Letter by Concerned Diplomats, Academics and Foreign Policy Professionals about the War in Ukraine

Prepared by Donald A. Smith, PhD

We, the undersigned US diplomats, scholars, and foreign policy professionals, call on the government of the United States to urgently pursue a negotiated end to the Russia-Ukraine war.

Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed. Over 14 million people have been displaced from their homes. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent. Reconstruction costs will be in the trillions of dollars. Damage to economies, especially in the EU, is great, due to sanctions on Russian energy and the diversion of funds from civilian needs to military spending. The longer the war continues, the higher these costs will go. Given the tit for tat escalations (e.g., ATACM and Oreshnik missiles), there is significant risk of further escalation and possible nuclear war.

What, then, has been preventing the political and media establishments from pushing for negotiations in Ukraine? The answer is: the belief that negotiations would reward President Putin for his alleged “unprovoked war of aggression.” In short, if you believe that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was entirely unprovoked and that he is another Hitler, then you will likely think that punishing and stopping Putin's aggression is more important than the costs and risks of continuing the war. You might also think that Putin has plans to invade other countries besides Ukraine.

A main point of this letter is to expose truths that make the need for a negotiated solution more compelling. Specifically, we summarize the case for why it is a gross exaggeration to claim that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was unprovoked. At the end of this letter we list articles and quotations that further document our claims.

The provocations we expose do not morally or legally justify Russia’s invasion. But the extensive provocations do undercut the argument that negotiating an end to the war would be akin to rewarding Putin for unprovoked aggression. Both sides can be at fault in a war, and it is difficult to apportion blame in this war.

We believe that a large number of diplomats, academics, and foreign policy professionals agree with our views about the war in Ukraine but are cowed into silence. Our intention in releasing this letter is to encourage others to come forward and join us in exposing the truth about the background to the U.S. proxy war in Ukraine. If enough people come forward, we can shift the narrative and make a convincing case that negotiations, not escalations, are imperative.

Readers of this letter are aware of the history of U.S. lies about wars. Exposing the lies about Ukraine may also help derail the ongoing U.S. preparations for war with China.

The war in Ukraine did not start with the Russian Federation’s invasion in 2022. It is the culmination of provocations by the U.S. and NATO that go back decades. These provocations included 1) expanding NATO eastward right up to the border of Russia in violation of verbal promises not to expand NATO after the break-up of the Soviet Union; 2) U.S. promotion of the inclusion of Ukraine into NATO even though diplomats repeatedly warned that this would be considered an existential threat to Russia; 3) the interference of the U.S. in Ukraine’s internal politics, including aiding the violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government in 2014; and 4) the arming of far-right militias attacking Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the east.

Would the U.S. allow Russia to form military alliances with Mexico and countries in the Caribbean; position missiles and bases there; overthrow the government of Canada; install the new Prime Minister; ban the official use of English; build up Canada's military; and ally with and arm anti-American militias?

The war in Ukraine is like the Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse. President Trump and President Putin should follow the example of President John F. Kennedy and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and negotiate a solution to the crisis.

Furthermore, the U.S. position on the Russian invasion is grossly hypocritical, given that the U.S. invaded, bombed, occupied, and overthrew countries all over the world, often for flimsy reasons. Iraq is an obvious example. Another example is Syria: for about a decade the U.S. has occupied one-third of Syria -- the parts with oil -- with help from proxy militias. Russia's invasion was along its borders, in a divided country with close historical and cultural ties to Russia, and in response to U.S. "democracy promotion" in Ukraine.

Moreover, Russia is winning the war -- at least in the sense of gaining territory -- and has overwhelming advantages in troops and firepower, despite the billions of dollars in weaponry provided by NATO. Russians view the events in Ukraine as an existential threat. The events there are no threat to the U.S. mainland. The U.S. has repeatedly crossed Russia's red lines in the war, escalating the kinds of weapons provided and where those weapons could be used. The risk of miscalculation and escalation to nuclear war is very real. Even a one percent chance of such an outcome is unacceptable.

