Volume 7, No. 11, November 2025
Editor: Rashed Rahman
Regarding Russia, the neocon playbook was explicitly laid out by former US National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997 in a Foreign Affairs article and a book titled The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives.36 Brzezinski was a key figure in the formation of both Cold War and post-Cold War US policy. His views reflect his belief in US neoconservative doctrine and his deep animus toward Russia.37 The goal was ensuring US global supremacy. The recommended strategy was incrementally surrounding and isolating Russia via NATO expansion, combined with intentional detachment of Ukraine from Russia. Brzezinski viewed Ukraine as essential to Russian power, writing: “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.”38 Furthermore, Brzezinski casually floated the idea of dismembering Russia, speciously proposing it to be in Russia’s interests: “A loosely confederated Russia – composed of a European Russia, a Siberian Republic, and a Far Eastern Republic – would also find it easier to cultivate closer economic relations with Europe, with the new states of Central Asia, and with the Orient, which would thereby accelerate Russia’s own development.”39
Brzezinski’s writing spoke to the level of US aggression against Russia and foreshadowed what has followed with extraordinary detail, to the extent of almost constituting a self-incriminating neoconservative master plan. The short-term plan was NATO expansion; the medium-term plan was turning Ukraine against Russia and detaching it from Russia; and the long-term plan was dismembering Russia. Viewed in that light, US intervention in Ukraine was a stepping-stone to further attacks on Russia.40
Neoconservative doctrine guides US geopolitical thinking and strategy, and it is supported by the military-industrial complex. That complex binds the US military, the Defense Department and associated bureaucracies, and the massive defence industry, which supplies the military. This creates a hugely powerful political-economic interest that significantly determines foreign and national security policy. Moreover, the influence of the military-industrial complex ripples deep into US society. It influences Congress via political campaign contributions and promises of jobs and consultancies to politicians. It also exerts a massive influence on public opinion and public understanding of national security via a network of financial sponsorship that includes the mass media, think tanks, universities, and the film and video game industries.41 The critical point is that the end of the Cold War promised a major reduction in military spending, which posed a huge economic threat to the military-industrial complex. The neocon project defused that threat. It provided a justification for continued Cold War-level military spending and more. Additionally, that spending can continue forever, because maintaining hegemony is a project without end.
An additional piece of the puzzle is European complicity with the US neoconservative project, exemplified by Europe’s willing support of eastward NATO expansion and Europe’s sabotage of the 2014 Minsk peace process. Prima facie, Europe’s support is a puzzle because Europe has lost out economically from the rupture of relations with Russia and has borne the socioeconomic blowback (for example, the flow of refugees) from the conflict. Further reflection reveals multiple explanations. The most compelling is that Europe’s military and foreign policy apparatus has been hacked by the US, and it now serves US rather than European interests.42 The hacking process has the US government and its corporate partners placing a heavy thumb on the political scales of European countries. They do so by assisting amicable politicians, promoting supportive journalists and academics, and providing friendly political interests with financial and media support. Talking-class professionals (journalists and academics) are helped with career advancement.
Europe also has its own military-industrial complex, which is tied at the hip to the US via NATO. Additionally, Europe’s defence industry wants to supply the US military, the world’s biggest purchaser of equipment, and that requires supporting US policy. Finally, history should not be neglected. Europe’s elites have their own long-standing animus toward Russia, which is especially acute in the UK, and, to a lesser degree, in Germany.43
The fourth external driver of conflict has been the myth of democracy promotion, whereby a benevolent US is dedicated to globally promoting and protecting democracy. As mentioned, that story has been especially embraced by liberal Democrat neocons. The democracy promotion myth traces back to the 19th-century notion of American exceptionalism, which promoted the idea that the US was an exceptional nation measured in terms of its ethical character and having a special mission. That idea is now bipartisan. For Republicans, the special mission is framed in terms of protecting and expanding freedom. For Democrats, it is framed in terms of a duty to safeguard and expand democracy.44
The democracy promotion narrative is a myth, and debunking it involves a long history of international relations that is far beyond the scope of this article. For current purposes, what matters is to recognise how the narrative has helped drive conflict in Ukraine. Here, it is important for three reasons. First, it has provided Western public opinion with justification for both eastward expansion of NATO and intervention in Ukraine and former Soviet Republics. Second, it has mobilised US and Western public opinion against Russia, and it keeps public opinion supportive of the war. Third, it has masked the reality of the motives behind the eastward expansion of NATO and internal intervention in Ukraine. Metaphorically speaking, the eastward expansion of NATO and US intervention in Ukraine have both surfed on the back of the democracy promotion narrative. In effect, the democracy promotion myth has been critical for mobilising Western public opinion on behalf of the neoconservative project, and here it does double duty. First, it enlists public support for the US project of global hegemony by tricking the public into seeing aggressive US interventionism and militarism through the benevolent lens of democracy promotion.
