In several interviews conducted by the excellent Glenn Diesen, the question submitted to his guests often concerned the reasons for Europe’s bellicose behavior toward Russia. The contrast is striking when compared to the other participants in the conflict. It is possible to grasp what motivates the United States. One can also understand Russia and explain what happened in Ukraine. But what about Europe and its increasingly warlike stance? This is the real mystery. To unravel it, however, it is first necessary to place the question in a broader context by recalling the motivations of each party.
American motivations
For the United States, the stakes were economic and financial. The dollar, as the world’s reserve currency, risked losing ground. To stop this decline, it was essential to ensure that the planet’s vital resources, particularly oil and gas, would be traded in petrodollars. The Persian Gulf states were no longer alone in the race as producers and exporters. To counter currency competition, the United States had to assert dominance over countries likely to sell oil and gas in other currencies.
First, there was the Caspian Sea oil that could be transported to the West via Afghanistan. Since the Taliban refused to cooperate, the decision was made to attack the country well before the events of September 11, 2001. The Americans invaded it under the pretext of searching for Osama bin Laden, even though he was in Pakistan. Here is what the website Investig’action reports on the events following the American intervention of October 7, 2001: “ On December 22, Hamid Karzai became the new Afghan Prime Minister. He was a trusted figure at the CIA and worked as an advisor to Unocal. This is a very large US oil company that has long had pipeline projects across Afghanistan.”
(…)
Nine days later, another advisor from that company, Zalmay Khalilzad, was appointed by Bush as special envoy to Afghanistan. Khalilzad had previously participated in discussions with Taliban officials about the possibility of building gas and oil pipelines. He had urged the Clinton administration to adopt a softer stance toward the Taliban.
(…)
The two men fulfilled their mission. On May 30, 2002, the BBC reported that Mr. Karzai had reached an agreement with his Pakistani and Turkmen counterparts for the construction of a pipeline linking Turkmenistan to a port in Pakistan, via Afghanistan.” If we continue along this line of reasoning, we can better understand what the American motivations were. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 aimed to make the country a US neocolony and to ensure the presence of HKN Energy (2007) and Chevron (2012) in Kurdistan, in the North of the country, where the oil is located.
The Syrian war began in March 2011 following Bashar al-Assad’s decision to prioritize the Iranian gas pipeline project over the Qatari one. This explains why Qatar was at the forefront of the conflict. This intervention would later allow the Americans to occupy a third of Syria. By Donald Trump’s own admission, the purpose was to exploit the oil resources. The rise to power of the Al-Qaeda leader led to a reconciliation that revealed the fraudulent nature of the fight against terrorism so loudly proclaimed after the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2011. In trademark CIA fashion, the sworn enemy became a trusted ally. The underlying interests should instead lead us to follow the pipeline routes.
The intervention of three NATO countries in Libya in March 2011 was clearly also motivated by the desire to control this major oil producer, but it was also deemed necessary to counter Muammar Gaddafi’s plan to create a pan-African currency, the Gold Dinar. It is also understandable why France was at the forefront of this intervention. The Gold Dinar posed a threat not only to the US dollar, but also to the CFA franc.
The support of the Americans for Saudi Arabia in March 2015 in the war against Ansarullah (Houthis) in Yemen demonstrated the interest that the United States has in the Saudi ally, but also in the control of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait.
Genocide in Gaza since 2023, ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, and war against Hezbollah in Lebanon are all actions that reinforce the US presence in West Asia. This joint US-Israeli influence was expected to reach its peak with the expansion of the « Abraham » Accords to include Saudi Arabia. This agreement was all the more urgent given that China had succeeded in reconciling the Saudis with the Iranians, at a time when the Saudis were considering joining the BRICS and had begun selling their oil to China using the yuan.
This also sheds light on the reasons behind the 2025 seizure of Venezuelan ships supplying China. The replacement of President Maduro by the Vice President in early 2026 would lead to the takeover of the country’s oil resources.
The wars against Iran in 2025 and 2026 were launched because the country is an obstacle to American-Israeli domination of West Asia and because it sells its oil to China outside the SWIFT system. American obstinacy in Iran (even Israel has had to throw in the towel for the time being) is the result of impulsive decisions by an unstable president who is easily deceived, but it fits coherently within the ideal framework of a unipolar world under American hegemony.
Upon returning to power, Donald Trump certainly wanted to simply close lucrative deals and end the wars. But the deep state quickly convinced him that the United States would benefit greatly if European countries took over the wars, committed to investing more in military equipment, and sourced their supplies from the United States.
Russian motivations
It is against this backdrop that we must understand the American desire to also confront Russia. With the unipolar era over, fears arose among US authorities that the rug was being pulled out from under their feet. The rise of China and the recovery of the Russian economy were two significant new sources of concern. The dollar, as the world’s reserve currency, was losing ground. While it accounted for 70% of international trade at the turn of the millennium, twenty years later that percentage had fallen to 58%.
