How the US Tricked Zelensky Into Thinking the US and NATO Would Defend Ukraine from Russia

Executive Summary

• Zelensky has made statements that make it appear he thinks he has the support of NATO.

Introduction

Some of the statements made by Zelensky indicated that either Zelenzky became deluded or US and European leaders led him on into thinking that Ukraine had the support of these countries in the event of a conflict with Russia. We review his statements and his behavior — and then lead into a potential reason for the war that has not received coverage.

Zelensky’s Defiance Versus Russia on the Topic of Joining NATO and the EU

This video is dated around a week and a half before the invasion. In it, Zelensky is emphatic that Ukraine seeks to join NATO and that it seeks to join the EU. Furthermore, he states that while he has been cautioned not to publicly seek to join NATO as it could negatively affect Russia, he essentially disregards this view. 

Zelensky states that it is “our decision to take anyway.” However, he has to know that Putin has repeatedly said that Russia will not allow Ukraine to join NATO. That should have made it evident to Zelensky that it was not simply Ukraine’s decision to take.

Zelensky Backs Off Of Joining NATO – After the Russian Invasion

The following quotation is from March 9th, 2022, two weeks into the invasion.

“Regarding NATO, I have cooled down regarding this question long ago after we understood that NATO is not prepared to accept Ukraine,” Zelensky told ABC News in an exclusive interview that aired Monday night. – Business Insider

That is a curious thing to say, as Germany and France had opposed Ukraine’s addition to NATO from its first proposal in 2008. That is 14 years ago, and Germany and France have not changed their position at this time. NATO only offered Ukraine and Georgia being added under pressure from the US, at the time under the Bush Administration.

Zelensky went on.

Zelensky added: “The alliance is afraid of controversial things and confrontation with Russia. – Business Insider

Yes. Well, that controversial thing is called a war with Russia, and Zelensky and Ukraine are finding out right now a bit about that controversial thing firsthand.

Zelensky went on.

“The people who elected me are not ready to surrender. We are not ready for ultimatums,” Zelensky said. “But we can discuss with Russia the future of Crimea and Donbas.” – Business Insider

Ukraine’s Options

Ukraine can probably pull off an extended guerilla war against Russia, which will result in Ukraine becoming a failed state. However, they cannot repel or win against Russia. Now is a good time to negotiate. Although Zelensky already knew Germany and France would not allow Ukraine to join NATO, a better time would have been — say anytime after he was elected up to until Russia invaded.

The Political Experience Level of Zelensky

Zelensky’s statements make it appear that he lacks the experience for this job. And he has no experience serving in any political office before taking the position of President. And he is both very young for the job, at 41, and inexperienced. It appears that Ukrainians were so disgusted with the status quo that they elected an actor and comedian.

The US Wanted Russia to Invade Ukraine

The US’s official response is that it opposes the invasion of Ukraine. However, it looks as if the US set up Ukraine to be invaded. This is explained in the following quotation.

The U.S. wants to ‘secure’ Europe as a proxy force that can be used against Russia and China. The way to do that is by pushing Russia into an invasion of the Ukraine and to then proclaim that it is ‘threatening Europe’. In consequence the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline, on which Germany’s energy security depends, would never be used to provide gas from Russia. Europe’s economy would falter and it would become more dependent on the United States. It would come under full NATO control and could then be pushed to help with the great isolation of China.

But how can the U.S. push Russia to invade the Ukraine? Events in the spring of last year demonstrated how it can be done:

Last March 24, the Ukrainian president decreed that Ukraine would take Crimea back from Russia, with “military measures” to achieve “de-occupation.” The U.S. and NATO voiced “unwavering” support.

In April NATO backed a Ukrainian offensive in its civil war against Russian-allied separatists in the eastern provinces, Donetsk and Luhansk. That is when Russia moved more troops to its borders with Ukraine, signaling it would defend its allies.

With the help of the media the talk of a ‘Russian invasion’ would then become reality. It would trigger ‘western’ sanctions and Russia would be isolated. – Moon of Alabama

What is curious is that while this article was published in Jan of 2022, it correctly predicted the widescale sanctions against Russia.

