The Cold War did not end for the United States with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Instead, the United States set out on a systematic 30-plus year effort to undermine, humiliate and threaten the Russian state. This has ultimately led to the tragedy of the war in Ukraine.

Of course this is nothing new.

Invasions of the Russian land mass by the West have been regular and destructive. Napoleon invaded in 1812, killing 500,000 Russians. The Crimean War of 1853-1856 killed another 250,000.

World War I saw 3,300,000 Russian deaths, and World War II 27,000,000. In total the Western Powers have been responsible for 30-35 million dead Russians, not to mention turning western Russian into a moonscape, over two centuries. Everyone attacked Russia through Ukraine. This is known in historical circles as a pattern.

But I digress.

A Deceitful Start

In the waning days of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev was seeking a rapprochement with the West. He was willing to permit the unification of East and West Germany in return for an assurance that NATO would not expand eastwards. He received said assurances from U.S. Secretary of State James Baker on January 9, 1990, when he (Baker) promised NATO would move “not one inch eastward.”

These assurances were reiterated over the period 1990-91 by George W. Bush, James Baker, Robert Gates (U.S.), Margaret Thatcher, Douglas Hurd, John Major (UK), Hans-Dietrich Genscher, Helmut Kohl (Germany), Francois Mitterrand (France), and Manfred Woerner (NATO Secretary General). Of course, none of these commitments was honored. Those in doubt can refer to the National Security Archive at George Washington University.^[1]

The Wolfowitz Doctrine

In 1991 Paul Wolfowitz penned his infamous “Wolfowitz Doctrine,” in which he proposed:

“The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.” (Emphases added.)

In other words, the only legitimate interests were those of the United States. The doctrine was ultimately shot down by President George H. W. Bush. But neither Wolfowitz nor his fellow intellectuals, many in highly influential government positions, forgot about it.

What followed was a series of events and policies with the clear intention of rendering Russia not only moot on the international stage, but vulnerable to increasing threats from the West.

Triumphalism

After the fall of the Soviet Union, George H.W. Bush cautioned against triumphalism,^[2]

Nevertheless, when Secretary of Defense William Perry attempted to point out that Russia still had legitimate national security concerns, he was met with derision and is quoted as saying:

“Basically the people I was arguing with when I tried to put the Russian point…the response that I got was really: ‘Who cares what they think? They’re a third-rate power.’ And of course, that point of view got across to the Russians as well. That was when we started sliding down that path.”^[3] (Emphasis added.)

Renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs had successfully advised the Polish government on how to adapt to the post-Cold War environment. But when he went to the Clinton administration and asked if he could do the same for Russia, he was refused.

Economic Hardships

Almost immediately the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID), in conjunction with Russian First Deputy Prime Minister Anatoly Chubais, put in place a neo-liberal (read free-market) economic system that ultimately produced the oligarchs and destroyed the Russian economy. By 1996 the Russian economy had declined by 50%.^[4] What followed, within ten years, were the crash of the ruble, Russian state debt default and a reduction in Russian lifespan of almost ten years. Chubais later became known as the “most hated man in Russia.”

Election Interference

Boris Yeltsin, an alcoholic and an ill man, was running for president in 1996. Yeltsin was the favorite of the United States but was polling in the single digits. With the injection of a $10 billion IMF loan engineered by the United States, assistance from Madison Avenue public relations wonks and Time magazine he was able to win re-election. Election interference? Of course.

The Wise Old Men

An entire phalanx of knowledgeable, experienced people began warning about NATO expansion as early as the 1990s. But as with the lead-up to the Iraq War, they have not only been ignored but suppressed.

• George Kennan: Kennan wrote his “Long Memo” to the State Department,^[5] wherein he invented the Containment Strategy that defined the United States’s policy for defeating the USSR. In 1997, appalled at the push for NATO expansion, Kennan wrote: “Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-cold-war era. Such a decision may be expected…to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”^[6] Diplomatic language for risking war.

