Since the beginning of the war, the West has said that it is an unprovoked invasion and that it has nothing to do with the expansion of NATO. One of the reporters of this propaganda was NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. But on September 7, 2023, Stoltenberg himself explained to us that Vladimir Putin presented a draft treaty to NATO in autumn 2021 for the alliance to refuse to expand. In the words of the NATO secretary, this was a condition for not invading Ukraine, but he was proud to tell us that they had not signed.

In the 1990s, the West spoke to Moscow that NATO would not extend eastward. However, the Atlantic alliance extended to fourteen countries and reached the borders of Russia, where it put missiles. He had to swallow the fragile Moscow then, but had a clear limitation: Ukraine and Georgia. In 2008, however, NATO promised both countries that they would join NATO in the future. The problem, however, was with the Ukrainians, the supporters of NATO integration were a minority and, on the contrary, the absolute majority was in favour of neutrality or of joining the Organization of the Collective Security Pact run by the Russians.

The transformation of this reality was one of the functions of the Maidan 2013 mobilizations, which ended on 22 February 2014 with the coup d’état against “Russian” President Viktor Janukovich. In Maidan Square in Kiev, the massacre of some snipers against citizens and policemen was decisive. But the West had no interest in investigations, images, self-inculations, and judgment about the massacre. The ruling, published by the Ukrainian courts on 20 October 2023, confirmed that many demonstrators and policemen were shot by snipers at the Hotel Ukraine, controlled by Maidan protesters.

Following the coup, Russia annexed the Crime and the Ukrainian Government launched an attack on the Donbass development. In this context, as Stoltenberg pointed out, since 2014 NATO has offered Ukraine unprecedented military assistance, trained, equipped and protected by its armed forces. Meanwhile, during the Donbass civil war, Russia participated more directly in at least two moments through mercenaries or soldiers in disguise. At that time, peace agreements were reached in Minsk with the Ukrainian army in a critical situation. However, in the last two years we have known that Ukraine and the West never intended to comply with what was agreed.

From
the invasion to the peace negotiations Now few say that Kremlin’s main objective through the invasion was not to take all Ukraine, but to create the conditions for changing the Ukrainian Government or forcing the Ukrainian State to sign an agreement that would safeguard Moscow’s interests. But the Russian Government calculated very badly. For example, Israel has mobilized half of the number of soldiers used by the Russians to invade a territory 13,000 times smaller than Ukraine. Moscow thought that with some 200,000 armed men it would achieve its goals, although the Ukrainian army tripled or quadrupled the number of Russian soldiers.

From the very beginning, the Government of Ukraine and the army showed their readiness and determination for the struggle. Kremlin's strategic calculations failed, there was no massive surrender, no government resignation, no coup d'état. In the first month of the invasion, the Russians achieved basic operational objectives, but the loss of soldiers and materials was very high.

The governments of both countries had many incentives to achieve a peace scenario. The former Israeli minister, Naftali Bennett, explained that Israel had mediated in the negotiations of the beginning of the war and that both sides were willing to put things on the right track. Oleksi Arestovich, former advisor to Volodimir Zelenski and representative of Ukraine at the 2022 spring peace talks, explains that what was agreed then was very good for Kiev. Ukraine would regain territorial unity by eliminating crime and would set a period of fifteen years to discuss its status. All in return for Ukraine not to join NATO. Arestovich acknowledged that the Ukrainians opened a bottle of champagne when they heard it. This has been endorsed by sources such as Oleksandr Chalyi, a Ukrainian diplomat who participated in the negotiations, or Vladimir Putin himself, in interviews and statements.

But according to Ukrainska Pravda, a lover of Zelenski, the USA and the UK, the Ukrainian Government was forced to suspend the negotiations. A similar story was made by the intermediaries, Bennette, Gerhard Schröder and the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mevlut Cavusoglu, host of the peace dialogues.