This quote places the need for war in Ukraine as a manipulation by the US to stop Europe from gaining more independence from the US. Therefore it was curious to find this quote from Biden on what would happen if Russia invaded Ukraine.

Biden on Nord Stream 2

President Biden vowed Monday in a joint news conference with Germany’s chancellor to “bring an end to” the Nord Stream 2 pipeline if Russia invades Ukraine.

Biden promised to prevent fuel from flowing directly from Russia to Germany through the newly constructed Baltic Sea pipeline just moments before Chancellor Olaf Scholz gave a unified but noticeably less enthusiastic nod to the idea.

“If Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the border of Ukraine, again — then there will be no longer a Nord Stream 2,” the president said in the White House East Room.

“We will bring an end to it.”

Scholz, standing next to Biden, gave a verbose answer in German to the same question from Reuters reporter Andrea Shalal, who pointed out in a follow-up inquiry that Scholz did not specifically mention the pipeline. – NY Post

That seems to be the first thing on Biden’s mind. It also appears that Biden was looking for an excuse to stop the pipeline, and sanctions fall into this category of an excuse.

About Nord Stream 2

This quote describes more about the pipeline and how it was put on hold in February 22 of 2022.

It cost €10bn (£8.4bn) and was completed last September. The Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom put up half of the cost and western energy firms such as Shell and ENGIE of France are paying the rest.

Nord Stream 2 runs parallel to an existing gas pipeline, Nord Stream, which has been working since 2011.

Together, these two pipelines could deliver 110bn cubic metres of gas to Europe every year. That is over a quarter of all the gas that European Union countries use annually.

The pipeline does not yet have an operating licence – and Germany has now put this on hold.

It took the step after Russia formally recognised two breakaway regions in eastern Ukraine, and sent troops there. – BBC

The US has called Nord Stream 2 a threat to European energy security. In this video, Zelensky calls Nord Stream 2 a dangerous weapon for the whole of Europe. 

What is curious about this is that the US applied enormous sanctions against Russia after it invaded Europe. So it seems that when the US applies sanctions, those are not dangerous weapons, but when Russia has some type of leverage, that is called a dangerous weapon.

The US Hypocrisy on NATO Expansion Versus Russia and Germany’s Nord Stream 2 Pipeline

The US demands the right to continually add countries to the NATO military alliance. However, on the other hand, when Russia simply seeks economic integration into Europe, the US finds this unacceptable. This is highly hypocritical, and actually beyond hypocritical, as the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is just an economic relationship. It is not a military relationship.

This video describes more information about the pipeline. Both the US and all of the Eastern European countries oppose the pipeline. 

The following provides an explanation of the opposition to the pipeline.

The United States: On the global stage, critics accuse Berlin of ignoring the interests of its allies by filling Russia’s coffers at the time of a diplomatic conflict. US President Donald Trump slammed Berlin in July 2018, saying it was “captive to Russia” due to its energy policy. “Pipeline dollars to Russia are not acceptable!” he tweeted.

The United States also has a practical reason to oppose Nord Stream 2. Its companies have already started selling gas obtained by fracking to European countries, backed by US authorities who say Europe should seek alternatives to Russia. However, the US gas is more expensive than that supplied through Russian pipelines. – DW

The US opposes the pipeline because it wants to sell gas to Europe. And it does not want Europe to become more reliant on Russia.

Berlin’s response: Germany has so far stuck to its guns and presented the project as a purely economic issue. Its officials emphasize that West Germany imported gas from the Soviet Union during the Cold War era, and that Moscow is more dependent on exporting gas than the other way around. Also, with European gas fields nearly spent and Germany phasing out nuclear power, Berlin needs a reliable source of energy to facilitate its long-term shift to renewable sources. – DW

Why Eastern European Countries Oppose the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline

The Eastern European countries oppose the pipeline because it bypasses their countries and they cannot charge fees for the movement of the gas.

The part Nord Stream 2 plays in the manipulation by the US of Ukraine to promote an invasion. 

