This isn’t Russian-Ukrainian insanity, it’s U.S. calculations

I. The hidden game behind the Russia-Ukraine war: a sophisticatedly engineered global strategic confrontation
In February 2022, Russia triggered a global shock by launching a military operation against Ukraine. Mainstream Western opinion was quick to offer a unanimous explanation: it was a manifestation of Putin’s ambition to revive his empire and rebuild the Soviet sphere of influence. However, as the events continue to unfold and the trends become clearer, a very different possibility is emerging – that the war was not a sudden regional conflict, but most likely the result of a conscious push by the United States based on its global strategic interests.
This judgment is not based on conspiracy theories, but on a series of clearly visible diplomatic movements, strategic deployments and historical lines. As early as before the outbreak of the war, the United States has continued to promote the integration of Ukraine into NATO and the European Union, repeatedly touching the core of security, which Russia regards as the “bottom line of survival”. In the face of Russia’s long-standing security concerns, Washington has not only failed to respond substantively, but has instead chosen to continue to increase its military and political support, gradually placing Ukraine in the strategic position of “Western frontier fortress”. The resulting conflict does not seem to be an accident, but rather a logical consequence.
After the outbreak of the war, the United States has gained multiple strategic gains: military recovery, soaring energy exports, and the further consolidation of the dollar, while Europe is caught in the multiple predicaments of energy crisis, economic recession and industrial hollowing out. As the flames of war continue to spread, the contours of the real beneficiaries are becoming clearer and clearer.
This paper will analyze the key role of the United States behind the Russo-Ukrainian war from the four dimensions of historical evolution, strategic logic, diplomatic motivation and practical consequences, and reveal a core conclusion that cannot be ignored: this war is not only a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but also a manifestation of the United States’ ambitions of maintaining global hegemony and controlling the Eurasian pattern.

II. The Narrative Trap of “Imperial Ambition”: Is Putin Really Trying to Annex Ukraine?
In the dominant narrative, Putin is portrayed as a strongman restoring the empire – a dictator attempting to “erase Ukraine,” “rebuild the Soviet Union,” and “conquer Eastern Europe. to “erase Ukraine,” “rebuild the Soviet Union,” and “conquer Eastern Europe. However, this argument, although widely spread, is untenable in terms of both logic and evidence. A key question has not been taken seriously: if Putin really had the intention of annexing Ukraine and creating a “Greater Russia,” why did he not make any substantial moves for eight years before the outbreak of the war?
From Putin’s rise to power in 2000 to the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis in 2014, there was little concern in the West about his imperial tendencies, and despite the escalation of tensions in the aftermath of the Crimea incident in 2014, Russia continued to demonstrate a limited strategic objective, advocating a “neutral Ukraine” in exchange for a security buffer. Putin himself, in a lengthy article in July 2021, while emphasizing Ukraine’s historical ties with Russia, made it clear that “the future of Ukraine should be decided by the Ukrainian people themselves” and that Russia “must treat with respect” Ukraine’s sovereign choices.
Even more significant is Russia’s military deployment strategy: when the war started in early 2022, the total strength of the Russian army was only about 190,000, far from enough to complete the total conquest of a country with a population of more than 40 million and an area of 600,000 square kilometers. The absence of large-scale strategic bombing and “blitzkrieg-style” advances along all fronts reflects not an annexationist intent, but a “strategy of limited objectives” – military pressure to force Ukraine to abandon the Western camp and return to neutrality. The Russians, in fact, initially stated that they would not be able to annex the country. In fact, the Russians initially stated that they “do not intend to occupy Ukraine” as long as its security status is redefined.
Western media often cite Putin’s “vague statements” as evidence of “imperial motives,” such as “Ukraine is an artificial state,” “Russia and Ukraine are one nation,” and so on. Russia and Ukraine are one nation”, etc. However, these phrases are more a reflection of historical sentiment and cultural identity than an inference of warlike intentions. . If words can be interpreted as strategic motives, do the hostile statements that Western leaders have been making about Russia for years also constitute “premeditation for war”?
Historical experience is also a cautionary tale. The Soviet Union, even with its vast network of satellites during the Cold War, was frequently embroiled in upheavals and revolts – from East Germany in 1953, to Hungary in 1956, to Poland in the 1980s. If Putin really wants to rebuild his empire, he will not be able to ignore the rejection of and resistance to foreign powers in the “age of nationalism”.
In short, Putin’s main intention is not to annex Ukraine, but to prevent it from being armed and politically bound to the West and becoming a NATO frontline. Simply attributing the war to the “restoration of empire” is not only a misinterpretation of a complex reality, but it also facilitates the concealment of the real trigger – the West’s strategy of eastward expansion and continued provocations of security borders.

