The West is allowing itself to be manipulated. The Kremlin is setting the agenda, attempting to convince us that the prospect of peace is linked to territorial or political concessions. It is trying to make us believe that its actions and demands are fair and reasonable.
They are not. Not even close.
Russia’s aims and objectives have been told in a series of stories. The West has been offered several options, all coming at different costs and consequences, with one – the one Russia wants us to pick – offering us what on paper seems like an “easy way out.”
It hints at peace if it “only” secures eastern Ukraine, or eastern and southern Ukraine, or all of Ukraine, or, at the very least, Ukraine and beyond. Or maybe not at all.
There is no easy way out.
The West has been exposed to three Russian fictions and one story signaling its true intentions.
The first story – the so-called “choice of the people”
It started with Crimea and an eight-year low-intensity war in Luhansk and Donetsk. A story of green men, Russian-controlled “separatists,” three illegal referendums, allegations of historical injustice, and false “genocide” claims against ethnic Russians in Ukraine.
On the eve of the full-scale invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin falsely claimed the war’s purpose was to protect people who had “been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kiev [sic] regime.” He would “seek to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine” and hold those responsible accountable.
This tale focuses on Crimea and the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions (oblasts). It’s the narrative most people have heard, and many – including the Trump administration - believe is key to solving the war.
Since Ukraine forced Russia to withdraw from Kyiv, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, Sumy, Mykolaiv and parts of the Kherson region in 2022, most of the warfighting has occurred in these four regions.
Putin’s negotiation terms are also linked to this eastern and southern flank. Under his proposal, Ukraine would fully withdraw from Donetsk and Luhansk regions, abandoning the fortress belt preventing Russian advances, for a Russian pledge to freeze front lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.
Understanding Russia’s true ambitions, Ukraine has persistently refused territorial concessions.
Why? The Kremlin’s strategic ambitions extend far beyond Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and the West has provided no incitement for Russia to end what it sees as an existential war.
The second story: the so-called “historical Russian lands”
The Novorossiya concept and “Russian historical lands” narrative have justified Russian actions in Ukraine, particularly before the 2014 Crimea annexation and 2022 invasion.
Novorossiya (meaning “New Russia”) is an artificial historical term for eastern and southern Ukraine occupied by the Russian Empire in the 18th-19th centuries.
In 2014, Russia instigated unrest in southern and eastern Ukraine to undermine the post-[Viktor] Yanukovych government, spreading false narratives of a “fascist junta” in Kyiv. Its efforts focused on areas Russia sees as “Novorossiya”: Kharkiv, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv, Dnipropetrovsk, and Odesa.
After failing to occupy Kyiv in February 2022, Russia has intensified efforts to take “Novorossiya.”
Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly used the term. On August 24, 2025, he made the highly inflammatory remark that “Ukraine has the right to exist, provided it must let people go. The people… who during several referenda – in Novorossiya, in Donbas, in Crimea – decided that they belong to the Russian culture.”
He has claimed alleged “suffering of the Russian people in Donbas and Novorossiya,” and that the Ukrainian government, since 2014, has never reflected “the aspirations of the populations of Crimea, Donbas, or Novorossiya.”
Lavrov claims that “Crimea, Donbas, and Novorossiya constitute settled matters, particularly given how referenda outcomes in these territories have been enshrined in our Constitution.” This is despite such referenda being illegal.
While the West ignores Russian tales about Novorossiya and “historical lands,” they are crucial to understanding Russia’s true ambitions. They reveal one essential fact: Russia’s strategic goals extend far beyond the Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions.
The question is: How much further?
The third story – the so-called “one people, one nation” story
According to Putin, Russians and Ukrainians are falsely portrayed as one people, sharing ethnicity, culture, history, and language. In July 2021, Putin published an essay arguing Russians and Ukrainians are “one people” and suggesting Ukraine was not a legitimate, independent state—signaling his desire to reassert Russian control.
The Kremlin does not see Ukraine as sovereign and portrays it as inevitably part of the Russian Federation. “I’ve said it before – Russians and Ukrainians are one people. In this sense, all of Ukraine is ours,” Putin said on June 20, 2025.
Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council and former president, echoed this view, arguing “Ukraine is definitely Russia.”
This view is reflected in Russia’s extreme demands, summarized in Putin’s June 14, 2024, speech. While some demands kept the West focused on eastern Ukraine (complete withdrawal from four regions, recognizing them and Crimea as Russian), most were “global,” encompassing all of Ukraine.
Putin demanded that Ukraine abandon NATO plans and remain neutral, leaving it without effective security guarantees and vulnerable to future Russian assaults.
Putin stipulated that Ukraine be demilitarized, referencing the 2022 Istanbul talks that demanded Ukraine reduce its peacetime military to 85,000 soldiers, leaving its independence at Russia’s mercy.
He repeated demands for “denazification” – commonly understood as regime change. Russia wants a pro-Russian president and government, returning to the “Yanukovych era.”
