Up until a few weeks ago, I told my kids it could go two ways: either Trump finds a scissor and cuts the umbilical cord infusing the EU ever since World War 2, or a full-scale war would break out. Luckily, the first option was lifted, albeit for the time being.
Ever since the end of the Cold War which concluded itself in 1989 with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the decimation of the Soviet Union, Europe has been struggling to find a way to become relevant in an ever-changing complex international geopolitical framework.
Unfortunately, the complexity of the EU and the integration of many countries within the EU, together with the launch of the EURO have complicated matters beyond any expectation.
During the last few years, the EU upheld a simplified narrative claiming Russia was to blame for its incursion in Ukraine. As such, this cannot be denied. However, what they never discuss, out of a sense of misplaced moral superiority, is the background that led to this situation, in which the West played a dramatic role, leading to a war between countries that share an extended history and culture.
WHERE DID THE CURRENT MESS FIND ITS ORIGIN?
In 1989, President Gorbachev was the first to admit the Soviet Union had reached its limits. He opened the doors, reaching out to the western ‘democratic’ hemisphere. It didn’t take long for the US to kick in the open door and start pushing its way in to obtain resources and present US companies with a big new market.
President Gorbachev was quickly put aside by an internal coup d’état fuelled by the US (CIA), who sent in Soros and his acolyte Prof Jeffrey Sachs to implement Sachs’ economic ‘shock therapy’. Boris Yeltsin, known for his urge to move fast, was able to climb the president’s seat in the newly created Russian Federation. He became the key figure leading the transition towards a capitalist market economy aided by the US, backed by Soros and Sachs. It failed miserably, at least for Russia and the general population.
These uncertain times created a vacuum that was abused by high-ranked former Soviet civil servants/agents who, supported by the US, and Sachs’ USAID-sponsored HIID (Harvard Institute for International Development) facilitated the looting of resources, they became known as Russian Oligarchs. Gold, minerals, industrial commodities, gas, and oil were spilled toward the West for big money.
The 90s became a turbulent period for Russia. Whilst Yeltsin was still in power, the IMF, World Bank, and many US companies handcuffed the Russian economy while the oligarchs and their new Western allies made billions of dollars. The Russian population was left with empty shops, a chronic shortage of essential goods, and ever-rising prices while facing unemployment.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation and former members of its communist collective found themselves in a deep recession. The economic uncertainty combined with former Soviet states trying to reform and rebuild autonomous bodies, functioning without their former Russian master, eventually led to huge disagreements and ethnic tensions in the Balkan region which exploded in the Third Balkan War, lasting from 1991 to 2001. A war where NATO and Russia were challenged heavily in their ‘partnership’.
Against this backdrop, US President Clinton engaged with Yeltsin to extend NATO into former Central and East European Soviet states. Yeltsin was wary but eventually suggested that Russia should join NATO before any other former Soviet state would. This was not to the liking of his former Soviet allies who felt betrayed by Yeltsin who had chosen to ‘safe’ only Russia, disregarding its former allies in the process.
In the meantime, the US kept pursuing NATO enlargement to convince countries of the importance of peace in the Balkan region. Hence, undermining the Russian sensitivities and Yeltsin’s previous request to join first.
The Duma (Russian parliament) started revolting by the end of the 90s, leading Yeltsin to magically conjure up a rabbit out of his hat called Vladimir Putin, an unknown former KGB agent with little political experience (deputy mayor of St. Petersburg) got appointed as prime minister on August 10, 1999. Most likely aiming for an easy-to-manipulate novice at the forefront, both Yeltsin and the oligarchs thought this Putin guy was in their pockets for even more business. This would become the biggest underestimation of their lives.
Putin, a patriot, knew what was happening behind the scenes and intervened with agility, moving through the minefields created under the auspices of Yeltsin, the CIA, the IMF, the World Bank, and oligarchs. With his newly acquainted knowledge and power, he forced Yeltsin to resign and took over on December 31st, 1999.
Putin communicated openly to his citizens about what he found behind the curtains of Russian politics. This new ‘openness’ resulted in an election following the regime change, confirming Putin as leader. It is no secret that Putin chased a lot of oligarchs in the following two decades, most likely as retribution for stealing Russian assets. It is during these turbulent times that the US influenced NGOs in an attempt to make a profit from the dire economic state of Russia.