• Jack Matlock: Matlock was U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 until weeks before its collapse on December 26, 1991. He also translated Khrushchev’s speeches for Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis, in other words a diplomat with a deep understanding of the Russian psyche. Matlock echoed Kennan’s view, stating: “I consider the administration’s recommendation to take new members into NATO at this time misguided. If it should be approved by the United States Senate, it may well go down in history as the most profound strategic blunder made since the end of the Cold War.”^[7]

• Jeffrey Sachs: Professor Sachs, mentioned earlier, is the Director of both the Center for Sustainable Development and the Earth Institute President of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network, and served as Special Adviser to UN Secretaries-General from 2001 to 2018.^[8] Sachs is on record condemning the United States for completely ignoring legitimate Russian security needs and precipitating the war in Ukraine.
• John Mearsheimer: Professor Mearsheimer is known globally as the dean of the realist school of political science. In 2015 he wrote that “The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked.”^[9]

These views are shared by many, including Chas Freeman, former deputy Secretary of Defense and ambassador to Saudi Arabia; Scott Ritter, one of the team that disarmed Russian nuclear weapons in the 1990s; Strobe Talbott, former Deputy U.S. Secretary of State;^[10] Chris Hedges, a veteran war reporter; and many more.

Ratcheting up the Tension

In 1999 came the 4^th NATO expansion, which included Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. This in spite of warnings from Kennan and Matlock. Both were ignored.

In 2000, the Russian Duma proposed entry into the EU but was rebuffed. In 2001 Vladimir Putin proposed Russian entry in NATO and was again rebuffed.

In 2004 came the 5^th NATO expansion, adding seven nations to the roster, most notably Romania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The later three placed NATO nations directly on the Russian border, but without Russian inclusion in the pact.

In 2008 came the Bucharest Summit, where NATO encouraged granting membership to Ukraine and Georgia. This prompted William Burns, current CIA director but at the time ambassador to Russia, to pen the “Nyet means Nyet” (“No means No”)^[11] memo to the State Department, wherein he stated:

“[Russian] Foreign Minister Lavrov and other senior officials have reiterated strong opposition, stressing that Russia would view further eastward expansion as a potential military threat.”^[12]

Burns’s warning was ignored.

In February 2010 Romania agreed to host the THAAD SM-3 missile system at Deveselu, the premise being to protect Europe from Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles. The absurdity of this claim aside, these batteries are reported to have the additional capability of launching nuclear-tipped Tomahawk missiles with a 35-minute flight time to Moscow.

Tomahawks have the additional characteristic of being able to fly low enough to avoid radar detection. Vladimir Putin has referred to the Tomahawks as a “knife to his throat.” Accurate or not, the perception is clearly there.

In December 2013 Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland stated that “We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.”^[13]

Many of these funds were distributed by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Upon its founding, the NED assumed some activities formerly performed by the CIA, and is known to have been involved in many regime-change operations in support of U.S. foreign policy goals.^[14]

Then came the slow rolling coup in Ukraine, culminating in February 2014 with the Maidan uprising when a democratically elected president sympathetic to Russia was forced to flee for his life. The coup was encouraged by Nuland and Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. In a leaked telephone call recording, Nuland is heard telling Pyatt who should rule Ukraine in the aftermath of the riots.

Nuland is married to Robert Kagan, a close associate of Paul Wolfowitz. We have come full circle.

What followed in Ukraine was the outlawing of both the Russian language and any political parties not partial to the new regime in Kyiv. Then in May 2014 a peaceful protest in Odessa was broken up by a mob and 30-40 Russian speakers were burned to death in a trade union building. An eight-year civil war ensued in the Donbass, leaving 15,000-18,000 dead, primarily in the Donbass.

In response to these events Russia annexed Crimea in order to protect the Russian-speaking citizens there, which constitute 76% of the population,^[15] as well as its only warm-water port in Sevastopol. In polls conducted by both the U.S. government Broadcasting Board of Governors and Gallup, the annexation was supported by 83% of Crimeans in both polls.^[16]

In 2018 the Pentagon published a new strategy, stating that “great power competition—not terrorism—is now the primary focus of U.S. national security.”^[17]

This was clearly and explicitly aimed at Russia and China. It is not immediately clear how Russia gained this sobriquet, being as Russia shares no border with the United States, was not at the time engaged in threats or active actions against any allies of the United States, and is frequently ridiculed as having an economy the size of Texas and/or Italy.

Russia was, however, in violation of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, insofar as it was resisting the eastward push of NATO.

On December 30, 2021, Putin and Biden held a 50-minute telephone conversation. In that conversation “he [Biden] said the United States did not intend to deploy offensive weapons in Ukraine.”^[18] However, on February 12, 2022, during another phone call between the two leaders, “The Kremlin said…it had received no ‘substantial answer’ on key elements including NATO’s expansion and the deployment of offensive forces to Ukraine.”^[19]

Given this history, coupled with the destruction visited on Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, is it any wonder that Russia had reservations about the benign intent of the United States and NATO? Nevertheless, Washington continued to draw Ukraine ever more tightly into the Western orbit.