Second, it suppresses US domestic opposition to such policies, with the myth creating a form of intellectual tunnel vision. The public is inhibited from seeing the reality of pursuit of selfish national interest, despite a long history of such action – some of which violates international law and includes the overthrow of democratic governments. Furthermore, those who challenge the narrative risk being tarred as unpatriotic and undemocratic. Since the myth facilitates the neoconservative project, the democracy promotion narrative is embraced by the military-industrial complex, which profits from that project. In effect, the narrative greenlights military spending and foreign interventions in the name of protecting and promoting democracy.
Over the last decade, the democracy promotion myth has been joined by a new myth of “Autocracy Inc.”, according to which the US confronts an existential threat from foreign autocrats who seek to topple Western democracies and establish their own domination thereover. The Autocracy Inc. myth ramps up the case for US interventionism, militarism, and military spending. Now, not only is the US protecting and promoting democracy (the old “American exceptionalism” trope), but it also faces an existential threat from foreign autocrats. That new narrative creates a scenario of perma-conflict, justifying further increased military spending without a time limit. In the view of the military-industrial complex, this is even better than the Cold War, an end to which could be negotiated. According to the Autocracy Inc. narrative, no such negotiation is possible.45
The democracy promotion narrative and its newer Autocracy Inc. sibling are extremely dangerous. The former encourages self-righteous interventionism, while the latter promotes paranoia. Each alone would be dangerous; together they risk being catastrophic. They both encourage foreign policy aggression and military interventionism while cloaking such behaviours as “benevolent selflessness” and “self-defence”. Both are now being employed to drum up public support for sustaining the Ukraine conflict.The toxic effect of the myths works via their capture of Western public opinion. Shifting public opinion away from support for war is essential to ending the Ukraine conflict and preventing future conflicts. Changing public opinion is also needed as a check on the military-industrial complex and neoconservative dominance of the US political establishment. Unfortunately, public opinion has been captured by the self-righteous crusading narrative of democracy promotion and the paranoid Manichaean “good versus evil” narrative of Autocracy Inc., which pushes policy in the opposite direction. Those twin narratives render compromise almost impossible, encourage conflict intensification, and strengthen the political grip of the neocons and military-industrial complex.
No algebra can discredit such thinking. All that is possible is appeal to logical argument, evidence, and history. Here, disdain for history kicks in again. The lack of interest in history means there is little likelihood of changing public understanding. Furthermore, the US establishment has no interest in doing so. Instead, the opposite is true. The establishment wants to sustain and nurture existing misunderstandings. Worse yet, the more the US (with NATO help) seeks to impose global hegemony, the more it prompts other countries to respond and build up their armed forces. Additionally, economic sanctions by the West compel countries to find other economic partners. Consequently, the US creates a self-fulfilling prophecy as countries under threat from the US will tend to cluster economically, diplomatically, and militarily. However, that clustering is defensive and not offensive, as claimed by the Autocracy Inc. myth.