NATO AND EU EXPANSION
Putin rightly stated there was a historic diplomatic understanding (dating back to Gorbachev) that Eastward expansion of NATO and the EU was out of the question, as this would intervene with the historical sphere of interest of Russia and its bonds with former Soviet states. None of this was ever put into an agreement.
However, we should recognise in international politics, that vulnerable issues are not always put to paper for geopolitical reasons, but are considered gentlemen’s agreements. Moreover, many agreements, between countries proved not to last either in the past. Essentially it all comes down to the willingness of concerned parties to respect each other’s interests. The diplomatic cables proving the Russian request, followed by a confirmation by the US presidency have been made available through Wikileaks for all to read.
Within the same batches of diplomatic cables dating back to 2008, we notice US Ambassador Burns warning Pres. Clinton that Ukraine could be entering a civil war (Ukrainians vs Russians living in Ukraine) if steps towards NATO enlargement would continue (the same was noted for Georgia), and this is what exactly happened in the last few years.
It is noteworthy to state that Putin has reluctantly allowed expansion toward the East in the past, and without making a drama about it. Every time he asked his Western counterparts to stop at the next station, they kept going. Something we should recognise as well. Ever since the relationship between Russia and the West has become severely strained.
The Eastern European countries were eager to join the EU and NATO, as they were trapped in an economic demise after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. All these countries were struggling to regain economic independence and a form of security within this new world order.
Let’s return to November 2013, when Ukrainian President Yanukovych, a pro-Russian former governor of Donetsk (one of the disputed Russian regions in Ukraine) withdrew from signing an association agreement with the EU, although the Ukrainian parliament wanted to join.
His refusal to sign led to what is known today as the ‘Euromaidan protests’, uproars that were fuelled by Western interference through USAID channels, CIA, and NGOs. The West desperately wanted Ukraine to join the EU. The reason was the same as today, money. We may not forget the global banking crisis of 2008 in this regard.
US multinationals like P&G, PepsiCo, and McDonalds, e.g. were in desperate need of financial growth. Western markets were already flooded with consumer products, surely in the EU where stagnation hit hard. Access to Ukraine would leverage expansion and more profit. Yanukovych, well acquainted with the Russian stance and the expansion drift of the West, was the only one blocking a way forward.
By February 2014, most Ukrainians were pulled into the narrative of joining the West, presented to the population as a solution for their lack of economic growth by Western-backed NGOs. The US/EU-induced regime change campaign came to its conclusion. Yanukovych was put out with the bins, followed by a televised massive show at Maidan Square, where EU dignitaries celebrated their coup d’état. The pro-western Ukrainian politician, Petro Poroshenko, was installed soon after the festivities to reign in the country.
INSTABILITY AND REPRESSION
As with all induced regime changes enforced by the West in the past, all ended in chaos, instability, and quite often civil wars. The instigation of division by Western interference created a huge polarisation amongst Ukrainian and Russian communities in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. Hence, Ukrainian nationalistic forces gained traction under the wings of the newly elected pro-western president, and covert militia attacks started to unfold against Russian enclaves which were subsequently condoned by the newly instated government.
Putin tried to stop the massacres through diplomacy and the UN. Not surprisingly, western media and politicians hardly ever addressed the situation.
For years, Russia accused the Ukrainian government of harassing, raping, and killing Russians in the Donbas and Lugansk Regions, leading up to their intervention. One cannot claim that the incursion started out of the blue.
HOW THE EU RAN TOWARD ITS DEMISE
The EU never recovered from the banking crisis that hit the global markets in 2008. The only way for them to keep up pace with the international community was for the President of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi (throughout the 2010s), to press a computer button every month releasing millions of EURO that flooded to banks and governments to keep the interest rates low. The magic of printing money out of thin air lasted for a decade, month after month, all to manipulate the books and at least on paper, create the appearance of a healthy financial continent.