Zelenski party leader David Arakhamia explained that Russia was ready to end the war in exchange for Ukraine’s neutrality. He also stated that Western countries knew everything about the peace dialogues and told Zelenski not to sign a peace agreement. In this regard, he added that, as explained by Ukrainska Pravda, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson told Ukrainians to continue fighting on his visit to Kiev on 9 April 2022. On the same day, Josep Borrell, High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, said: “This war will be won on the battlefield.”

Until June there were attempts to recover the negotiations, but they all failed because the West insisted that it was not a time of peace, but a time of war. In return, Zelenski reportedly got a candidate for EU membership.

From that moment on, the West arms Ukraine, trains, conducts, commands the mercenaries, puts at its service all the military intelligence and economically supports the state. Because politicians in the West and Ukraine have reminded us time and again that Ukraine is waging war at the service of NATO, and that's what we basically have. A war between Russia and NATO using Ukraine. Josep Borrell explained: "If we do not help Ukraine, it falls within a few days," so "you cannot increase the well-being of people, hospitals, schools and cities, because that money is needed by Ukraine. Don't tell me to stop the war in Ukraine, because if I stop helping Ukraine, the war will surely end."

The different faces of the war were hard
2022 years for Russia. September was key. Ukraine successfully counter-attacked the Kharkive front and recovered 12,000 square kilometres. Moscow announced the partial mobilisation of the reservists and the annexation of four Ukrainian regions. The answer was the famous attack on the North Stream gas pipelines, which transport gas from Russia to Germany. According to the prestigious journalist Seymour Hersh, it was an attack by the United States.

In 2023 the front was somewhat paralysed, Russia learns from its mistakes and begins to prepare for a long-term conventional war. The keys to winning would be the industrial capacity and human resources of each army. In both factors, Russian hegemony was clear. NATO could not and still cannot produce enough armaments for Ukraine. However, the Western media and the chancelleries told us that the Russian army was going to collapse at any time: that they had no arms supplies, that they took arms chips out of the washing machines and that the collapse of the Russian political regime was going to come.

On the front, Russia has been implementing the strategy of eroding the military capabilities of Ukraine and NATO for some time. So in the summer of 2023, the Ukrainian army was weakened and its counter-attack failed. To compensate for its weakness, Kiev reproduces the military and terrorist attacks on Russian lands.

In 2024 the situation in Ukraine is worse. Now, Russia moves faster on the front. Kiev has few soldiers and has great problems for the recovery of people. This year, however, there seems to be no peace negotiations. On the one hand, the Western authorities do not want to negotiate from weakness, which in June will have elections to the European Parliament and in November those of the United States, and, on the other hand, Russia now feels more comfortable, adapted to the military and economic war.

The political and military instability that Moscow suffered until mid-2023 has been left behind. Few recall the massive socioeconomic and political protest against the government that was underway in Russia until the beginning of the invasion or armed uprising of the paramilitary group Wagner on St. John's day of 2023 against Kremlin. In the presidential elections to be held in March, Putin could achieve one of the greatest defenders of history. The political regime is becoming more and more authoritarian, but at the same time its support is coming together, as is often the case in the wars that provoke an external enemy. Among the Russians, the invasion did not arouse much desire and the critics were few. But when the war broke out, NATO not only put the Russian Federation in its sights, but all Russian citizens. Persecution of the Russians extended to the economy, culture, education and sport. Subsequently, as NATO’s military involvement is strengthened, the image of “fighting an external enemy” among the Russians is consolidated. This has united the regime and reinforced nationalist discourse. To all this, it must be added that in the economic war Russia is achieving great victories. Their economy grows more than the West. At home, Neo-Keynesian public policies for the war economy are being implemented, boosting wealth distribution and increasing investment in public services.