The Americans had long aimed to decouple Russia from Europe and end the oil and gas trade. By creating conditions that would compel Russia to invade Ukraine, they could justify a blockade of Russia (“sanctions”) and force Europe to forgo Russian oil and gas. Far from being “sanctions” imposed in response to a Russian invasion of Ukraine, the escalation provoked by the United States was intended to force Russia to intervene in Ukraine, thereby convincing Europe to stop importing Russian oil and gas. The propaganda campaign announcing an unprovoked Russian aggression was in full swing. It was so successful that it also allowed the United States to sabotage the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline without any European reaction.
The war in Ukraine is not the result of a conflict between Ukraine and Russia, but rather the result of a proxy war between the United States and Russia. To simply assert that there is an aggressor, Russia, and a victim, Ukraine, is to refuse to examine the historical context. It is to rely on the sensationalist reporting of the mainstream media. It is to ignore the events that preceded February 24, 2022. This stems from the same narrow-mindedness as the claim that the conflict in Gaza began on October 7, 2023.
The statements by Adam Schiff, Lloyd Austin, Lindsay Graham, Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Oliver North, Keith Kellogg, Mitt Romney, and Bill Kristol left no doubt about the American intention to use Ukraine to weaken Russia. This was spectacularly confirmed by Marco Rubio’s official declaration in 2025, which acknowledged outright and unequivocally that the United States had waged a proxy war against Russia.
The roadmap proposed in a 2019 Rand Corporation document clearly outlined the plan to destabilize Russia. The authors also asserted, however, that this escalation would inevitably trigger a Russian counter-escalation.
Despite these warnings, the decision was made to implement the plan and follow it to the letter. Wasn’t this precisely to provoke a counter-escalation that could then justify the hoped-for economic decoupling of Europe from Russia? This seems likely, as the warnings came from all quarters, not just from the Rand. From 1997 to 2022, several red flags began flashing. George F. Kennan, the architect of the USSR containment strategy; former US ambassadors to Russia William Burns and Jack Matlock; former CIA director Robert Gates; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; former Under Secretary of Defense Chas Freeman ; National Security Council member and Russia expert Fionna Hill; and Chargé d’Affaires at the Russian Embassy in Moscow, Daniel Russell, all warned of the dangers involved. As everyone knows, John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago, Stephen F. Cohen, the late professor at NYU and Princeton, and Noam Chomsky, the internationally renowned intellectual, were at the forefront of this discussion. They, too, tried to dissuade the American administration from promising NATO membership to Ukraine. Even Barack Obama, the former Democratic president, tried in vain to make it clear that Ukraine was of vital interest to Russia, but not to the United States. Even more surprisingly, the most ardent expansionist hawks, Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski (the latter being the author of The Grand Chessboard in 1997), came to the realization that Ukraine, while independent, should remain neutral, just like Austria.
If the American authorities ignored these warnings, it must be concluded that it was precisely because they wanted to provoke a counter-escalation. They thus multiplied their provocations. These began well before 2022 and even before 2014. There were numerous events, including: the presence of the NED (National Endowment for Democracy) in countries bordering Russia; the “color revolutions” fomented under its impetus, in 2004 in Ukraine and in 2008 in Georgia; the American withdrawal from the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) treaty in 2002 and the INF (intermediate-range nuclear missile) treaty in 2019; the hybrid defense systems installed in Poland and Romania; the five billion dollars invested in Ukraine by the United States to finance “regime change”; the meetings between senators (J. McCain, L. Graham, C. Murphy, J. Biden) and V. Nuland with the three Ukrainian opposition leaders; and the American funding of the Maidan uprising (tents, shows, food, buses), the repeated presence of the United States on Ukrainian territory after the coup (Kerry, Brennan, Biden), the role of the United States in the formation of the government. This included the appointment of the prime minister (Arseniy Yatsenyuk), the sidelining of the two other opposition leaders (Vitali Klitschko, Oleg Tyanibok), the appointment of four members from the neo-Nazi Freedom party to ministerial positions, the appointment of Maidan commander Andriy Parubiy as secretary of defense and national security, the appointment of a naturalized Ukrainian American (Natalie Jaresko) as finance minister, the dismissal of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin by Joe Biden, the appointment of the notorious pro-American, former president of Georgia, as governor of Odessa (Mikheil Saakashvili), and the appointment of Hunter Biden to the board of directors of the Burisma company. In terms of interference, it is difficult to do more.
