continue.
If there is to be a just conclusion, not one of consensus where “everyone agrees to say collectively what no one believes individually,” then the aggressor must be made to come to terms with the reality of what he has done and to accept the only outcome that is afforded him and that is to give him nothing. Let that be an understanding for all other malign entities who choose to behave in a similar criminal manner.
Copyright @Kost Elisevich, MD, PhD 2025. All rights reserved. Any illegal reproduction of this content will result in immediate legal action.