The Outbreak of War: Russia’s Military Intervention Explained
Russia’s 2022 intervention should be understood as an escalation of a conflict that had already been triggered by the 2014 Maidan coup. Pre-2014, Russia persistently opposed the expansion of NATO but reluctantly accepted it. The 2014 coup was the straw that broke the camel’s back, prompting secession in the Donbass oblasts and Russia’s annexation of Crimea. Thereafter, the Minsk peace process (2014-2021) created a period of ‘phony war’ that delayed full-blown hostilities. Russia appears to have engaged in the process in good faith, though its critics claim its demands were unacceptable. However, France and Germany (the Normandy Group) who represented the US/NATO bloc appear to have acted in bad faith. In a December 7, 2022, interview with Die Zeit, former German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted that the Minsk Accord was “an attempt to give Ukraine time” in which to strengthen itself while the US provided massive military assistance.46
Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine seems to have been prompted by a double trigger of diplomatic and military developments. On the diplomatic side, there was Clause 69 in NATO’s Brussels Summit declaration of June 14, 2021, which enshrined the hardline US position that Ukraine had a pathway to NATO membership, regardless of Russian objections.47 That position was reaffirmed with even stronger language in the November 2021 bilateral strategic partnership signed by the US and Ukraine.48 On the military side, in February 2022, there was evidence of an imminent Ukrainian military offensive against the Donbass secessionists, with Ukrainian forces now equipped with a decade of US military support. Such an offensive might have defeated the secessionists, putting Russia’s hold on the Crimea at risk. Russia’s military intervention preempted that outcome.49
A balance sheet accounting of the war has Ukraine and Europe being clear losers. Russia’s situation is complicated but net positive. The US is a clear winner, at least in the short term. Ukraine is the biggest loser. Its economy and infrastructure have been decimated, large swathes of land have been mined or captured by Russia, millions have fled the country as refugees, tens of thousands have been killed or wounded, democracy is suspended, the proto-fascist extremists are politically in charge, and the country has many of the characteristics of a failed state.
Europe is also a major loser. It is suffering large Ukrainian refugee inflows and the socioeconomic costs and adverse political backlash that they generate. The economic costs have been especially large. European energy prices stand to be permanently higher due to the loss of cheap Russian energy supplies. The jump in energy prices caused temporary inflation and will result in permanently lowered real incomes and loss of international industrial competitiveness, adversely impacting its manufacturing sector. Europe has also forfeited the economic opportunity of capital goods exports to Russia owing to sanctions. Its beneficial trade and investment relationship with China is also being undermined, as the US is insisting NATO allies move to a war footing vis-à-vis China, which is supportive of Russia and rejects US global hegemony.50
Russia’s position is mixed but is net positive. On the one hand, it has suffered tens of thousands of casualties and the destruction of much military hardware. It has also suffered loss of economic opportunity owing to sanctions and severing of trade opportunities with Europe, and there is the unresolved issue of the West’s impounding of its foreign exchange reserves. On the other hand, it has achieved its goal of checking the US project of incremental strategic threat escalation that slowly erodes Russia’s security, and it has also substantially achieved its goal regarding neutralising the security threat posed by Ukraine joining NATO. The war has also provided a reality check for the Russian military that promises to deliver future military improvements.
Additionally, Russia may reap important economic benefits, as the war has given Putin political power to crack down on corruption and diminish the power of oligarchs.51 It is also benefiting from an economic pivot to military and social democratic Keynesianism. As argued by James K Galbraith, the sanctions regime has been a form of policy gift, enabling and prompting Russia to implement a pro-development policy that it might have been politically unable to undertake otherwise.52 An open issue is whether China and other countries can step in and supply the advanced technology products that the US/NATO bloc refuses to supply.
In the short term, the US is the chief winner from the conflict, which helps explain the Biden administration’s determination to prolong and escalate the conflict. It has suffered no direct battlefield damage from the conflict, whereas Russia is suffering ongoing military losses. Economic damage to the US has been limited to some temporary commodity inflation in 2022, and it has been offset by the benefits of military Keynesian stimulus that goes with providing weapons to Ukraine. Most importantly, the US has stepped into Russia’s shoes as an energy supplier to Europe. That has increased US energy exports and benefited the economies of its Gulf Coast states. Geopolitically, it has also rendered Europe dependent on US energy while separating Europe from Russia, which fits with the US project of global hegemony. Similarly, the accompanying ratcheting up of economic tensions between Europe and China also serves that project, with Europe again bearing large costs from trade and investment losses.
In the long term, the balance sheet looks worse for the US for geostrategic reasons. First, except for NATO and the Pacific countries allied with the US, most of the world appears to see some merit in Russia’s security claims. Second, and most importantly, the US has succeeded in consolidating a comprehensive strategic Sino-Russian alliance that stands to permanently diminish its power and undercut the project of US global hegemony. Unfortunately, those long-term adverse effects have little bearing on the conflict as they are largely irreversible, whereas the short-term benefits continue to flow. That configuration gives the US establishment an incentive to continue the war.
In Ukraine, democracy is suspended and internal opposition to the war is suppressed. The nationalist extremists control the military and are the dominant political force, with President Volodymyr Zelensky as figurehead. That means Ukraine is also locked into conflict, as the nationalists are unwilling to compromise. Russia is slowly grinding toward a victory of arms, with the risk of a nuclear event ever-present. It deems Ukrainian NATO membership an existential security threat, and its fears have been substantially validated by the war. It has also spent much blood and treasure for its war gains, which it will not surrender.
