On the West’s role in the Ukrainian conflict and the emerging world order

Azerbaijani site News.az published an interview with United World International author Mehmet Perinçek. Below we republish the interview.

What role does the West’s geopolitical strategy play in the current conflict in Ukraine, and what are the main criticisms of this strategy?

The West’s geopolitical strategy plays a pivotal role in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Critics argue that this strategy is not only a significant factor but also one of the primary causes of the escalating confrontation. The central goal of this strategy is said to be the West’s ambition to gain control over the natural resources of Central Asia and secure dominance over key transportation routes connecting Eurasia.

However, countries like Russia, China, Türkiye, and Iran—possessing substantial economic potential, powerful armed forces, and deep-rooted state traditions—pose significant barriers to the West’s strategy. To achieve its objectives, the West seeks to encircle, weaken, and dismantle the statehood of these nations by leveraging conflicts and destabilization as tools.

In this context, the Ukrainian conflict becomes a crucial element of the West’s strategy. Ukraine is seen as a staging ground for exerting pressure not only on Russia but also on the entire Eurasian region. By encircling Russia, the West simultaneously creates threats to nations like Türkiye, Azerbaijan, Iran, and other Eurasian states, which remain insurmountable obstacles to its strategic plans.

The Ukrainian issue was artificially constructed. For years, the West provoked Ukraine against its closest neighbor, culminating in the events of 2014, when a coup d’état was orchestrated.

Such scenarios were not limited to Ukraine; the West attempted similar strategies in other regional countries like Georgia, Armenia, and even Azerbaijan. However, in the cases of Azerbaijan and Georgia, these plans failed as these nations preserved their sovereignty and refused to follow Ukraine’s path.

What are Russia’s key objectives in its military operation, and how are they connected to the historical and cultural aspects of relations between the two nations?

Russia’s primary goal is to ensure its security. When the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, Western countries and NATO promised Russia that they would not expand eastward. However, these promises were not honored, and NATO continued its expansion, moving closer to Russian borders. Ultimately, the plans to incorporate Ukraine and Georgia into NATO represented a clear step toward encircling Russia.

NATO has become Russia’s direct neighbor, causing significant concern in Moscow. It is evident that NATO and the Atlantic world intend to use Ukraine as a military base or a launchpad against the Russian Federation. Consequently, Russia seeks to secure its borders.

One of the stated objectives of Moscow’s current operation is the so-called “denazification” of Ukraine. Russian-speaking citizens living in Ukraine faced immense pressure following the coup. Restrictions were imposed on their language, culture, traditions, and religion. The Russian-speaking population faced repression and violence from neo-Nazi elements, which gained substantial power and began to govern the country. This posed a severe threat to Russian-speaking communities.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in an interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson, emphasized the main goals of Russia’s operation. He stated that Russia opposes the establishment of military bases, exercises involving foreign troops, and any NATO military infrastructure on Ukrainian territory. Russia demands a peaceful resolution of the conflict through negotiations, respecting the country’s legitimate security interests and the fundamental rights of Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population, including their linguistic and religious freedoms.

Russia views the conflict not as a war between Russians and Ukrainians but as a confrontation between the West and Russia. According to Moscow, the Kyiv regime is controlled by neo-Nazi elements, further exacerbating the situation. Despite the conflict, Russia continues to see the Ukrainian people as fraternal, considering them part of one large family.

Russia insists that this conflict stems from the West’s strategy rather than an internal divide between Ukrainians and Russians. Moreover, even Ukrainians themselves are suffering from Western actions, making the conflict a tragedy for both sides.

What diplomatic solutions has Volodymyr Zelensky proposed for resolving the conflict, and how might they affect Ukraine’s sovereignty?

Firstly, it must be noted that Ukraine, or more accurately the Kyiv regime, lacks true autonomy. All key decisions are executed in line with Western directives, which offer no guarantees of Ukraine’s independence or sovereignty. This lack of autonomy has been evident both before the conflict began and during the hostilities.

There were attempts to negotiate with Moscow before the war. For instance, during the Istanbul negotiations, Russia and Ukraine reached certain agreements. However, the intervention of external actors, such as Washington, obstructed these agreements. Provocations like the events in Bucha further complicated the peace talks.

As a result, Ukraine became a tool in the West’s geopolitical strategy, which aims to prolong the conflict through arms supplies. This approach primarily harms the Ukrainian people, who do not deserve to be used as pawns in others’ selfish agendas.

History demonstrates how imperialist nations have exploited regional forces for their own interests, only to abandon them once they are no longer useful. This lesson can be drawn from the history of the Dashnaks in Armenia, who were used as tools in the West’s plans against their neighbors. Subsequently, when they lost the war, the West left them without support.

Today’s Ukraine is following a similar path, already expressing dissatisfaction with the actions of its Western patrons, anticipating that the West may abandon its support when it becomes inconvenient.

The policy of prolonging the war through arms supplies primarily damages the Ukrainian people, tearing the country apart from within. Crimea and eastern Ukraine might have remained part of the country if not for the coup, the Maidan events, and subsequent restrictions on the rights, language, traditions, and religion of the Russian-speaking population. Ukraine would not have become a Western outpost against Russia if it weren’t for policies aimed at deepening the confrontation.

What are the long-term consequences of freezing the conflict for Ukraine, Russia, and the global security system?

To answer this question, it is essential to recognize that a new world order is already taking shape. The era of Atlanticism has ended. The Atlantic world, including the U.S. and the West, is gradually losing its dominant role in global economics, politics, and military affairs. Every day, Western media report on the economic challenges faced by the U.S. and Europe. The economic crisis gripping Western nations affects even leading economies like France, Germany, and the UK, which some analysts believe are on the brink of bankruptcy. Western media themselves highlight these issues.

Beyond economics, the West is losing ground in the military sphere. The balance of power is shifting, as seen in events like the Karabakh war and the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, marked by a humiliating retreat. Even American strategists admit that their navy struggles to counter Chinese forces in the Pacific region.

On the international stage, the U.S. and Europe are attempting to isolate countries like Russia, Türkiye, Iran, China, and Azerbaijan through sanctions and resolutions. However, these efforts have backfired, isolating the West instead. Despite Western attempts to isolate Azerbaijan, the country continues to host major international events, such as COP29, solidifying its position on the global stage. Azerbaijan is emerging as a key player in the new world order, where sovereignty, peaceful conflict resolution, and mutually beneficial cooperation take precedence.

The new world order is being shaped by Eurasian countries, where all participants cooperate as equals, respecting one another. This fundamentally contrasts with the Western approach, rooted in imposing its own interests.

To resolve the Ukrainian issue, Kyiv must be freed from Western influence. The example of Karabakh shows that when regional players—Türkiye, Russia, and Azerbaijan—take the initiative, conflicts can be resolved fairly and effectively. This demonstrates that regional problems are best addressed by the countries within the region, without external interference.

Thus, the future of the global order lies not in the West’s strategy but in equitable and mutually beneficial cooperation among Eurasian nations, prioritizing peaceful initiatives, respect for sovereignty, and the development of new forms of international interaction.