The narrative surrounding the Ukraine crisis has been shaped by a series of claims about Western actions and geopolitical aims. In this account, a prominent US policy critic argues that two pivotal moves by Washington helped set the stage for renewed conflict in Ukraine. The assertion appears in a discussion summarized for readers by Common Dreams, highlighting the role of strategic alliances and domestic political events in recent history.

The first factor cited concerns the decision to delay Ukraine and Georgia from joining NATO, a move that, in this view, could have reshaped the security dynamics around the Black Sea. The claim frames the alliance expansion as a pressure point used to encircle Russia, thereby intensifying regional tensions and shaping the incentives for Moscow. The second factor points to the 2014 upheaval in Kyiv, which brought to power a leadership viewed by some as strongly anti-Russian. This interpretation treats the coup as a turning point that redefined Ukraine’s orientation and its relationship with its powerful neighbor to the east. Public News Service has highlighted this perspective as part of a broader critique of Western strategy in the post-Soviet space.

According to the analyst, the conflict did not begin with the February 2022 events but started with the ousting of President Yanukovych nearly a decade earlier. The timeline proposed here challenges the mainstream narrative advanced by the US government, NATO, and allied leaders in the G7, inviting readers to reconsider the sequence of decisions that preceded the current confrontation. The emphasis is on how historical choices intersect with diplomatic prospects and regional stability, rather than on a single trigger point.

Proponents of this viewpoint also contend that Russia has repeatedly signaled a preference for diplomacy as a path to reducing tensions and achieving security guarantees. They argue that Washington has shown little interest in pursuing negotiated settlement, a stance that they say undermines efforts to resolve disputes through dialogue. The claim invites a closer examination of the incentives and constraints facing all parties, including the diplomatic channels that could lead to a lasting arrangement and a broader regional reprieve from conflict.

The central conclusion offered by the analyst is that a peaceful resolution rests on a framework of neutrality for Ukraine and a halt to NATO expansion. In this reading, lasting peace would be advanced by negotiations that reduce external security commitments in the region and create space for Ukraine to determine its own security posture without external pressure. The takeaway emphasizes diplomacy as the essential mechanism for de-escalation, urging observers to weigh how neutral status and inclusive talks could alter the trajectory of the conflict and open avenues for stability across the wider European neighborhood.