However, the economic war against Russia has seriously damaged the European Union. The crisis of EE.UU. in Ukraine in 2014 has intensified and strengthened: Destroy the Berlin-Mosku-Beijing economic axis and put it at the service of EU Washington interests. The economic consequences are dramatic, as Josep Borrell explained: “Our prosperity has been based on economic energy from Russia. Russian gas and access to the large Chinese market: exports and imports, technology transfers, investments (and) cheap products.”

This stage is over. Now, instead of Russian gas, the United States sells theirs to Europe much more expensive and reinforces the increase in the price of energy. Consequently, inflation is torn apart, the euro is sinking and European industry is losing competitiveness in international markets. For many companies, the solution is to leave Europe and leave to the US, where the price of energy is three to four times cheaper, because they have subsidies. As if that were not enough, the NATO countries are making significant increases in their military spending for the benefit of the US military industry.

In Ukraine the situation is worse. Alongside the destruction of war, the economy is in a coma. The country is living from the economic transfers that come from the West and in many cases manages that money in a corrupt way. Moreover, the country ' s economic neocolonization has reached a high speed. While land and resources are being privatized for the benefit of Western companies, they impose neoliberal policies on citizens. In this regard, they have been designated as responsible for the Ukraine Reconstruction Fund, the world’s largest BlackRock investment fund in EE.UU. JPMorgan Chase.

Ukrainian authoritarianism is soft. It bans parties and media, welcomes opponents and feeds the ideology and positions of the extreme nationalist right. But it is soft, sovereign and protective for lack of citizens. That is why Volodimir Zelenski decides not to hold presidential elections and change all military authority.

The prospect of
the future Sergei Shoigue, Russian Defense Minister, suggests that by 2025 the end of the war may come. If Ukraine maintained it more or less this year, by 2025 it would prepare a renewed counter-attack to reach a stronger negotiating scene, but if it comes very weakened, the negotiation would become more complicated. Zelenski has a very difficult sell to Ukrainian citizens who will have much less territory than the peace agreements that they did not want to fulfil or sign. NATO would not wish such an obvious failure either, and there has been an increase in the new risks in recent weeks.

One of the options on the table before weakening Ukraine is the most direct involvement of NATO, perhaps with the direct involvement of a member to help Ukraine in the war. This requires two conditions to be worked out. The first is to psychologically train European citizens for such a war and the second is to provoke or produce a casus belli.

A few months ago Russia was going to collapse, which with immense losses has been able to occupy 20% of Ukraine. It is now a real danger to the Atlantic alliance. The German Defence Minister says that Russia could attack NATO within five years. European countries such as Sweden, Finland, Poland or the Baltic countries have made similar statements in which they have pointed out to their citizens that they must prepare for a possible war. Rob Bauer, chairman of the NATO Military Commission, makes it clear: “The West must be prepared for the war against Russia.” And Stoltenberg announces a long-term conflict: “We have to prepare for the struggle against Russia for decades.”

The situation is worrying because the conflicts in the world are connecting. As soon as Israel begins the genocide in Gaza, the Global South has seen more abruptly the double morale of the West that it knew. In this regard, when Stoltenberg presumes that what Putin has achieved with the invasion of Ukraine is to increase the extent and cohesion of the alliance, he forgets that reality is more complicated.

As in a game of mirrors, just as NATO has been strengthened, Russia has strengthened its relations with China, Iran and other countries in the global South. Thus, where there were no blocs, it now exists, although it is not as defined and cohesive as that of the West, because it is the convergence of national interests that are articulated from a multipolar strategy to a common threat and enemy.

Building blocks or uniting existing ones in places where they did not exist creates conditions for linking global conflicts and reaching the third world war. All ongoing wars have their own characteristics and logic that differentiate them. But when these conflicts begin to align the interests of the international powers, we approach the global war. The statements of the historic leader of the Democratic Party, Nancy Pelos, are in this logic: "We have to try to curb suffering in Gaza, but calling a ceasefire is a message from Mr Putin. Don't confuse, that has to do with what he would want to see."