On May 25, 2025, Medvedev called for Russian control over a buffer zone encompassing most of Ukraine, apart from a small area along Poland’s border.
Medvedev stressed that Russia’s “geostrategic space” is indivisible from Ukraine. “All our adversaries need to understand once and for all a simple fact: that the territories on both banks of the Dnipro River are an integral part of Russia’s strategic and historical borders.”
According to Ukrainian Defense Intelligence, Russia developed plans to partition Ukraine into three parts: “new regions of Russia,” “pro-Russian state entity,” and “disputed territories” (presumably divided between Russia and neighboring countries). Even this plan leaves Russia controlling most of Ukraine.
The Kremlin has demanded all of Ukraine for years. Demands for “denazification,” “demilitarization” and neutral status are directly linked to Russia’s aims to occupy the whole country. This confirms that Russia’s strategic goals extend far beyond Novorossiya, Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions.
None of these demands respect Ukraine’s independence and sovereignty. They suggest the opposite: fundamental denial of Ukraine’s right to self-determination, to choose alliances, and to maintain a military capable of self-defense. They reflect the Kremlin’s false claim: Ukraine is part of Russia. Putin has called the war a “civil war between brothers who stand on different sides [of the conflict]” for which the West is responsible.
Russia always wanted all of Ukraine. But is that all?
Unfortunately, it is not.
The fourth story – the so-called “Russian World” and the Russian Empire
Putin’s imperialistic “Russian World” concept includes “former territories of Kyivan Rus, the Kingdom of Muscovy, the Russian Empire, the Soviet Union, and the contemporary Russian Federation.”
The so-called Russian World knows no borders. “There is an old saying, not quite a proverb, but a long-standing principle: wherever the foot of a Russian soldier steps is Russian land,” Putin said less than five months ago.
Russian soldiers have been present across most of Europe throughout history. Russia’s historical footprint includes the greater part of Central and Eastern Europe, and parts of Western Europe. Even Nordic countries have seen Russian soldiers on their territory.
Putin calls the “collapse of the Soviet Union… the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” While cited as evidence of revanchist thinking, Putin focused on the loss of Russian influence, displacement of Russian-speaking populations, and ensuing economic chaos.
Recently, Russian Presidential Advisor Anton Kobyakov claimed the Soviet Union’s founding body wasn’t involved in dissolution and that the Soviet Union still legally exists.
This context is crucial for understanding Russia’s Dec. 17, 2021, “ultimatums” to NATO and the US, demanding NATO withdraw to its 1997 borders. Russia essentially demands a sphere of influence over Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
Russia’s long-term goal is to re-establish control over the former Soviet Union countries.
Putin’s pre-invasion speech focused as much on NATO as Ukraine. Putin argued that NATO’s eastward expansion and supposed promises – in fact debunked – not to move “an inch” closer, has created an existential threat to Russia. He portrays NATO as an instrument of US geopolitical containment that disregards Russia’s legitimate security concerns, seeking a long-term military foothold on “historically Russian territory.” Putin presented NATO’s actions as aggressive, immoral and intolerable, justifying Russian measures to prevent further expansion and to secure “Russia’s survival.”
He ignored the fact that “eastward expansion” resulted from sovereign countries intimately familiar with the “Russian World” seeking protection in the West against Russia.
The Kremlin has persistently pushed the narrative that NATO’s alleged “eastward expansion” is the root cause of the war; and that the West was always Russia’s enemy. This is reflected in Russia’s “ultimatums” and is laid down in Russia’s foreign policy doctrine, identifying the West as an existential threat. It is also reflected in Russia’s hybrid war against both the US and Europe.
This antipathy appears in numerous diplomatic statements. Since 2014, Russia has increasingly argued that it is at war with the West, accusing it of waging an information war, economic war, proxy war, hybrid war and even a form of total war against it. Sanctions are portrayed as an act of aggression. The Kremlin is framing its unprovoked invasion of Ukraine as a necessary pre-emptive strike for national survival, alleging that Western states want to pull Russia apart, despite Western policy always fearing Russian collapse.
In July 2023, Russian Colonel-General Andrey Mordvichev, today the commander of the Russian Ground Forces, indicated that Russia plans to expand the war to Europe, stressing that Ukraine is just a stepping stone for the attack on Eastern Europe.
The West must acknowledge that Russia’s claims over post-Soviet space are no different from its claims to all of Ukraine.
Once Ukraine is integrated into the Russian Federation, Russia hopes to resolve demographic problems, gain control over its defense industry, technology, human resources, agricultural land, gas, oil and mineral deposits. It would move military power nearly 900 km closer to London, Berlin and Paris, enforcing aggressive global demands.
It would create a hostile, imperialistic power at the border of Europe, emboldened to use military power to achieve its next objective: to destroy the existing security architecture by compelling NATO to withdraw its forces to its 1997 borders and denying the US from deploying military forces and nuclear weapons to Europe.