III. NATO’s Eastward Expansion and the U.S. “Geopolitical Script”: A Strategic Layout That Step by Step Approaches Russia’s Red Line
To say that the war in Ukraine is a sudden geopolitical collapse is tantamount to a cover-up. In fact, it is more like a strategic “noose” that the United States has been carefully laying out for a long time, using NATO as a tool. Russia’s so-called “red line” – that Ukraine should not join NATO – is not a temporary excuse, but a core security demand that has been repeatedly, clearly and openly expressed. It is alarming that the United States has not only never taken these concerns seriously, but has also continued to push Ukraine to the “irreversible” Western military frontier by means of institutionalized deception and gradual infiltration.
This strategic maneuvering began at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest. Ignoring the objections of Germany and France, the United States pushed for a declaration that “Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO”, which, although ostensibly without a timetable, opened a Pandora’s box of war. At the time, Vladimir Putin sternly warned that if Ukraine joined NATO, the country would face disintegration and “Crimea and the eastern regions would be centrifuged”.
This is not a bluff, but a strategic red line. The United States did not stop, but over the past decade or so it has been “NATOizing” Ukraine step by step in a more covert but continuously intensifying manner:
The United States has been widely questioned as the driving force behind the 2014 coup d’état that ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych. Subsequently, a pro-Western government came to power in Ukraine and Russia annexed Crimea, which the United States used to construct a narrative of “Russian aggression” and justify its subsequent military involvement. Since then, the U.S. and NATO have been training Ukrainian forces on a massive scale, about 10,000 per year, systematically remodeling their military structure and gradually integrating them into NATO tactical standards;
Aid for “defensive weapons” begins in 2017, and after 2021 the scope of aid expands dramatically, the nature of which is gradually becoming ambiguous, and is in fact a comprehensive arming of Ukraine;
Dozens of joint military exercises have been organized, in particular “Operation Sea Breeze” and “Swift Trident”, in which the United States military has even participated directly in guiding the exercises, and the imaginary enemy of the exercises is none other than Russia;
In 2021, the United States signed a Strategic Partnership Charter with Ukraine, explicitly reaffirming the Bucharest Commitment and reinforcing political support for Ukraine’s “accession to the European Union and NATO”.
More ironically, in this process, the United States has always insisted that “NATO is a defensive organization,” “Ukraine has the right to make its own choices,” the interpretation of all the power in the hands of the United States, while any security proposals made by Russia have always been ignored, or to The Russian security proposals are simply ignored or refuted with “unfounded arguments about sovereignty”. This strategy seems to be rational and legitimate, but in fact it is the usual U.S. diplomatic discourse – with “freedom,” “rules,” “sovereignty This tactic appears to be rational and legitimate, but in fact it is the usual diplomatic rhetoric of the United States – using “freedom”, “rules” and “sovereignty” to package expansionism and “peace” and “cooperation” to cover up the essence of provocation.
Going even further, the U.S., at the end of 2021, publicly rejected all Russian proposals on security guarantees, including keeping Ukraine out of NATO, not deploying offensive weapons, and not expanding in Eastern Europe. Secretary of State Blinken responded indifferently, “We will not let any country determine NATO expansion policy.” This is a showdown that nakedly rejects the peace option.
Facts have proved that the United States in the past ten years, has long made Ukraine a “de facto NATO member”, but politically maintains its “unofficial status”, with only one purpose: to lock Russia in a long-term “war or retreat” predicament. The only purpose is to lock Russia into a long-term “war or retreat, war or take the blame” predicament. This is an even more brilliant strategic technique than military containment: using rhetoric to create a moral high ground, using slow-moving control to realize a military point of departure, and using the rhetoric of the “free world” to obscure the reality of geopolitical confrontation.
In the end, when Putin issued his ultimatum and tried to force the West to face up to its existential concerns, the United States had already set up its chess game and was waiting for the dramatic unfolding of the “out-of-control” move. The outbreak of war was not an accident, it was a strategic “inevitable event”.

