The Lies That Killed Ukraine

Historian Geoff Roberts reveals how propaganda, ignored diplomacy, and Western hubris fueled the Ukraine War—and why neutrality remains the only way out.

In a recent conversation on Neutrality Studies, the British historian and Stalin biographer Dr. Geoffrey Roberts systematically unpacks how historical distortions and the abysmal moral degeneration of Western leaders added up to escalate a relatively simple political crisis in Easter Europe into one of the bloodiest wars of the young 21st century (and no, it’s not the only one).

The Propaganda War

The war in Ukraine has been engulfed in a cloud of propaganda so dense that even basic historical realities have been pushed to the margins. Yet the facts remain stubborn: Russia’s decision to resort to a “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine, while radical and lamentable, was not driven by mindless imperialism but by a long-standing, repeatedly voiced demand for an end to US/NATO weaponisation of Ukraine—something that even the New York Times admitted to in not one but two articles (Article 1, Article 2).

By December 2021, Russia had clearly laid its cards on the table: proposals for Ukraine’s neutrality, non-expansion of NATO, and security assurances were formally presented to the West. Their rejection left Russia with the grim calculation that military action was a lesser danger than passive acceptance of a growing strategic threat on its border. The war that resulted was, at its core, an extreme continuation of an escalatory spiral—a coercive extension of negotiation by other means. Far from seeking the conquest of all Ukraine, the initial aim was to force a settlement that recognized Russia’s basic security concerns.

Ignoring Facts

Yet in the face of available evidence—draft treaties, negotiation records, and public speeches—the Western narrative has refused even to acknowledge this complexity. Instead, the public was inundated with simplistic stories of unprovoked aggression and dreams of resurrecting a Russian Empire, narratives designed to foreclose serious reflection and revamped European diplomacy. In this, the moral bankruptcy of Western political culture stands exposed: truth was sacrificed for propaganda, understanding was vilified as “justification,” and the search for peace was replaced by an open-ended commitment to proxy war.

The tragedy deepens when considering that neutrality was the obvious solution—indeed, it still is for Rest-Ukraine. Neutrality would have offered Ukraine a path to survival, sovereignty, and peace without subordinating itself entirely to one geopolitical bloc. But the deeper problem lies within Ukraine itself: for significant parts of its political elite and society, neutrality was seen as betrayal—a renunciation of a Western identity they sought to embrace at all costs. That internal choice, amplified and encouraged by external actors, rendered compromise politically toxic.

Not a Strategic Accident

Meanwhile, powerful factions within Washington and Brussels saw strategic advantage in prolonging the conflict. Far from being an unwanted catastrophe, war served the ambitions of those who sought to weaken Russia, expand Western influence, and rearm Europe under NATO’s umbrella. In this light, the refusal to pursue neutrality emerges not as a tragic accident, but as a deliberate moral failure—a willful choice to sacrifice the lives of Ukrainians for geopolitical gain.

At the heart of this moral collapse lies the Western betrayal of its own proclaimed values: freedom of inquiry, commitment to truth, and the primacy of peace over war. Explaining the war’s origins, understanding the legitimate security concerns of the other side, and seeking negotiated settlements were branded as acts of treason rather than of conscience. The public sphere, once supposedly committed to open debate, became a chorus of self-righteous belligerence. Even historians and academics, trained to prize complexity over slogans, largely fell silent—or worse, joined the propaganda.

Eventually: Reality

Yet reality has a way of breaking through illusions. Military facts on the ground, not wishful thinking, will ultimately shape the end of the conflict. Russia, having consolidated control over parts of eastern and southern Ukraine, seeks limited objectives—securing the Donbass, neutralizing Ukraine, and protecting its strategic frontiers. The longer the war drags on, the more devastating the consequences for Ukraine itself. A smaller, neutral Ukraine could survive and thrive, much as Austria or Finland did after their own dark passages through conflict. To reject such a solution out of ideological spite would not only betray Ukraine’s future but undermine the moral foundations of international peace itself.

This war, and the choices surrounding it, are not just about borders or alliances. They are about the moral fabric of the world order. The willingness to distort truth, to weaponize morality, and to prolong human suffering for cynical gains is a stain that will not easily be erased. Only a return to realism, honesty, and the principle that peace is always preferable to war can offer any hope of redemption.