Let’s review the history:

1. Two centuries of invasions of Russia through Ukraine
2. Over 100 years of Russophobia in the United States
3. Reneging on commitments not to expand NATO
4. Disrespect of Russian security needs beginning in the early 1990s
5. Direct and indirect involvement in the destruction of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen to the tune of 4.5-5 million dead and 38 million refugees^[20]
6. Installation of nuclear-capable missile batteries in Romania and Poland
7. Abdication of the ABM treaty
8. Encouragement/support of far-right neo-Nazi coup in Kyiv
9. Building of 12 CIA bases along the Ukraine/Russia border^[21]
10. Murder of 15,000-18,000 Russian-speaking citizens of the Donbass by Kyiv
11. Waffling on commitment not to put offensive weapons in Ukraine

Then on February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine.

Why was anyone surprised?

The Russians Are Coming! The Russians Are Coming!

Russophobia has been in the cultural air that is breathed in the United States since the 1920s. It began with the Palmer Raids^[22] and “Red Summer”^[23] of 1919. The United States, Britain, France and Japan put 200,000 soldiers in Archangel and Vladivostok in an attempt to overthrow the fledgling Soviet government from 1918-1925.^[24] The infamous House Committee on Un-American Activities^[25] (HUAC) was created in 1938. Then came the McCarthy Era^[26] and blacklists.

These feelings were exacerbated during the Cold War, but should have abated after the collapse of the USSR. Clearly that did not happen.

Reflections

This war is not about the evils of Vladimir Putin. It is not about the desire of the Russian state to regain its empire. It is, as has been stated by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin,^[27] Senator Lindsey Graham,^[28] Senator Mitt Romney,^[29] Congressman Adam Schiff and a host of others, a proxy war between the United States and Russia. The Ukrainians are simply unfortunate enough to be stuck in the middle.

Sun Tzu was a Chinese military general, strategist and philosopher who lived approximately 2,500 years ago. He was the author of “The Art of War,”^[30] a highly respected text that is taught at West Point and Sandhurst. One of Sun Tzu’s more famous observations was that:

1. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles
2. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat
3. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle

The United States has placed itself firmly in the third category by refusing to accept Russia’s legitimate security concerns, as well as operating as if the United States has the power to dictate the affairs of other nations.

It would have been better to have heeded Sun Tzu’s recommendation, which would be to “Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.”

---

So what hath Babbage wrought?

The parallels between the war in Ukraine and the beginning of World War I are particularly terrifying. The Archduke was assassinated in June. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Russia, a Serbian ally, declared war on Austria-Hungary. Germany, an Austro-Hungarian ally, declared war on Russia, France declared war on Germany and, finally, Britain entered the war. Four years later, and as a result of a series of unplanned escalations, 20 million lives had been extinguished.

Given this history, one might reasonably ask: “Who started World War I?” The answer, if there is one, is at best ambiguous. The more important question is “Why did World War I start?” A standard response is that a set of interlocking treaties rendered the international political scene unstable. While that is probably true, it begs the question that the underlying hostilities between nations presaged conflict, whatever the cause.

The current war in Ukraine is characterized by:

1. A set of interlocking treaties rendering the international political scene unstable
2. Underlying hostilities between nations that have presaged conflict
3. A series of unplanned escalations are increasing tensions on the world stage

It is 1914 redux. But this time with nuclear weapons.

---

No war is justifiable: not the Russian invasion of Ukraine; not the United States invasion of Iraq; not the Saudi assault on Yemen. But when war does erupt, it is crucial to dispassionately examine the predicates in order to determine, at the very least, cause and, if possible, responsibility. In this case it is evident that, absent 30 years of consistent and unnecessary provocations, this war in Ukraine need not have occurred.

The history recounted here is not obscure. It has been, however, largely ignored. It is public knowledge that the media have not only remained silent about but decried when it is brought up. This is entirely reminiscent of Ambassador Joe Wilson’s message about yellow cake, Germany’s warnings about “Curve Ball,” and Scott Ritter’s testimony regarding the absence of WMD in Iraq.

Nevertheless, the preponderance of legislators and media pundits continue to relentlessly pound the war drums, in apparent ignorance of history, and in spite of the dangers. The United States could be encouraging diplomacy or, in lieu of that, other alternatives to war. Instead, the United States has taken the path of supplying both weapons and bombastic rhetoric.

It is, and has been, the intention of the United States to persecute, if not dismember, the Russian state. At the end of the day the Ukrainian war has been predicated on a long series of policies and actions that have, as presaged by Kennan, Matlock, Burns, Sachs and others, resulted in driving Russia to invade Ukraine.

