Ukraine War: A Balanced Perspective
Something difficult to find.
A subscriber asked me for a balanced look at the war in Ukraine. I began several weeks ago. I’ve looked at a number of sources. I tried Chatgpt and Grok. I found that I was given a very pro-USA article unless I asked for balance and mentioned some things I knew. The following article was written by Grok. I’m including my comments in parenthesis with italics.
The Ukraine War: A Balanced Perspective on Russia, the West, and Historical Commitments
The war in Ukraine, escalating with Russia’s 2022 invasion, is a complex conflict rooted in historical tensions, geopolitical rivalries, and unfulfilled promises. Both Russia and the West, particularly the United States under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, have shaped its trajectory. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, meant to secure Ukraine’s sovereignty, is central to understanding the conflict’s origins. This article examines Russia’s actions, Western responses, the memorandum’s failures, and Obama and Biden’s roles in funding Ukraine and addressing its political shifts, striving for balance by critically assessing all perspectives.
Historical Context and the Budapest Memorandum
Ukraine inherited the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal after the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse. To prevent proliferation, the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, signed by the U.S., UK, Russia, and Ukraine, saw Ukraine relinquish its nuclear weapons for assurances of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and protection from force or economic coercion. Signatories pledged to seek UN Security Council assistance if Ukraine faced aggression. (I’ve read that Russia controlled the nuclear codes. Although the nuclear weapons were in Ukraine, it was not a nuclear power. Russia got the weapons.)
The West viewed the memorandum as a nonproliferation success, offering diplomatic support. Ukraine, however, saw it as a stronger security commitment, a perception that fueled betrayal when Russia violated it. Russia argues the memorandum was non-binding and its actions respond to NATO expansion and Western meddling, though this does not justify its breaches.
Russia’s Role and Motivations
Russia’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, support for Donbas separatists, and 2022 invasion stem from strategic and ideological goals. President Vladimir Putin views Ukraine as part of Russia’s historical sphere, with NATO’s potential expansion into Ukraine as a threat. He frames the 2014 Euromaidan protests, which ousted pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych, as a Western-orchestrated “coup.” (This view is confirmed by an article from the CATO Institute, “Washington Helped Trigger the Ukraine War.”)
The Crimea annexation, justified by Russia as protecting ethnic Russians, violated the Budapest Memorandum. The 2022 invasion, aiming for “denazification” and “demilitarization,” reflects ambitions to secure a buffer against NATO. Russia cites NATO’s growth and alleged U.S. interference in 2014, but its military aggression—indiscriminate bombing and occupation—has drawn global condemnation and sanctions, weakening its defensive claims.
The West’s Role and Policies
The West, led by the U.S. and NATO, supports Ukraine’s sovereignty, providing over $113 billion in U.S. aid since 2014, including weapons post-2022. The West sees Russia’s actions as a challenge to the post-Cold War order. However, the Budapest Memorandum’s vague “assurances” left Ukraine vulnerable, lacking military commitments. Critics argue the West’s weak 2014 response—sanctions and limited aid—emboldened Russia.
NATO’s open-door policy and support for Ukraine’s 2014 revolution, while not direct interference, alarmed Russia. The West insists it backs Ukraine’s democratic choice, but critics question whether NATO expansion provoked tensions, though this does not excuse Russia’s aggression. (Not direct interference? According to the CATO article, “An earlier article by Dorfman noted that coordination between the United States and Ukraine on intelligence matters also expanded greatly after 2014 (following U.S. support for the Maidan revolution that overthrew Ukraine’s elected, pro-Russia president and Moscow’s subsequent annexation of Crimea”.).
Obama’s Role: Caution and Criticism
Under President Obama (2009–2017), the U.S. responded to Russia’s 2014 actions with sanctions and $2.5 billion in non-lethal aid, like training and economic support, avoiding lethal weapons to prevent escalation. Vice President Joe Biden, Obama’s Ukraine point man, visited six times, pushing anti-corruption and energy reforms. His 2016 pressure to remove Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, tied to $1 billion in loan guarantees, was anti-corruption policy, not protection for his son Hunter’s Burisma role, as investigations confirmed.
Obama’s restraint drew criticism for failing to deter Russia, with figures like John McCain advocating lethal aid. Biden later criticized Obama’s inaction on Crimea. Russia seized on Obama’s 2014 deal-brokering comments to allege U.S. orchestration of Yanukovych’s ouster, though evidence suggests diplomatic efforts, not a coup.
Biden’s Role: Escalation and Aid
As president since 2021, Joe Biden has provided over $50 billion in military aid, including Javelins and HIMARS, contrasting Obama’s caution. A December 2024 $2.5 billion package underscores support for Ukraine’s “freedom.” However, early pauses in aid and reluctance to supply advanced systems reflect escalation fears. Public support has waned, with 48% of Americans in 2023 questioning aid levels.
Allegations of U.S.-orchestrated 2014 regime change lack evidence. U.S. funding for Ukrainian civil society supported democracy, not a coup, though Russia perceives it as interference. (As we saw above, the CATO Institute quotes Dorfman as saying the U.S. backed the overthrow of the elected Ukraine president.)
A Balanced Assessment
Russia’s violation of the Budapest Memorandum and territorial ambitions drive the conflict, undermining its defensive narrative. The West’s weak memorandum assurances and cautious 2014 response failed Ukraine, while NATO expansion fueled tensions, though not justifying Russia’s actions. Obama’s restraint may have missed deterrence opportunities; Biden’s aid has bolstered Ukraine but risks prolonging the war without clear resolution.
The Budapest Memorandum symbolizes broken trust. Russia must face accountability, but the West should address legitimate security concerns without appeasement. Ukraine deserves support, yet peace may require compromises respecting its sovereignty amid Russia’s presence.
(The Budapest Agreement had signatories U.S., Russia, United Kingdom, and Ukraine. It laid out six confirmations. 1. Respect independence and sovereignty of Ukraine. 2. Agree not to use weapons to change politics or borders of Ukraine. 3. Agree not to use economic coercion to take advantage of Ukraine. 4. Agree that Ukraine is a non-nuclear-state-party to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons. 5. Agree not to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine. 6. Agree to consult if a dispute arises. Seems to me that the U.S. likely violated #4 by helping to over-throw the elected president.
I watched a show on the importance of supporting democracies. If we support elected officials, our actions are justified by the election. We must work with the people you elect. If we either, support a regime that is later over-thrown, we are the bad guys. If we help over-throw a regime, we are the bad guys to the people over-thrown. Iran is a great example. Perhaps will be another post.
This post is not to excuse Putin’s aggression, but to perhaps help explain it.
What do you think?)
Sources used by Grok:
U.S. Department of State, “Budapest Memorandums on Security Assurances, 1994,” December 5, 1994.
Congressional Research Service, “U.S. Security Assistance to Ukraine,” updated February 27, 2024.
The Atlantic, “Biden’s Parting Gift to Ukraine,” December 2024.
BBC News, “Ukraine Conflict: What Is the Budapest Memorandum?” February 24, 2022.
Reuters, “U.S. Aid to Ukraine: A Timeline,” January 2025.
Senate Homeland Security Committee, “Hunter Biden, Burisma, and Corruption,” September 23, 2020.
Foreign Affairs, “The Failure of the Budapest Memorandum,” March/April 2022.
TASS, “Lavrov on U.S. Role in Ukraine’s 2014 Crisis,” April 2015.
Note: This article avoids speculation, critically assessing claims with verified information. Allegations of U.S.-orchestrated regime change lack evidence and are treated accordingly.