One significant difficulty with making a case for peace is that the arguments in favor of war are plausible. Intelligence agencies intentionally cover up evidence and promote falsehoods. Perhaps Putin planned to attack Ukraine all along. Perhaps he has hopes of re-creating a Soviet empire. Perhaps NATO expansion was a prescient step, to prevent and react to the sort of invasion that occurred in 2022.

On the other hand, consideration of the available evidence and opinions shows that it is far more likely that NATO expansion provoked the very war that is now being retroactively used to justify NATO expansion.

Some Quotations and articles that describe U.S. provocations

There are plenty of quotations and articles, even in mainstream media, alleging U.S. provocations in Ukraine. Here are some salient ones. For more examples, see the list of sources in the next section.

1. According to Chas W. Freeman, former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Lifetime Director of the Atlantic Council, the U.S. engineered the 2014 Maidan overthrow that replaced the democratically elected government of Victor Yanukovich with a government subservient to the United States.
2. Former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack Matlock said, "Why don’t we understand that trying to remove Ukraine from Russian influence and put military bases there would be, in their case, absolutely unacceptable and worthy of defense?". Matlock also said the Ukrainians are "dominated in their thinking by neo-Nazis — we tend to ignore that, or when Putin points it out, we say he’s lying. He’s not lying." See here for scores of mainstream news media articles documenting the presence of neo-Nazis in Ukraine.
3. Diplomat and historian George Kennan, quoted in Thomas Friedman's This Is Putin's War. But America and NATO Aren't Innocent Bystanders, discussing NATO expansion:

   “I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.”

4. In an intercepted telephone call, Victoria Nuland and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed who would lead the next government of Ukraine.
5. The CIA was deeply involved in Ukraine after 2014, as reported by Yahoo News, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and ABC News
6. The New Yorker reported that the CIA and NSA engaged in a broad "effort, around the time of the invasion, to close off many 'sources related to Russia/Ukraine matters.'"
7. The U.S. armed far-right militias that were attacking Russian speakers in the east of Ukraine.
8. RAND Corporation in Overextending and Unbalancing Russia recommended arming Ukraine and predicted that those actions would result in a war. RAND also predicted -- correctly -- that Russia would have the advantage in the war.
9. The U.S. withdrew from important nuclear arms deals:
   • Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty
   • Strategic Arms Reduction (START II)Treaty (The U.S. Senate wouldn't ratify it.)
   • Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty
   • Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iran deal
   • Open Skies Treaty
   The U.S. has rejected several treaties and resolutions related to the militarization of space, including the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) resolution and the Space Code of Conduct.
10. Forbes reported in 2015: One Year After Russia Annexed Crimea, Locals Prefer Moscow To Kiev.
11. The United States and Great Britain stymied negotiated solutions to the crisis, both before the invasion and afterwards. See, too, American Conservative's Why Peace Talks, But No Peace?.

For further information

• The Ukraine Papers has quotations and links to numerous articles on this issue.
• Harper's Why are We in Ukraine?
• Scott Horton's Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine
• Medea Benjamin and Nicolas Davies' War in Ukraine: Making Sense of a Senseless Conflict
• Jeffrey Sachs' The War in Ukraine Was Provoked -- and Why That Matters to Achieve Peace, The Biden-Schumer Plan to Kill More Ukrainians, and Why Won't the US Help Negotiate a Peaceful End to the War in Ukraine?.
• Benjamin Abelow's book How the West Brought War to Ukraine and his Medium essay with the same title.
• Chris Hedges' They Lied About Afghanistan. They Lied About Iraq. And They Are Lying About Ukraine.
• Donald A. Smith's The Wisdom of JFK vs. the Recklessness of Joe Biden
• Al Jazeera' Jan 2025: Biden’s Ukraine disaster was decades in the making, by Leonid Ragozin.

---

Comment on this letter

(Comments are moderated to avoid spam)

Show Comments

---