It is often argued that the EU is still the second-largest economy on earth, which is questionable as it is only supported by creative bookkeeping. The richness of the EU is to be found in the decade-long transfer of inherited intergenerational wealth transfers within families of all classes. Most of the financial strength within the EU is locked in real estate, assets, and immovable goods. The real economic value is declining year-by-year due to the complex interplay of growing Global South economies, ageing demographics in the West, and little prospect of future growth.
The EU has hardly any production left. In a first capitalistic reflex after the implosion of the Soviet Union, most EU-based companies transferred their production towards former Soviet countries. Cheap labour was available, and as most of these countries were lured into joining the European Union it also provided an economic backbone for these Eastern countries to comply with EU regulations before entering. A win-win, at least in the short term.
The reality of today proves otherwise. These former Eastern countries’ economic prowess grew rapidly, leading to lower profit margins for the investors. The latter want growth, every year, and preferably growth that surpasses the previous years. When profit margins started to decrease, the transfer of production towards the Global South became the new reality.
As the EU has little to no sufficient resources (think minerals, iron, oil, gas, e.g.) and shifted their secondary industries, the only thing left is the tertiary sector, a service sector, a sector that creates limited real added value on a global scale.
SEVERAL DOGS FIGHTING FOR THE SAME BONE
While the insurgencies continued for years in the East of Ukraine, the only one focused on the issue was Russia. With no response from the international community, this was bound to lead to a boiling point. In 2021, President Putin reached out to the Biden administration asking for dialogue to solve the problem in Eastern Ukraine. He was neglected, literally, not once, but twice as the US didn’t respond to his query.
Putin apparently saw no other solution than to trespass the borders in the East to protect the native Russian citizens under constant threat of Ukrainian government-backed insurgents.
Once the invasion started, the Biden administration and the EU commission were eager to disapprove of Russia’s actions, but never engaged in any diplomacy to resolve the issue. And one may wonder why. The reason is most likely threefold.
Firstly, the West is losing its hegemony, and faster than ever before. In 2020, for the first time since the 18th Century, the Global South has taken over the global economy, with a GDP exceeding that of the West. Keep in mind that the absolute majority of these countries were low-and middle-income countries. This fact might bring the West to its knees if they don’t reclaim their economic influence. This is most probably the reason why the EU’s primary interest now is to get more countries into the European Union (Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Georgia, e.g.). More nations mean more shoulders to carry the ever-growing deficits, and more areas to expand business.
The second reason, creating more independence when it boils down to resources.
If Western countries remain dependent on the Global South for resources, they won’t be able to maintain any relevancy in the global market. Resources mean power! This is most probably the primary reason why the EU never wanted a diplomatic solution on the Ukraine/Russia issue as diplomacy always leads to a consensus, hence, losing grip on Ukrainian natural minerals and rare-earth materials. This explains the fiery attempts of the EU to drag Ukraine into the EU and NATO. Unfortunately for them, this has taken a wrong turn since Trump came to office. Enter, the third reason. The BRICS and other Global South initiatives.
BRICS is no longer the sole playground for Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa. In 2024, the UAE, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Iran became full member states, while 20 others aim to become part of the alliance. Their goal: a multipolar world with respect for nations’ identity (read: everyone upholds their traditions, moral values, and ethics) and creating a new economic mammoth, releasing itself from Western colonialist behaviour.
As the BRICS focuses on Global South countries and as it is fuelled by its own central bank, the New Development Bank, the aim is to set up its own currency in the long run. Hence, the West faces an economic adversary they won’t be able to beat in the next century. Moreover, the former Brazilian president, Ms. Dilma Rousseff, has been appointed as President of the BRICS central bank. In her inauguration speech, she clearly voiced her intent to aim for a de-dollarisation, in other words, not to use the dollar for international trade. Today, already 40% of trade between BRICS members is handled in local currencies, another backlash for the US and by extension, the EU.
Other initiatives, like the Belt and Road Initiative, create new geographic pathways for distributing commodities through the old Silk-Route, the route that once made Asia the richest continent on earth. The Belt and Road Initiative tries to bypass western trade routes.
