NATO Is the Big Obstacle to Peace In Ukraine

During his recent presidential campaign, Donald Trump often claimed to have a secret strategy for ending the war in Ukraine. He confidently suggested he could bring the conflict to a close within a day or so of taking office. Now, Trump and individuals tied to his administration are reportedly engaging with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other officials in an effort to negotiate an end to the fighting. They’re also exploring the possibility of improving U.S.-Russia relations. However, there’s a significant obstacle standing in the way of resolving the Ukraine-Russia conflict: NATO. Originally formed during the Cold War, NATO has persisted long after the fall of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Instead of disbanding, it expanded and, in doing so, became a key factor in the tensions that ultimately led to the war. This crucial context is often ignored or dismissed by mainstream media in the United States. For much of the press, the war started the moment Russian forces crossed into Ukraine. The events, policies, and decisions that preceded the invasion are largely treated as irrelevant or unimportant. But those earlier developments are far from irrelevant. Failing to address NATO’s role in the lead-up to the war complicates efforts to achieve lasting peace. Without acknowledging the broader context and the grievances it has caused, attempts to resolve the conflict in a meaningful way may be doomed to fall short. This overlooked piece of the puzzle could be the reason the war continues to drag on with no resolution in sight. Ending the fighting will require confronting and addressing these longstanding issues, whether the media chooses to acknowledge them or not.
NATO is the aggressor not Russia
U.S. officials had repeatedly assured Russia that NATO wouldn’t expand beyond its existing borders. They gave these promises publicly and privately, but they didn’t keep them. Instead, NATO pushed eastward, bringing its military presence — missiles, tanks, troops, and aircraft — closer to Russia’s doorstep. So why would U.S. policymakers press forward with NATO’s expansion, knowing how provocative it would be? The answer lies in their desire to re-establish Russia as a convenient adversary. During the Cold War, Russia served as America’s “official enemy,” justifying massive defence spending and solidifying U.S. dominance on the global stage. Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, many in Washington weren’t ready to let go of that dynamic. By pushing NATO closer to Russia, they knew they were lighting a fuse. They understood, without question, that Russia would see this as a direct threat. They also knew exactly how they’d react if Russia stationed military forces in Cuba or Mexico — it’d ignite outrage, even war. Russia made its position crystal clear. Moscow repeatedly warned that if Ukraine moved toward joining NATO, it would act decisively to prevent it. Russian leaders didn’t mince words — they stated that Ukraine’s NATO membership was a red line. Yet, NATO continued to hint at Ukraine’s potential inclusion, knowing it would likely provoke a military response. When Russia finally invaded Ukraine, Western leaders and media labelled it as outright aggression, decrying the move as illegal. And they weren’t wrong legally. Russia had no legal right to invade, and Ukraine had every legal right to join NATO. But what officials and press coverage conveniently sidestepped was the broken promise of NATO’s non-expansion. This broken agreement was the root of the war. Acknowledging this pre-invasion history is essential when discussing a potential peace settlement. NATO and its allies paint Russia as an unprovoked aggressor bent on domination. But if that perspective is taken at face value, how can there ever be a meaningful resolution? The war didn’t start because Russia suddenly decided to invade; it started because the U.S. and NATO ignored Russia’s repeated warnings about Ukraine and NATO’s expansion. Ending the conflict requires acknowledging the events that triggered it, not oversimplifying them for convenience.
Who Really Profits from The Ukraine War?
Few people understand what the war in Ukraine means for big business – namely, opportunity. It’s not just the weapons and reconstruction contracts. Ukraine’s vast agricultural lands – among the most fertile in the world – are up for grabs, and American companies like BlackRock are at the front of the line.
JP Morgan, BlackRock, McKinsey & Company, collaborating with Ukraine Gvt for reconstruction fund
JP Morgan, BlackRock, and McKinsey & Company are working with the Ukrainian government to create a fund for rebuilding the country. This fund aims to draw in large investments for reconstruction, with costs estimated between $400 billion and $1 trillion. Named the Fund for the Development of Ukraine, it will use a blended finance model to gather both public and private money, focusing on important areas like infrastructure, climate, and agriculture. BlackRock and JP Morgan have volunteered to manage this fund, applying their knowledge of financial markets and debt management. The goal is to have the fund fully operational once the war concludes, although discussions are already taking place at international conferences. The partnership among these American firms to help rebuild Ukraine underscores the irony of the current geopolitical climate. As they seek to raise vast sums for a country torn by conflict, these financial leaders find themselves in the role of rescuers, despite having influenced the financial policies that contributed to the crisis.
JP Morgan, BlackRock, McKinsey & Company
The United States has a history of causing instability around the world through its foreign policies and military actions. This is also true in Ukraine. From the start of the crisis in Ukraine, it was clear that the U.S. aimed to weaken Russia and increase Western influence in the region. This situation becomes more complicated when we note that many financial institutions now involved in rebuilding Ukraine have gained significantly from wars and the turmoil in global markets. JP Morgan and BlackRock are key players in the global financial landscape. Both have a track record of funding military operations and supporting governments that foster conflict. JP Morgan has long been associated with financing wars and supporting authoritarian governments. Meanwhile, BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, has investments in nearly all major defense companies that profit from producing weapons used in conflicts like the one in Ukraine.
Institutions that financed destruction are now celebrated as leaders of reconstruction
This dichotomy is alarming: the same institutions that financed destruction are now celebrated as leaders of reconstruction. The “fund of reconstruction” proposed for Ukraine is not just a humanitarian effort; it is also a strategic maneuver to ensure that Western capital has control over the country’s future assets and economic infrastructure. The reconstruction of Ukraine, costing up to a trillion dollars, presents a lucrative opportunity for these companies, which are now seen as saviors. Furthermore, McKinsey & Company’s presence on the project adds an additional layer of criticism, as the consulting firm has frequently been accused of unethical practices and collusion with corrupt regimes. McKinsey’s lack of transparency and controversial practices call into question the integrity of the reconstruction process.
Ukraine War is a plan to usher in the One World Government
In the year 2014, Jacques Attali, a prominent figure involved in the concepts surrounding what is now referred to as the Great Reset, made an interesting prediction during an appearance on French television. He suggested that the catalyst for World War III would be a conflict arising from Ukraine. At the same time, Nicolas Sarkozy, who was the President of France and had been influenced by Attali’s ideas, made a concerning statement about global governance. Sarkozy emphasized that the world was moving towards a “new world order,” declaring that there would be collective progress in this direction. He added a stern warning that no one, under any circumstances, would be able to stand in the way of this change. There is nothing new under the sun. We already knew because prophesy has already told us.
Written by Tatenda Belle Panashe