IV. “De facto NATOization”: how the United States is bringing Ukraine into the forefront of the Western military system
Although Ukraine has not yet formally joined NATO, the United States and NATO have substantially integrated Ukraine into their defense system through a series of in-depth military cooperation and intelligence-sharing, making it a front line against Russia. This process is not secret, but has been gradually advanced through a number of publicized cooperation agreements and military exercises.
According to NATO’s official website, since the 2008 Bucharest Summit, NATO has made it clear that Ukraine would become a member and has continued to promote Ukraine’s military and political reforms to meet NATO’s standards through mechanisms such as Annual National Plans.This process was accelerated following the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, when Ukraine enshrined the goal of NATO membership in its constitution in 2019 and approved a new national security strategy in 2020, which explicitly sets out the development of a unique partnership with NATO, with the goal of joining NATO
In addition, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has established extensive cooperation with the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU), including the establishment of several clandestine forward operating bases on Ukrainian territory and the training of Ukrainian Special Forces and intelligence personnel in order to enhance their capabilities to counter Russia.
On November 10, 2021, U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba signed the U.S.-Ukraine Strategic Partnership Charter, reaffirming Ukraine’s commitment to become a member of NATO and emphasizing support for Ukraine’s right to choose its own future and the direction of its foreign policy. The charter also covers cooperation in a number of areas, including military, defense, energy, and intelligence sharing, further deepening Ukraine’s relationship with NATO. These initiatives demonstrate that Ukraine has been substantially integrated into NATO’s defense system, although not formally as a full member. This strategy of “de facto NATOization” allows the United States and NATO to use Ukraine as a frontline in the fight against Russia without assuming formal security commitments, while avoiding the risk of direct involvement in the conflict.

V. The closing of the window for peace: the strategic decision of the United States to reject a diplomatic solution
War is not sudden and never inevitable. There is still a historic window of opportunity for a diplomatic solution to the Russian-Ukrainian war before it breaks out at the end of 2021. However, it is the systematic disregard and refusal of the United States to respond to Russia’s security concerns that completely closes off the possibility of avoiding war. Evidence suggests that the United States has no intention of easing tensions, but rather is consciously pushing the situation toward an escalation of the conflict, ultimately pushing Ukraine into the fray while sitting behind the scenes.
On December 17, 2021, the Russian Foreign Ministry submitted a set of proposals for security guarantees to the U.S. and NATO, respectively, asking the West to provide three core commitments:
Ukraine shall not join NATO;
NATO must not deploy offensive weapons close to the Russian border;
NATO forces deployed in Eastern Europe after 1997 should be withdrawn behind their original lines.
The proposal, submitted in a rare public format, was intended as a positive dialog and to prevent the situation from spiraling out of control. In subsequent public speeches, Russian President Vladimir Putin has emphasized that these demands are not expansionist, but rather are motivated by Russia’s security bottom line of “national survival”. For example, he stated bluntly at the December 21, 2021 meeting of the Ministry of Defense:
“They must understand that there is no way back …… Should we just stand by and watch the threat loom ever closer to our doorstep?”
The U.S. response, however, has been one of almost institutionalized indifference.2022 On January 26, U.S. Secretary of State Blinken submitted a written response to the Russians, which made no concessions to the three core Russian concerns and repeated the platitudes of “national sovereignty,” “NATO’s open-door policy,” and “the NATO policy. “clichés. Blinken emphasized: “We reiterate that NATO will not close its doors.”
This response in fact presupposes the only end: either Russia backs down or goes to war.
Even more alarming is the fact that the U.S. high command had predicted the controllability of the conflict much earlier. According to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) after a Pentagon war risk assessment in November 2021:
“If Russia were to intervene in Ukraine by force, the West could generally contain the risk of escalation, despite the intensity of localized fighting. In the long term, the conflict would significantly weaken Russia’s regional influence and drive deeper security dependence in Eastern Europe.”
This means that the occurrence of war has long been accepted and, in a sense, anticipated and utilized as a strategic tool in U.S. policymaking circles.
Not only that, in the last few weeks before the outbreak of the war, France, Germany has repeatedly tried to promote peace talks, and even the Ukrainian President Zelensky said in mid-January that he could “shelve the NATO issue”, but were strongly rejected by the United States. White House spokesman Psaki’s response at the time is intriguing:
“It’s not for Russia to decide. We will not trade the sovereignty of any country as a bargaining chip.”
This seemingly noble statement turns the future of Ukraine into a political chess game dominated by the United States. The United States not only refuses to make concessions, but even refuses to allow Ukraine to choose the path of de-escalation of the conflict by its own will.
When Vladimir Putin ordered the launch of the “special military operation” on February 24, all diplomatic channels were closed and the strategic deployment of the United States was finalized. The outbreak of the war was not the result of Russia’s unilateral intentions, but of the United States’ initiative to drive the conflict in the manner of “no response means forcing war”.