The aforementioned reasons are probably the three most important ones why the EU is in a panic state. It appears they haven’t seen the last from it as some other players are now trying to mingle in. Recently, the UKs PM, Sir Keir Starmer, promised defence and security support to Ukraine for the next 100 years (!!), amounting to billions of pounds of UK tax payers money legally swindled into Ukraine. And as there is nothing like a free lunch, ….
Starmer understands, since Brexit, that the UK has to fight for its own existence. Enough of a reason not to miss the boat when everyone is fighting for resources to which the UK wants access as well.
FUEL ON THE FIRE
In the last few weeks something strange happened that has passed under the international radar. Zelensky visited the UAE and left with a ‘partner agreement’. Why the UAE?
While no specifics are known of the deal Zelensky made with Mohamed bin Zayed, it wouldn’t come as a surprise if the oil-rich country is also seeking back-up for a declining oil reserve by claiming part of the natural resources of Ukraine for a big cheque in return. If Zelensky’s money dries up, his prolific acting career is over. He realises when the dice are rolled, the most likely scenario is that he will get replaced.
While everyone is fighting for the Ukrainians’ resources, the BRICS countries have not interfered, or did they? Through the UAE? This deal may not be to the liking of the West. As the UAE is now a full member of the BRICS, this deal may have been instigated behind the curtains by BRICS diplomats in also getting a foothold in the Ukrainian soil richness. Who will tell? In any case, something doesn’t add up.
This dogfight is taking twists and turns as never seen before. Yesterday, Putin announced that he proposed a deal to the US, offering rare earth materials and aluminum to Trump, but what will he ask in return? It appears we have come full circle here. Trump is only interested in making money and saving the US economy and production. He will take the offer. Putin extends his cooperation on several levels to Trump, hence, completely undermining the EU and the rest of the world.
THE SELL-OUT OF UKRAINE
So, now we have the EU, the US, the UK, Russia, and most probably the UAE and its alliances, fighting for one thing only, Ukrainian resources and assets. While this will bring in money in the short term for the country, it remains to be seen what the future of Ukraine looks like when all vultures have left and only an economic corpse remains.
One Ukrainian man and some of his sidekicks are sure to win the lottery once they leave the battlefield. As usual in these cases of geopolitical powerplay, the future of the Ukrainian population remains less certain.
The dogfight isn’t over yet.
REFERENCES AND READING MATERIAL
HOROVITZ, L. & GÖTZ, E. 2020. The overlooked importance of economics: why the Bush Administration wanted NATO enlargement. Journal of Strategic Studies, 43, 847-868.
RADCHENKO, S. 2020. ‘Nothing but humiliation for Russia’: Moscow and NATO’s eastern enlargement, 1993-1995. Journal of Strategic Studies, 43, 769-815.
SHIFRINSON, J. R. I. 2020. Eastbound and down: The United States, NATO enlargement, and suppressing the Soviet and Western European alternatives, 1990–1992. Journal of Strategic Studies, 43, 816-846.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/usaid-sent-millions-to-ukraine-in-secret-slush-funds-investigators-found-5816557?utm_source=rtnewsnoe&src_src=rtnewsnoe&utm_campaign=rtbreaking-2025-02-26-4&src_cmp=rtbreaking-2025-02-26-4&utm_medium=email&utm_content=access0&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAcqwpZxwHwsTGzKEJqytYCPpvwEcxYfghSyPHnEiiio4KmaA%3D
https://www.ntd.com/putin-says-russia-has-no-objections-to-us-ukraine-minerals-deal_1049877.html?utm_source=ntddailynoe&src_src=ntddailynoe&utm_campaign=ntd-2025-02-26&src_cmp=ntd-2025-02-26&utm_medium=email
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html
slguardian.org/george-soros-and-the-savage-economic-looting-of-russia/
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2018-03-16/nato-expansion-what-yeltsin-heard
Disclaimer
The views and analysis expressed in this content (video, blog, article, etc.) are solely that of the author and does not necessarily reflect the views of humani-well, the organisation, or other associated parties.
Medical disclaimer: you should not rely on the information on this website as a replacement for seeing a doctor or other qualified healthcare provider for a diagnosis or treatment. Nothing in this publication should be interpreted as a substitute for the advice of a qualified healthcare provider. Please consult a medical professional before using any information contained in this publication.