Crucially, Russia remains determined to pursue strategic parity with the US and China. It aspires for Great Power status and to rectify what the Kremlin sees as a historical injustice after the Soviet collapse. It seeks to reassert influence over Eastern and Northern Europe. The defeat and conquest of Ukraine is crucial to achieving its true strategic goal: Make Russia Great Again (MaRGA).
NATO was the last barrier between its strategic aims. Ukraine is presently the last obstacle hindering the resurrection of the Russian Empire as a Global Power on par with the US.
Which of the four is true?
Of the four Russian tales, only two have been formalized – one as the starting point and the other as the desired end state.
Russia has demanded the Crimean Peninsula and the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions, but only as a condition to start negotiations. The implication is that the Kremlin would ask for more – far more – if negotiations ever start. Novorossiya? Ukraine? NATO’s withdrawal?
Putin has, however, already made it very clear what his end state is. These were formalized in a letter to the US and NATO in December 2021. Russia demands nothing less than a return of the post-Soviet space. A sphere of influence covering a greater part of NATO. In a sense, he is asking for the dismantling of the only thing between him and a European hegemony: NATO.
Europe knows
The idea of broader confrontation appears contrary to mainstream Western messaging. Western media use terms like “Russia-Ukraine war” or “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.” Official statements prefer “Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine” to emphasize legal and moral responsibility. These terms share one thing: They limit the war’s scale and scope to non-NATO territory.
The Trump administration’s “peace plans” reinforce the impression that the threat is localized to Ukraine, securing global attention to the first Russian fiction: Crimea and eastern Ukraine. In Trump’s “final peace proposal,” a document that is extremely biased in favor of Russia, it would receive US de jure recognition of Russian control over Crimea; de facto recognition of occupation of most of the Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions; a promise Ukraine won’t join NATO; lifting of sanctions since 2014; and increased economic cooperation.
The “peace plan” ignores the other “Russian stories,” including the only one formalized by letters to NATO members: The “Russian World” and the Russian Empire. It doesn’t address Russia’s December 2021 ultimatum demanding a sphere of influence over parts of NATO, Moscow’s aim for strategic parity with the US, or the ongoing Russian hybrid war in the US and Europe.
NATO’s official stance further clouds the situation. NATO has stated that hybrid attacks against an Ally could potentially trigger Article 5. The 2024 Washington Summit Declaration reaffirmed this. While expressing “deep concern over Russia’s hybrid actions, which constitute a threat to Allied security,” it hasn’t portrayed it as a hybrid war justifying Collective Defense. The NATO strategic concept discusses hybrid threats, challenges, operations, and tactics – deliberately avoiding the term war. The Alliance avoids language that commits it to respond to Russia’s hybrid war.
Public awareness is obscured by member states’ messaging and apparent lack of urgency.
Ironically, most European countries have realized Russia is waging a hybrid war on their territory.
While strategic messaging is obscure, actions are not. Europe is rearming and rebuilding its defense industrial base for a potential conflict with Russia by 2030. Last month, the EU proposed the Preserving Peace - Defence Readiness Roadmap 2030, strengthening European defense capabilities by 2030. This follows related initiatives like European Defence Industry Programme (EDIP), ProtectEU Internal Security Strategy, Security Action for Europe (SAFE), and Readiness 2030 Roadmap/“ReArm Europe,” including the four flagships: European Drone Defence Initiative, the Eastern Flank Watch, the European Air Shield and the European Space Shield.
The Roadmap aims to ensure that the EU and its Member States achieve full defense readiness by 2030, fully in line with the threat assessments from several European intelligence services.
Europe’s deeds are clearer than its words.
The reason is, unfortunately, more sinister than the forthcoming conflict. After three decades of downsizing, streamlining and underfinancing, and failing to respond resolutely to the war’s start (2014) and full-scale invasion (2022), Europe has only recently begun closing critical vulnerabilities: air and missile defense; strategic enablers; military mobility; artillery systems; cyber, AI, electronic warfare; missile & ammunition; drones and counter-drones; ground combat; and maritime.
Europe – without Ukraine integrated into its security architecture – cannot guarantee its own security.
The US can no longer be regarded as trustworthy. By denying Ukraine defense aid, promoting its “peace plan” and engaging Europe in a trade war – at the exact moment Europe starts rearming – the US actively undermines European security.
It is time for honesty: the threat to our common security has never been greater. The window to prepare is closing fast.
Europe must shift its narrative – from Russia’s fictions about Eastern Ukraine to the Kremlin’s vision of empire and confrontation. Recognizing the true scale of this war is where defense begins.
Europe must also find the courage to openly discuss strategic autonomy and a new military alliance (or Coalition of Like-Minded European countries).
To paraphrase former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill: We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in Ukraine, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend Europe, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.
We must finally start to communicate and act in a manner that Russia understands.
The views expressed are the author’s and not necessarily of Kyiv Post.