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.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.
“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.”
| 1 | Alfred de Zayas | Law professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and served as a UN Independent Expert on International Order 2012-18 |
| 2 | Glenn Diesen | Professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an associate editor at the journal Russia in Global Affairs. He has published 11 books on Russian foreign policy |
| 3 | John M. Evans | Former U.S. Consul General in St. Petersburg |
| 4 | Ray McGovern | Former Chief, Soviet Foreign Policy Branch/CIA; Cofounder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) |
| 5 | Elizabeth Murray | Former Deputy National Intelligence Officer for the Near East, National Intelligence Council; Member, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) |
| 6 | Cornelis M. Keur | Retired Consul General to Hyderabad, India and Chengdu, China. |
| 7 | David Hartsough | Co-Founder of World BEYOND War and author of Waging Peace: Global Adventures of a Lifelong Activist. Hartsough has been arrested more than 150 times for nonviolent civil disobedience in his work for peace and justice. |