The new government installed in Kiev repealed the 2012 law protecting the rights of the Russian-speaking minority the day after the coup. In response to the Russian-speaking uprising, a civil war was launched by the neo-Nazi group Azov against the Russian-speaking population of Donbas. The United States provided training for the Ukrainian army. The sham Minsk agreements served to mask preparations for war. US authorities refused to negotiate agreements proposed by Russia concerning security in Europe. In early 2022, Joe Biden abandoned the promise made in December 2021 not to deploy on Ukrainian soil nuclear missiles capable of reaching Moscow in minutes. Finally, following the special military operation launched on February 24, 2022, the Russians faced the breakdown of negotiations that had been fruitful between Ukraine and Russia. All of these facts demonstrate that the United States was seeking to provoke Russia.
This helps us better understand Russia’s motivations. It wasn’t on the offensive, but rather on the defensive. It was crucial to react quickly to avoid being presented with a fait accompli: intermediate-range missiles deployed on Ukrainian territory. Russia understood that it had to intervene, but without falling into the trap of a huge military escalation. Russian authorities thought it was necessary to avoid war and limit themselves to a special military operation aimed at denazification (Right Sector, the Freedom Party, the Azov Group) and demilitarization (given the aid provided by NATO and the United States). The only objective was to force Ukraine to quickly negotiate a commitment to neutrality, which it did. But this didn’t take into account the American and NATO desire to double down and escalate. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson volunteered to do the dirty work and put an end to the negotiations. It was against its will that Russia was subsequently forced to react blow for blow to the American desire to weaken Russia at all costs and to inflict a “strategic defeat” on it by using Ukraine.
As for Ukraine’s position, it too can be understood quite easily. The Maidan uprising was motivated by the desire expressed by a fairly large segment of the population to join the European Union, not NATO. It is also understandable that the massive 73% vote in favor of Zelensky in 2019 expressed the Ukrainian people’s desire for peace. This desire has been reflected in the polls since 2025. But the United States used the neo-Nazi, Bandera-supporting, and Russophobic minority to drag the entire country into a proxy war aimed at destabilizing Russia, damaging its economy, and bringing about regime change.
The European context
It is Europe’s behavior that is surprising. Why did European countries agree to comply with the “sanctions” imposed by the United States, when these “sanctions” deprived Europe of inexpensive access to Russian oil and gas? How could Olaf Scholz have accepted without a murmur or a word of protest Joe Biden’s announcement that the United States would cancel the Nord Stream gas pipeline project? Why did NATO allies agree to dedicate 5% of their GDP to military equipment spending? For what reasons did European countries comply with such demands?
Defense Secretary Hegseth, who later became Secretary of War, announced upon taking office in February 2025 that the United States now advocated a division of military labor. Europe would be responsible for providing aid to Ukraine, while the United States would shift its foreign policy toward China. Given that NATO, even with US support, had failed to weaken Russia, how could Europeans possibly be willing to shoulder the responsibility for such a mandate alone?
To answer these questions, we probably need to look back at the European integration project. To ease their burden against the USSR, the United States promoted a European integration that would give European countries a greater role. Initially conceived as a military project, it became primarily an economic one. A certain political elite quickly set about federating European states and increasing the number of participating countries. They established a free trade area, a common market, a customs union, and, most importantly, a single currency, the euro, which came into effect in 1999. The proposed currency was well-suited to the German economy (it was the renamed Deutsche Mark), but it was detrimental to the southern European countries, which would have benefited from a weaker currency.
The European political elite subscribed to the neoliberal version of globalization. Europe was to become a laboratory, as a microcosm reproducing this conception of global economic functioning. Desperate to turn the page on its past, it sought to officially reject all forms of nationalism, protectionism, and state intervention. Capitalizing on its association with a certain oligarchy, it promoted the dismantling of barriers between financial institutions, the deregulation of finance, and the illusory doctrine of trickle-down economics. Wealth, flowing “from above,” was to be distributed within each society and within each European country.
The trickle-down effect flowed upwards: from the Southern countries to Germany. This latter country engaged in social dumping by maintaining a very low minimum wage, which drew businesses away from the rest of the continent, as they sought to benefit from low labor costs. This fostered the concentration of industry within Germany. The divide between the wealthy Northern and Southern countries was clearly visible, but it was accompanied by a divide within the countries themselves. Another, reverse trickle-down effect occurred: from the working classes to the wealthy classes. Added to this was a financialization that drained economies of their productive capacity.
The German political elite also wanted to believe that economic neoliberalism would naturally restore the balance between East and West Germany after reunification and that any debt would be managed through austerity measures. Since the promised trickle-down effect failed to materialize, we are now witnessing the consequences. For example, in Saxony-Anhalt, on September 6, 2026, the AfD won the elections by a landslide, securing 43.8% of the vote. The blame can be directed against the centrist German political elite, who placed themselves under the tutelage of the United States, championed a Europe disconnected from its people, and subscribed to the neoliberal version of globalization. The same observation applies to Emmanuel Macron’s administration. The neoliberal policies he implemented have generated popular discontent and swelled the ranks of the far right, represented by the Rassemblement national (RN).