This is a later video on the same topic. Jimmy Dore does a good job of pointing out that important drivers for the US setting up the conditions for invasion — the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, the expansion of NATO, and the financial motivators from US gas providers and US defense contractors are entirely left out of the coverage by the establishment media.

The Western Establishment Media as an Extension of US Foreign Policy

The establishment media is not allowed to bring up these topics, as they are required to carry forward the story that is presented to them by the US State Department and the DOD. The establishment media — which is highly concentrated in the US — is just one of the techniques used as an extension of US foreign policy.

Negotiating With Putin

The Dombass and other Russian-aligned regions in Eastern Ukraine are a constant liability and have been at war with Ukraine for over ten years. Ukraine can give them independence, and Crimea is already in Russian hands and can be recognized as Russia by Ukraine. As Ukraine cannot join NATO, it gives up nothing by adding an amendment to its constitution stating that it will never join NATO.

The problem is that Putin also wants to replace Zelensky and his government with their puppet. I would cede the earlier demands to Russia, which would go a long way to satisfy them, but deny allowing them to install a puppet. However, Zelensky and the Ukrainian leadership have allowed themselves to manipulate the US into being a pawn. The Zelensky administration does not at all look independent, and Putin would be accurate in claiming that Zelensky is just a US or western puppet.

For Ukraine’s sake, in addition to quelling concerns of US domination by Russia, Ukraine should make permanent steps to distance itself from the US. The problem is that the US wants Ukraine to be invaded by Russia, and thus, in reality, Ukraine cannot trust the US.

Why the US Requires Continual War

Many people naively assume that the US wants peace. This is incorrect. The US has a massive defense establishment, and it requires continual threats and continual war. The US only recently exited the Afghanistan war, where $2 trillions was spent. Therefore, a new war was required, even though we have still had several smaller dirty wars. This is explained in the following quotation.

What’s behind restoration of the Cold War is a fall-off in the global armaments trade after the capitalist-versus-communist Cold War ended with the 9 November 1989 opening-up of the Berlin Wall, and after the ideological excuse for buying and using nuclear weapons thus ended when the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance against America’s NATO alliance ended soon thereafter, in 1991. Weapons became less needed, because there was no longer an ideological excuse available for invading, and for perpetrating (and/or backing) coups in, foreign countries. And this reduction in the weapons-market harmed the major investors in arms-manufacturing international corporations. Their business was suffering.

Any nation’s armaments-industry is crucial to that given nation’s aristocracy; and, so, the fall-off in the arms business was especially problematic for international capitalists — the people whose wealth depends largely upon these types of companies, whose markets are their own and allied governments (which these same people also control). Therefore, any capitalist nation’s aristocracy is heavily invested in that given nation’s ‘defense’ (or, more typically, invasion) industry. These investments in arms-production produce income not only from the aristocracy’s own country’s government (which especially purchases these weapons), but also from the governments of countries whose aristocracies are allied with that given country — those other nations’ aristocracies. Furthermore, the weapons that any given nation has at its disposal and which are paid for by that nation’s entire taxpaying public (thus enabling that aristocracy to extract wealth from the given nation’s general public in order for the government to buy these weapons from them), also provide a vital means of enforcing that nation’s aristocracy’s property-rights in all other countries — the guns and military to enforce their will there — and aristocrats tend to be invested in many countries, and so to be very much in need of this international enforcement.

For a while after the end of communism and end of the Soviet Union in 1991, the U.S. aristocracy and its allied aristocracies in Europe, Japan and elsewhere, experienced declining sales of armaments, and nothing seemed capable of turning that situation around: their investments became increasingly bad as the ‘post-Cold-War’ period (which «post» on the Russian side was real from 1991 on, but not on the U.S. side, where the Cold War was actually only temporarily suspended and never yet ended) proceeded through the 1990s. For America’s aristocracy (and its allied aristocracies abroad), this decline in weapons-income was tolerable so long as the U.S. group were able to siphon some wealth out of Russia, and also out of its allies such as Ukraine. But, by the time when George W. Bush became U.S. President in 2001, America’s aristocracy worked in conjunction with Saudi Arabia’s aristocracy — the Saudi royal family, the largest foreign purchaser of U.S. weapons — to replace the Soviet enemy, by a new jihadist enemy, so as to have an ongoing excuse for invasions, to keep those arms-makers busy. And then, after 9/11 (a joint U.S.-Saudi operation), military expenditures promptly quit declining and started rising and thus providing, yet again, good returns to international capitalists. – Strategic Culture

