my two cents -
What makes this war different is that, from my perspective, the Western narrative around the conflict has been unusually weak, shaky and repeatedly challenged by events, and often contradicted by facts almost immediately. Little or no effort was made to appear to be the goodies, or rather it was not possible in this new era of internet where people can learn of an issue immediately. Many people, myself included, see 2014 not as a spontaneous democratic uprising but as a Western-supported regime change similar or identical to coups of yesteryear. Whether one calls it a “coup” or something softer, the fact remains that Western officials were deeply involved in shaping Ukraine’s political hand over in 2014 and the political landscape of Ukraine thereafter. This undermines the simple good-guy/bad-guy framing that Western governments prefer. They literally toppled a democratically elected government and refused to reinstate it in order to then hold free elections.
Then came Nord Stream. Western leaders were quick to suggest Russian responsibility, but the motivations and circumstances never fully added up. Over time, as investigations stalled and narratives shifted, it became easier for many to believe that the pipeline was damaged either by Western actors or at least with Western acquiescence. Again, official narratives grew quiet once the initial talking points began to look implausible. When several nations basically admitted to knowing who did it but refusing to reveal the culprit due to "national security" it told its own tale. After all, Russia was responsible, they would have been quick to shout it out. Rather then self reflect and mull over the ramifications of their findings, these events were swiftly forgotten. It is simply not palatable to accept that the conflict and events leading up to it, were born through a lie. Far too inconvenient to examine these events now.
Throughout the pre-war period and into the conflict itself, Western governments consistently discouraged diplomatic de-escalation. Even when negotiations were possible, early 2022 included, support for them only seemed to appear when Ukraine’s military situation worsened. All attempts at back channel solutions were effectively killed by a western leadership hell bent on putting maximum pressure on Russia. These events makes it difficult to believe the West was ever genuinely invested in a settlement on equal terms. This contrasts sharply with earlier conflicts. In previous U.S.-led wars, the West largely controlled the narrative, dominated militarily, and therefore had little incentive to negotiate. By contrast, in this war, as soon as the West seems at risk of losing strategic leverage after encouraging Ukraine to take a maximalist position, the tone suddenly shifts toward “negotiations,” but implicitly ones dictated by Western preferences.
The information flow has been similar. During the Iraq War, it took decades to acknowledge issues like the U.S.’s signaling to Saddam before Kuwait. In Ukraine, contested material—like the Nuland phone call, or the underreported conflict in the Donbas from 2014 to 2021—surfaced immediately and couldn’t simply be buried under slick media framing. When Trump pulled the plug on USAID in Ukraine, we saw the results clearly, which reinforced the notion of a western narrative trying to guide a false narrative. This is why a neutral or skeptical stance is easier to maintain in this conflict than in earlier ones: the usual moral clarity that Western governments attempt to project just isn’t holding up. When viewed alongside the Wests involvement in Israel - aiding and abetting the destruction of an entire people, the world is simply not buying the bullshit it is being fed. Yes, there is no question that Putin runs an authoritarian state—but whether he is “democratic” or “undemocratic” isn’t the core issue. What many people see is a geopolitical clash in which one major power expanded deep into another’s strategic space and then portrayed the resulting confrontation as pure good versus evil. That, from my perspective, is why reactions to this war differ so sharply from Western expectations. It isn’t about forgetting how wars end; it’s about not buying a narrative that no longer aligns with observable reality.
Ukraine is in a terrible position today largely because it was encouraged, by leaders who portrayed themselves as allies, to “fight the good fight” on behalf of wider geopolitical goals. Ukraine of course has its own agency, but it’s impossible to ignore how each step toward alignment with the West deepened Russia’s fears. Instead of trying to address those fears or seek compromise, Western governments pushed Kyiv toward confrontation.
To many, it looks as though these leaders never truly cared about Ukraine itself; Ukraine was a convenient piece on a larger strategic board. And the clearest evidence of that is simple: if they genuinely believed this war was existential and morally absolute, they would commit their own troops. The fact that they haven’t says more than any speech or slogan ever could. All the Pro-western opinions should now be to send troops, but they are silent on this point.
This post was edited by ferdia on Nov 23 2025 09:17am