Neoliberalism on a global scale has led not only to the offshoring of businesses but also to the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis. This crisis has dealt another severe blow to Southern European countries, and particularly to Greece. Instead of correcting the situation by injecting new funds into the real Greek economy, the country was forced to implement austerity measures. It had to resort to using loans granted by the Troika (European Commission, European Central Bank, and International Monetary Fund) to bail out the banks. Bank debt was transformed into sovereign debt. Greece also had to divest itself of €50 billion in assets. The austerity measures advocated by the Troika split Europe in two: North and South.
European motivations
The gap between poor and rich countries has widened, as has the gap between rich and poor within each society, because the hoped-for trickle-down effect has not materialized. Only the oligarchs of the top 0.1% have benefited, while the general population has suffered from austerity, a loss of purchasing power, offshoring, and deindustrialization.
The nature of the dysfunction within Europe is well understood. The question remains, however, why the European political elite went so far as to shoot itself in the foot. In our opinion, the reason is as follows. Unwilling to admit past mistakes, and in particular its embrace of neoliberalism, the European political elite opted for a desperate gamble. With the European Union having become an enterprise disconnected from its people, NATO was going to offer it a way out on a silver platter. It was a new political umbrella, replacing the moribund European project. This lifeline would allow it to find a new set of moral values in which to take refuge and maintain its self-righteousness. “Western democratic values” would be brandished against a Russia that served as a foil. To restore social cohesion within the political elite, such a scapegoat was needed. The Americans had an interest in weakening Russia, but the European political elite also saw a certain advantage in this: it was an opportunity to cast themselves in a new, positive light. To obscure the EU’s disaster, NATO’s noble values could serve as a smokescreen. In accordance with this disastrous subservience of the EU, European countries had to apply “sanctions” against Russia, which have instead backfired on Europe.
To avoid addressing their responsibility for this blow to the European economy, leaders are now creating a climate of fear about a possible war against Russia and brandishing the bogeyman, Putin.
The European political elite had never been sufficiently suspicious of American imperialism. It had submitted to the American desire to expand NATO even after the dissolution of the USSR and had accepted (albeit reluctantly) the plan to include Georgia and Ukraine in the Organization. It pretended to endorse the Minsk agreements, knowing full well that they concealed preparations for war. But it is the failure of the European project that explains the total subordination of the European political elite to the United States within NATO. To give itself legitimacy in the eyes of NATO, the European political elite agreed to impose “sanctions” on Russia and to deprive itself of Russian oil and gas, as well as North Stream 2.
The US proxy war against Russia has had a devastating effect on the European economy. Deindustrialization, already underway in France, has now spread to Germany itself. The alignment of the European elite with the United States is particularly paradoxical in this regard. However, the paradox is resolved once one understands the situation in which the European political elite finds itself. It is seeking to save its own skin, not to save the European people. This is why it is increasingly rejected by the electorate in the polls. This disconnect between the elite and the people is also responsible for the meteoric rise of the far-right AfD in Germany and the RN in France. These parties are profiting from the weakening and fragmentation of the left, which should normally have attracted the working classes whom the system is neglecting.
The three lies
The confrontation with Russia was the lifeline for diverting the electorate’s attention. This is why the European political elite chose to move forward by adopting a belligerent tone toward Russia. That, however, requires the deployment of a strategy based on a three-pronged lie.
First, the elites want to convince the population that it must break free from the influence of the United States and no longer depend on that country for its military security, so that it can stand up to Russia on its own. This is a big lie, because the increase in the military budget to 5% of GDP, as well as the division of military labor between the United States and Europe, are directives coming directly from Washington, and American arms manufacturers would be major beneficiaries of this windfall. Far from breaking free from the United States, the political elites are behaving like a submissive vassal.
Nevertheless, they can exploit a second lie. They can brandish the Russian threat. European countries are supposedly at risk of being invaded by Russia. Their real economic difficulties can then be presented as being closely linked to the need to confront Russia militarily. To the lie of Europe’s necessary liberation from Washington is added the false threat of a Russian invasion.
Finally, the AfD and the National Rally serve as convenient scapegoats. This is the third lie. The argument is that the European political elite should be supported in order to block the far right. However, it is precisely the disastrous policies of this elite and its contempt for the people that explain the rise of the far right in France and Germany.
Conclusion
It remains to be seen whether European citizens will see through this charade. Will they understand that it is the mismanagement of this political elite that is at the root of the war psychosis and the rise of reactionary political parties? Will they be able to reject both sides and find political movements that represent them? In any case, it is the gamble of a European elite on the ropes, as a consequence of its previous poor decisions, that explains how Europe got to this point.
