The Truth Unveiled: Who Really Started the Ukraine War?
The Ukraine war, often painted in simplistic narratives by Western media, is far more complex than a tale of Russian aggression beginning in February 2022. A closer examination, including statements from NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, reveals a far-reaching timeline dating back to 2014—a period marked by a U.S.-sponsored coup in Ukraine and NATO’s strategic encroachments toward Russia’s borders. These revelations demand a reassessment of who truly initiated the conflict and challenge the prevailing narrative of Western innocence.
In a groundbreaking admission, Stoltenberg recently acknowledged that the war “didn’t start in 2022; it started in 2014.” This admission aligns with historical events, particularly the EuroMaidan coup of 2014, which ousted Ukraine’s elected president, Viktor Yanukovych, and installed a regime with overt ties to Neo-Nazi factions. This regime change, orchestrated under the guise of democracy, set the stage for a geopolitical chess match that plunged Ukraine into turmoil. The coup was openly supported by U.S. officials, including then-Victoria Nuland, whose leaked conversations underscored Washington’s heavy-handed role in selecting Ukraine’s new leadership.
Following the coup, Ukraine’s eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk—home to a significant Russian-speaking population—rejected the new Kiev regime. These regions declared independence, leading to military confrontations that resulted in over 14,000 deaths by 2022, mostly civilians. During this time, NATO provided extensive military aid and training to Ukrainian forces, including the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, whose human rights abuses have been well-documented but largely ignored in Western discourse.
The war’s origins are deeply tied to NATO’s eastward expansion, a move that Russia has long considered a direct threat to its national security. Despite assurances given to Soviet leaders in the 1990s that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward,” the alliance has steadily encroached toward Russia’s borders. Ukraine, positioned as a potential NATO member, became a flashpoint. Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, following a popular referendum, was framed by the West as unprovoked aggression, but Moscow saw it as a defensive move to secure its Black Sea fleet and counter NATO’s growing influence.
By the time Russia launched its “Special Military Operation” in February 2022, the groundwork for conflict had been laid for years. Stoltenberg’s admission effectively dismantles the narrative that Russia’s actions were an unprovoked invasion. Instead, they were a response to an eight-year war waged by the Kiev regime against its own people in Donbas, supported and financed by NATO.
The implications of Stoltenberg’s statement are profound. It reveals that NATO has been a direct participant in the conflict since 2014, undermining claims of neutrality. The alliance’s support for Ukraine, including the deployment of combat-ready troops in Eastern Europe and the provision of advanced weaponry, suggests a deliberate escalation rather than a genuine pursuit of peace.
Furthermore, the invocation of Article 5 of the NATO treaty—the collective defense clause—is now being floated as a potential trigger for a broader confrontation with Russia. Stoltenberg’s reference to “hybrid, cyber, covert actions” and “attacks on undersea infrastructure” as potential justifications for Article 5 highlights the risk of fabricated pretexts being used to justify a full-scale NATO intervention. The sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline, widely believed to have been orchestrated by U.S. interests, underscores how easily such pretexts can be manufactured.
This strategy comes at a devastating cost—not just for Ukraine, which has become a proxy battleground, but also for Europe. Economic sanctions against Russia have backfired, plunging European economies into crisis. Germany, once the industrial powerhouse of Europe, faces deindustrialization as energy costs soar. The fallout from these policies, dictated by Washington, has disproportionately harmed European allies, exposing the exploitative nature of NATO’s so-called collective defense.
The true victims of this conflict are the Ukrainian people, who have been caught in the crossfire of great power rivalry. The Western narrative, which portrays Ukraine as a valiant defender of democracy, conveniently ignores the role of Neo-Nazi militias, the suppression of dissent, and the outlawing of opposition parties and media under President Zelensky’s regime. Ironically, Zelensky—a leader of Russian-Jewish descent—has presided over a government that celebrates figures like Stepan Bandera, a Nazi collaborator responsible for atrocities during World War II.
From a legal standpoint, Russia’s actions, while controversial, must be analyzed within the context of the 2014 coup and NATO’s provocations. Article 51 of the UN Charter provides for the right to collective self-defense, which Russia invoked to justify its support for Donetsk and Luhansk. By contrast, NATO’s involvement in arming and training Neo-Nazi factions violates international law and the principles of the Law of Armed Conflict, which demand the protection of civilian populations.
The path forward requires a candid acknowledgment of these truths. A ceasefire and meaningful peace negotiations must replace the current cycle of escalation. The dismantling of NATO’s aggressive posturing, coupled with a commitment to Ukrainian neutrality, could pave the way for a sustainable resolution. However, as long as NATO continues to pursue its hegemonic agenda under the guise of collective security, the prospect of peace remains elusive.
The Ukraine war is not a black-and-white conflict between democracy and autocracy; it is a complex and tragic outcome of geopolitical ambitions and broken promises. As the world edges closer to a potential global conflict, the question remains: Will we learn from history, or will we allow the mistakes of the past to lead us into an even darker future?
OBLONG MEDIA UNLIMITED 
Leave a comment