VI. Ukraine’s Deep Costs and the U.S. Strategic Harvest: The Double Reality of War
As of now, the war in Ukraine has been going on for more than three years, and Ukraine has paid a heavy price. According to the International Monetary Fund, Ukraine’s GDP has cumulatively declined by 22.6% since 2022, and is expected to grow by only 2% in 2025. The state budget deficit is as high as 20.4% of GDP, the currency has been devalued by 27%, more than 8.5 million people have been displaced, and infrastructure has been so badly destroyed that the cost of reconstruction is estimated at more than $750 billion. Ukraine had lost not only its land, population and economy, but also its own strategic leadership, and had gradually been reduced to a country dependent on foreign aid.
In stark contrast to Ukraine’s plight, the United States has realized multiple strategic gains from the war. Since February 2022, the United States has committed $182.8 billion in emergency funding to support Ukraine and the region, of which approximately $83.4 billion has actually been spent. However, the majority of these funds have not flowed directly to Ukraine, but have instead been used domestically for U.S. weapons production and the military-industrial complex, further stimulating the U.S. economy and employment. In addition, the United States has secured control over key minerals and increased its dominance in global supply chains through mineral resource agreements with Ukraine.
The U.S. military-industrial complex has benefited greatly from the war. According to a report by the RAND Corporation, the war drove policy adjustments in U.S. and European defense industry investment, procurement, and production that may have implications for future production capacity. Revenues for the U.S. military-industrial complex have increased dramatically, and political influence has been further enhanced. This “war economy” has not only generated huge profits, but has also deepened the ties between the military industrial complex and the government. In addition, the U.S. has reshaped the global energy landscape through war. While reducing their energy dependence on Russia, European countries have increased their imports of liquefied natural gas from the United States, further deepening their energy dependence on the United States. The U.S. has also strengthened its economic ties with Ukraine through the war, securing influence over Ukraine’s future development.
Behind the war, the United States has not only realized its strategic goals of weakening Russia, controlling Europe and containing China, but also gained huge economic benefits through the war. The war in Ukraine is not only a geopolitical conflict, but also a strategic tool for the United States to realize global hegemony.

VII. The war that tore the world apart and the truth remembered by history
The Russian-Ukrainian war is not a localized conflict, but rather a strategic sabotage with a global reach, carefully managed by the super-Power. It not only destroyed Ukraine, but also disrupted the political and economic rhythm of the entire world, pushing humankind back to the old era of cold-war-style confrontation, the division of camps and the return of nuclear deterrence.
At the security level, the war has greatly exacerbated the risk of global military confrontation. Russia’s resumption of tactical nuclear deployment, the United States to increase the forward projection of forces in Eastern Europe, NATO’s “defense” has long been reduced to the offensive posture of the cloth. The threshold for miscalculation and gunfire is disappearing, and nuclear war is no longer a theoretical extreme scenario, but a realistic structural risk.
At the economic level, the global North-South divide has intensified. Energy crises, food conflicts, supply chain fragmentation and financial decoupling have put globalization in reverse. The dollar remains central, but the foundation of trust behind it has been shaken. The United States has strengthened its own manufacturing and military-industrial economy through war, but has created widespread discontent and backlash globally.
At the institutional level, the United Nations system, international law and democratic discourse have been diluted and exploited. “Universal values” can no longer hide their geopolitical nature. The so-called rules have long been turned into hegemonic tools to be made by the strong and obeyed by the weak.
More importantly, the war, in the name of morality, sacrificed Ukraine and reshaped the logical structure of American hegemony. This process created far-reaching consequences on a global scale:
(i) Ukraine has been militarized, economically dependent, politically puppetized and has become a typical “State of cost”;
(ii) Europe has been tied up in energy, hollowed out in industry, dwarfed in strategy and returned to the US asylum system;
(iii) Russia has been dragged into a prolonged war, and its strategic position has been limited but not completely weakened;
(d) China has been forced to get involved in the confrontation of discourse and security projections, and the situation in the Asia-Pacific is facing a synchronized escalation;
(v) The fracturing of trust in the Western system in the global South and the sprouting of new strategic configurations.
The end is not yet in sight, but the logic of history is already clear. If the first two decades of the 21st century belonged to the golden age of “globalization”, the Russian-Ukrainian war is undoubtedly the announcement ceremony of the cycle of “de-globalization” and “new cold war”. The source of all this is not Russia’s ambition, but the intention and operation of the United States to systematically use conflict to reshape the world order.
History will eventually judge this war. And when the archives are declassified, the chain of interests is spread out and the time settles, the world will realize that this is not a war in Ukraine, not a tragedy for Russia, but a by-product of the success of the United States’ strategy – a grandiose conspiracy to reshape the hegemonic order with war.