The Ukraine Conflict: Geopolitical Hypocrisy and the Role of the West

Dr Amjad Ayub Mirza – The ongoing war in Ukraine has been a focal point of global politics, highlighting deep-rooted tensions between NATO and Russia. From the heated meeting between President Zelensky and Donald Trump to the UK’s controversial financial support using frozen Russian assets, several key developments raise critical questions about NATO’s role and Russia’s position in the conflict.

The meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former U.S. President Donald Trump in the White House held on March 1 was a tense affair. Reports suggest that Zelensky acted stubbornly, demanding continued military and financial support for Ukraine’s war efforts against Russia as well as ‘security guarantees’ against Russia. This raises the question: was Zelensky acting independently, or was he following instructions from Democrats? @amuseclaims on its X and I quote, “Obama’s team including Anthony Blinken, Victoria Nuland, Susan Rice and AlexanderVindman advised Zelensky to reject Trump’s deal in violation of the Logan Act” .

Given the political landscape in the U.S., it would not be surprising if Zelensky had been encouraged to take a tough stance. The Democratic establishment has been one of the strongest supporters of Ukraine’s war efforts, viewing the conflict as a means to weaken Russia strategically. By pushing Zelensky to pressure Trump—who has been skeptical of unconditional aid to Ukraine—Democrats could be attempting to box him into a corner. If Trump refuses to provide further assistance to Ukraine, he risks being labelled as “soft on Russia.” On the other hand, if he agrees to support Ukraine, he would be contradicting his previous stance on trying to end the war in Ukraine as soon as possible as well as his commitment to reducing U.S. involvement in foreign wars.

Zelensky’s behaviour in the meeting indicates that he sees continued Western support as essential for Ukraine’s andperhaps his own survival. However, such unwavering dependency on foreign aid only strengthens the argument that Ukraine has become a pawn in a larger geopolitical game.

One of the most glaring contradictions in Western rhetoric is the claim that Russia is an expansionist power while in actuality NATO itself continues to expand eastward. The historical record is clear: after the collapse of the Soviet Union, then-U.S. Secretary of State James Baker promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” However, over the following decades, nearly every single Eastern European country including the Balkan countries joined NATO, bringing the alliance closer to Russia’s borders.

Despite this blatant breach of trust, Western powers continue to paint Russia as the aggressor. The reality is that Russia has never pursued expansionism in the way Western powers have. Moscow’s military actions have always been reactionary—whether in Georgia (2008), Crimea (2014), or Ukraine (2022). In each case, Russia responded to perceived threats to its security, particularly NATO’s encroachment.

The West’s narrative conveniently ignores its own history of military interventions, from Iraq to Libya to Afghanistan. The U.S. and NATO have repeatedly justified invasions under the guise of “defending democracy” while condemning Russia for taking defensive measures. This double standard exposes NATO’s hypocrisy and the real motives behind its aggressive policies in Eastern Europe.

The UK’s decision to provide Ukraine with a nearly $3 billion loan—funded by frozen Russian assets—sets a dangerous precedent. Britain, along with France and other NATO members, is effectively repurposing Russian state funds to sustain a war effort that has little chance of achieving a decisive victory.

This move not only escalates the conflict but also raises serious legal and ethical questions. The freezing of Russian assets was initially justified as a sanctions measure, not as a war fund for Ukraine. By redirecting these funds, the UK is further entrenching itself in the conflict and ensuring that diplomatic solutions remain out of reach.

Britain and France’s actions are reminiscent of Cold War-era strategies designed to keep Russia isolated and weakened. Their involvement in Ukraine is less about defending “democracy” and more about prolonging the war to serve NATO’s broader geopolitical objectives. The continued militarization of Ukraine benefits Western arms manufacturers and strengthens NATO’s influence, but it comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.

NATO and Western media have consistently portrayed President Zelensky as a heroic figure standing against Russian aggression. However, a more critical assessment suggests that he is more of a NATO puppet than an independent leader.

Zelensky, who once campaigned on a platform of seeking peace with Russia, has fully aligned himself with NATO’s agenda. Under his leadership, Ukraine has not only rejected diplomatic negotiations but has also deepened its reliance on Western military support. His government has implemented policies that suppress political opposition, restrict media freedom, and prolong the war.

A true hero would prioritize the well-being of his people and seek a negotiated settlement to prevent further destruction. Instead, Zelensky has chosen to escalate the conflict, fully aware that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia militarily. His willingness to sacrifice Ukraine’s future for NATO’s strategic interests raises serious questions about his leadership.

If the goal is to end the war rather than prolong it, several key steps must be taken. Firstly, in order to achieve peace Ukraine should agree to an immediate ceasefire to prevent further loss of life. NATO should halt military shipments to Ukraine.

Secondly, the most practical solution for Ukraine is to adopt a neutral status, similar to Finland during the Cold War. This would reassure Russia while allowing Ukraine to maintain sovereignty without being a NATO outpost.

Thirdly, economic sanctions on Russia have failed to affectMoscow, instead sanctions have harmed global markets. Removing these sanctions in exchange for diplomatic concessions could pave the way for peace talks.

Fourthly, NATO must provide written guarantees that Ukraine will not become a member and that further eastward expansion will cease.

And finally, direct negotiations between Russia and Ukrainemust resume without preconditions. The longer diplomacy is delayed, the higher the cost in human lives and economic devastation.

While the West often downplays Russia’s contributions to global stability, history tells a different story. The Soviet Union played a decisive role in liberating Europe from Nazi Germany during World War II. The Red Army’s victory at Stalingrad marked a turning point in the war, and Soviet forces were responsible for liberating major European cities, including Berlin.

The West, particularly the U.S. and the UK, often credits itself for defeating fascism, but without the Soviet Union’s sacrifices—over 27 million Soviet citizens lost their lives—the outcome of World War II would have been different. This historical truth is particularly relevant today, as Western powers accuse Russia of aggression while ignoring their own history of militarism.

The war in Ukraine is a direct result of NATO’s expansionist policies and the West’s refusal to engage in genuine diplomacy. Zelensky, rather than being a hero, has become a tool for NATO’s larger objectives. The hypocrisy of Western powers is evident in their selective interpretation of international law, their continued militarization of Ukraine, and their misuse of Russian assets.

If peace is to be achieved, NATO must end its provocations, and Ukraine must adopt a neutral stance. Until then, the conflict will continue to serve as a battleground for Western geopolitical interests—at the expense of Ukrainian and Russian lives.

Dr Amjad Ayub Mirza is a senior journalist and foreign affairs analyst based in the UK. He can be reached at amjadshabmir@gmail.com