---

1. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early ↑

2. https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/george-h-w-bush-the-quintessential-realist/ ↑

3. https://sputnikglobe.com/20221012/western-experts-warned-for-years-that-adding-ukraine-to-nato-was-a-bad-idea-1101783479.html ↑

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_Russian_Federation#:~:text=The%20Russian%20economy%20has%20passed,experienced%20during%20the%20Great%20Depression. ↑

5. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/coldwar/documents/episode-1/kennan.htm ↑

6. https://www.nytimes.com/1997/02/05/opinion/a-fateful-error.html ↑

7. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/02/15/the-origins-of-the-ukraine-crisis-and-how-conflict-can-be-avoided/ ↑

8. https://www.jeffsachs.org/ ↑

9. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/opinion/ukraine-russia-invasion-west.html ↑

10. https://ianjsinclair.wordpress.com/2023/07/19/testimony-from-us-government-and-military-officials-and-other-experts-on-the-role-of-nato-expansion-in-creating-the-conditions-for-the-russian-invasion-of-ukraine/ ↑

11. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html ↑

12. https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/08MOSCOW265_a.html ↑

13. https://2009-2017.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2013/dec/218804.htm ↑

14. https://www.westminsterpapers.org/article/115/galley/3512/download/ ↑

15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#:~:text=82%25%20Russian,3%25%20Russian%20and%20Ukrainian%20equally ↑

16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Crimean_status_referendum#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Gallup’s%20survey,families%2C%20while%205.5%25%20disagree. ↑

17. https://www.defenseone.com/policy/2018/01/mattis-declares-pentagon-will-shift-focus-great-power-competition-not-terrorism/145305/ ↑

18. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/biden-putin-hold-second-call-this-month-ukraine-tensions-simmer-2021-12-30/ ↑

19. https://www.reuters.com/world/biden-putin-speak-ukraine-warnings-mount-2022-02-12/ ↑

20. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/figures ↑

21. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/25/world/europe/cia-ukraine-intelligence-russia-war.html ↑

22. https://www.history.com/topics/cold-war/palmer-raids ↑

23. https://www.theworldwar.org/learn/about-wwi/red-summer ↑

24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War ↑

25. https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/presidential-inquiries/house-un-american-activities-committee ↑

26. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism ↑

27. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/25/russia-weakened-lloyd-austin-ukraine-visit/ ↑

28. https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-condemns-us-senator-grahams-comments-death-russians-2023-05-28/ ↑

29. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/03/mitt-romney-was-wrong-about-russia.html ↑

30. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu ↑

---

CovertAction Magazine is made possible by subscriptions, orders and donations from readers like you.

Blow the Whistle on U.S. Imperialism

Click the whistle and donate

When you donate to CovertAction Magazine, you are supporting investigative journalism. Your contributions go directly to supporting the development, production, editing, and dissemination of the Magazine.

CovertAction Magazine does not receive corporate or government sponsorship. Yet, we hold a steadfast commitment to providing compensation for writers, editorial and technical support. Your support helps facilitate this compensation as well as increase the caliber of this work.

Please make a donation by clicking on the donate logo above and enter the amount and your credit or debit card information.

CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and your gift is tax-deductible for federal income purposes. CAI’s tax-exempt ID number is 87-2461683.

We sincerely thank you for your support.

---

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are the sole responsibility of the author(s). CovertAction Institute, Inc. (CAI), including its Board of Directors (BD), Editorial Board (EB), Advisory Board (AB), staff, volunteers and its projects (including CovertAction Magazine) are not responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. This article also does not necessarily represent the views the BD, the EB, the AB, staff, volunteers, or any members of its projects.

Differing viewpoints: CAM publishes articles with differing viewpoints in an effort to nurture vibrant debate and thoughtful critical analysis. Feel free to comment on the articles in the comment section and/or send your letters to the Editors, which we will publish in the Letters column.

Copyrighted Material: This web site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a not-for-profit charitable organization incorporated in the State of New York, we are making such material available in an effort to advance the understanding of humanity’s problems and hopefully to help find solutions for those problems. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. You can read more about ‘fair use’ and US Copyright Law at the Legal Information Institute of Cornell Law School.

Republishing: CovertAction Magazine (CAM) grants permission to cross-post CAM articles on not-for-profit community internet sites as long as the source is acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original CovertAction Magazine article. Also, kindly let us know at info@CovertActionMagazine.com. For publication of CAM articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: info@CovertActionMagazine.com.

By using this site, you agree to these terms above.

---

About the Author