The War on Terror turned out to be a huge scam, but it eventually ran out of gas. And yet it is rarely critiqued today, even after multiple wars that ended in disaster and achieved none of their stated objectives, and which were based on false claims. In fact, the only real reason for these wars was to spend money that flowed into the coffers of politically connected people and companies.

Amazing Insight

This following quotation is something we have never heard before, and the author Eric Zuesse always packs these amazing insights into his articles. If Eric sees this quote I want to apologize for using so much of his content, however, his articles are so great, it is difficult to find material to leave out. One paragraph after another has some new insights we have never heard before.

Putin replaced the previous, U.S.-allied, oligarchs, by his own friends, who agreed to obey Russia’s leader as the representative of Russia’s national sovereignty, even if and when Putin would tell them to do things that are against their own pecuniary interests — he demanded this loyalty from them, loyalty to what he as the representative of the Russian people determined to be in Russia’s national interest. For forcing out and replacing the previous, U.S.-backed, oligarchs, Putin was called a brutal dictator, by the aristocrats who control the U.S. government and news media and weapons-producing firms. – Strategic Culture

This is almost comedic that the US would want its backed oligarchs in Russia. Apparently, the US was intent on making Russia into another compliant country.

Replacing the Soviet Union

Communism is gone. The Soviet Union is gone. Its Warsaw Pact is gone (and almost entirely absorbed now into America’s NATO military club — they’re aimed now against Russia, instead of against the U.S.). All of the pretext for the Cold War was gone; and therefore to call this new war against the lone and non-communist rump Russian government a ‘new cold war’ (at a time when Russia’s former Soviet partners have been switched to enemies, and the Warsaw Pact of allies has been switched to the NATO pact of enemies) is preposterous; it is nothing of the sort. It is U.S. aggression. And a pretext was thus needed in order to be able to call Putin’s Russia the world’s most aggressive country. One pretext was to call the two breaks-away from Ukraine, one by Crimea (which had voted 75% for the government that Obama overthrew) and the other by Donbass (which had voted 90% for that government), ‘aggressions’ on the part of Russia (and to ignore that Obama’s coup in Ukraine had caused both). The Obama regime denied the right of self-determination of peoples, when it pertained to those breakaway regions from Ukraine, even though Obama accepted the right of self-determination of peoples when it pertained to Scots in UK, and to Catalans in Spain.

The other pretext was that Russia backed the allegedly brutal secular leader of Syria, and not the actually brutal sectarian leader of Saudi Arabia who was determined to conquer secular Syria by infiltrating into Syria jihadist allies of Al Qaeda in order to create a Wahhabist dictatorship in Syria, which would be in debt to the Sauds and to the Americans. – Strategic Culture

A Prediction

This article by Eric Zuesse was written just before Throughout Trump’s presidency,

America’s new President, Donald Trump, will have to decide whether to culminate this, or whether instead to condemn and repudiate it. If he decides to do the latter, then he will be condemning and repudiating the entire U.S. aristocracy, which no U.S. President (except for Jimmy Carter in his retirement) has ever done. American Presidents have been assassinated for less than that. And, in any case, courage is not a trait that’s commonly attributed to Trump, even by his own most ardent admirers. However, unless he turns out to be a person of extraordinary courage, World War III now appears to be virtually inevitable, to occur rather soon, and the only real question would be: Which side will nuclear-blitz-attack the other the first? – Strategic Culture

Trump ended up somewhat opposing the US defense establishment, and this is why the Russiagate hoax was concocted. Every US President is required to either get on board the war machine or pay a significant political price.

Conclusion

The Ukraine invasion was planned by the US. Zelensky took the bait, and now the US has the invasion that it desired. None of the establishment media have explained this story, and are making it appear that the US has nothing to do with causing Russia to invade Ukraine.