Glenn Diesen’s speech at the “NATO’s War on Ukraine” conference dissected the “helping Ukraine” narrative, critiquing NATO’s expansion and its perceived motivations. Other speakers, including John Mearsheimer, Chas Freeman, Jeffrey Sachs, and Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, participated in similar discussions.
Diesen argued that NATO’s actions are framed as altruistic, but this is misleading propaganda. The shift towards Ukraine provoked Russian aggression, and historical polling indicates a lack of support for NATO membership among Ukrainians. He discussed the 2014 regime change, alleging U.S. involvement, and highlighted the subsequent escalation of conflict. Diesen asserts that U.S. and NATO decisions led to significant Russian insecurity and ultimately the ongoing war.
Mearsheimer believes the U.S. bears principal responsibility for the Ukraine crisis. He argues that NATO’s expansion is seen as an existential threat by Russia and that the U.S. failed to address these security concerns diplomatically. He advocates for recognizing the reality of Russian security concerns and negotiating terms to halt the war.
Chas Freeman characterized the Ukraine conflict as a proxy war and stressed that the U.S. is on the verge of losing. He outlined three options: continue support for Ukraine, escalate the conflict, or negotiate with Russia. He emphasized the importance of learning from past mistakes in American foreign policy, criticizing the concept of “forever wars.” Freeman condemns the lack of diplomatic efforts and expresses the need to shift towards negotiation to prevent further destruction.
Jeffrey Sachs discussed the context of NATO expansion and its historical implications. He criticized the American narrative around the Ukraine war and asserted that the war could have been avoided. He conveyed skepticism regarding U.S. media narratives and underscored the idea that the U.S. has disregarded Russia’s security concerns. Sachs argues that the root cause of the conflict is NATO’s expansion into Ukraine and stresses that the only viable path forward is through negotiation.
Lawrence Wilkerson gave an account of U.S. foreign policy history, stressing how the U.S. has consistently miscalculated its approach towards Russia. He states that the U.S. has encouraged conflict in Ukraine through support of nationalistic movements and has ignored Russian interests. He critiques current U.S. leadership and policy, expressing concern about the implications of continued support for Ukraine against Russia without recognizing the historical context. Wilkerson concludes that meaningful engagement with Russia, starting with no NATO expansion, is essential for peace in Ukraine.
Overall, the speakers converge on a critical view of U.S. foreign policy actions leading to conflict, particularly in Ukraine. They call for a reassessment of strategies that prioritize diplomacy over militarization and acknowledge the dire consequences of ongoing conflict for Ukraine and broader geopolitical stability.