The above assessment suggests the outlook and prognosis for peace are grim, and the conflict is likely to continue until either the battlefield outcome is decisively settled or Western public opinion changes. The war should never have happened. The US green-flagged Ukraine’s adoption of positions that would lead to conflict, and it then blocked all attempts to prevent the emerging conflict. The US at present continues to enable Ukraine to keep fighting by resupplying destroyed weaponry and by providing additional advanced weaponry, technical assistance, and military intelligence.
The fateful 2014 Maidan coup set the ball rolling. The Minsk peace process offered an off-ramp, but it has now been revealed that the US and NATO were not interested in such a de-escalation. Instead, France and Germany stalled the process, buying time for the US to arm Ukraine, with the goal being defeat of the Donbass secessionists. Russia’s proposal for a Ukraine treaty settlement in November 2021 offered the last opportunity for peaceful resolution centered on a demilitarised, NATO-free Ukraine, but that proposal was dismissively rejected by the Biden administration. Peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul in March 2022 offered an opportunity for a quick end to the war, but that was again blocked by NATO, with British Prime Minister Boris Johnson as the US proxy.
The war has not changed attitudes, but negotiation possibilities have narrowed and worsened. Prior to the 2014 Maidan coup d’état, a modus vivendi was possible, with Ukraine retaining its 1922-based borders and Russia holding a lease on the Sevastopol naval base, as per the 2010 Kharkiv Treaty. The 2014 coup took that off the table permanently, with Russia reclaiming Crimea, which Khrushchev had gifted to Ukraine in 1954. The 2022 war has further changed the situation, with Russia annexing the Donbass oblasts that were incorporated in Ukraine in 1922.
Before 2014, Ukraine could have readily negotiated an accord with Russia. Now, that possibility is substantially blocked for both internal and external reasons. Internally, Ukraine’s extremist nationalists have acquired absolute political and military control so that domestic political opposition to the war is impossible. Those extremists are willing to fight to the last Ukrainian. Externally, Ukraine’s nationalists are beholden to the US, as their military and political position would collapse absent continued US support. That dependence gives the US huge sway, and the US has wanted the war to continue, since it bears little cost and sees benefits in the damage being inflicted on Russia.
In effect, Ukraine’s nationalists made Ukraine a ‘sacrificial pawn’ in the project of US global hegemony. That role now consigns ordinary Ukrainians to fight a war of attrition against Russia over which they have no say. The war will only end when either Russia prevails on the battlefield, the war goes nuclear, or US policymakers rethink the merits of the war.53 Unfortunately, neocons have ideologically based difficulties compromising or retreating, as that constitutes a tacit surrender of US hegemony. Consequently, if the neoconservative position prevails, that will lock the US into keeping the conflict going. That means shifting Western public opinion to compel the US to accept a compromise with Russia, critical for ending the war.
Conclusion
In this article, I have explored the deep causes of the Ukraine war and argued that the war has both internal and external causes. The internal causes are rooted in the way the Soviet Union disintegrated. The external causes relate to how the US exploited the fractures in the post-Soviet order to advance its neoconservative agenda aimed at establishing US global hegemony.The war has devastated Ukraine. It has destroyed Ukraine’s economic foundation, triggered mass population flight, caused tens of thousands of deaths, and solidified the fascist nationalist grip on political and military power. Assisted by the US, Ukrainian nationalists captured Ukrainian politics and refused to compromise with the complicated political and demographic reality of post-Soviet Ukraine. In doing so, they made Ukraine a sacrificial pawn in the US project seeking global hegemony, with fateful consequences that may yet worsen further. Europe has also supported this folly at great cost to itself.
Notes:
(Concluded)
The writer is an economist living in Washington DC. He has formerly worked as assistant director of public policy at the AFL-CIO and as chief economist of the US-China Security Review Commission. He is the author of Plenty of Nothing: The Downsizing of the American Dream and the Case for Structural Keynesianism (2000).This paper was prepared for and presented at a conference held in Tbilisi, Georgia, on October 11, 2024. The conference was organized by the Research Platform: Education for Development and Stability, and sponsored by the Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation of Georgia.
Courtesy Monthly Review