TEHRAN – The war in Ukraine has emerged as one of the defining struggles of the 21st century, redrawing global fault lines and igniting fierce debate over its origins. While the result of US-mediated talks over the war between Russia and Ukraine remains unclear, the question of how this confrontation began — and why it has endured — has taken on fresh urgency.

Many analysts trace its roots back to NATO’s 2008 summit in Bucharest, a turning point that deepened tensions with Russia. In an interview with the Tehran Times, Professor Vladimir Azarov, a member of the Russian Writers' Union and professor at the Academy of Military Sciences as well as a veteran of local wars and military conflicts, contends that NATO expansion, Cold War intelligence operations, and decades of Western backing for Ukrainian nationalism deliberately set the stage for war. He outlines why, in his view, Western leaders have slowed progress on peace talks, how Ukraine became a geopolitical pawn, and why sanctions have failed to sap Russia’s strength.

The following is the text of the interview:

It is widely believed that the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008 set the stage for today’s confrontation between Russia and the West. From your perspective, what dynamics at that summit contributed to this outcome?

The NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, together with President Putin’s Berlin speech that same year, certainly influenced the formation of today’s confrontation. It marked a continuation of the West and NATO provoking Russia, refusing to accept any of Russia’s offers to the world.

Top ranking official attendees of the NATO summit pose for a family picture in Bucharest April 3, 2008. REUTERS

The West deliberately complicated the situation so that everything would end in a war between Russia and Ukraine. Moreover, the West deliberately wanted this war with Russia to weaken and destroy it, but for Ukraine to lead it. To do this, it was pumped with money and weapons, carried out a powerful information policy and zombified the local population.

Western narratives often describe Russia’s actions in Ukraine as “unprovoked aggression.” How do you interpret the origins of the conflict differently? 

In the mass consciousness of people all over the world, the prevailing version remains that on February 24, 2022, the Russian Federation committed an “unprovoked” act of aggression against Ukraine to seize it according to the plan for the restoration of the former Soviet Empire, of which the Russian Federation is the legal successor. But the reality is quite different.

Reinhard Gehlen (center) and staff of the Wermacht’s Counter Intelligence Unit. (Getty Images)

Suppose we consider the war as a continuation of politics. In that case, it is no exaggeration to say that the conflict in Ukraine began in 1947-1948, when the United States officially incorporated the so-called Gehlen organization into its national security apparatus.

 It was the German intelligence agency created by the Americans in June 1946. It was formed based on a Nazi intelligence cell operating on the Eastern Front. The organization was commanded by General Reinhard Gehlen, who in 1956 became the first head of the West German Federal Intelligence Service (BND).

While in captivity, Gehlen convinced the Americans that he had good contacts in the territories occupied by the Soviet Union, including with Ukrainian nationalists.

"It is no exaggeration to say that the Ukraine conflict began in 1947-1948, when the US officially incorporated the Gehlen organization into its national security apparatus."This was very important in the perspective of the beginning of the Cold War, because the Anglo-Saxons wanted to use Ukraine as a tool to weaken the USSR.

Cooperation with the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, established through the Gehlen group, developed very intensively until 1954, when the USSR suppressed the active phase of the Bandera uprising in the then Soviet Ukraine.

At the same time, on August 18, 1948, the United States adopted the Directive of the US National Security Council 20/1 or the Allen Dulles Plan, the Director of the CIA, which outlined the tasks of the West against the USSR, to work with the population on its decomposition and subsequent destruction of the country. A separate chapter outlines the tasks of the West against Ukraine and its role in the destruction of the USSR and Russia.

Therefore, the CIA maintained political ties with the Bandera survivors mainly through the Ukrainian diaspora in the West. To a large extent, these were Bandera fighters who fled to Germany after World War II. Many of them then moved to Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, where they gained significant political influence, playing a crucial role in the Anglo-Saxon struggle against the USSR during the Cold War era.

If you want to delve into the history of Russia a little bit, you can understand why Ukraine has become like this. 

From a historical perspective, how did Ukraine’s territorial and cultural development contribute to today’s tensions? 
Most of the future Ukraine became part of the

Russian Empire after the partitions of Poland (1772-1795) and the conquest of the Crimean Khanate by Russia, and it was only in the 19th century that externally imposed Ukrainian nationalism began to develop here.

And before all these events, Kievan Rus was constantly fighting for spheres of influence with the neighboring Khazar Khaganate, which also influenced the formation of the mentality of the inhabitants of the territories from which Ukraine was later formed.

"Externally imposed Ukrainian nationalism began to develop in the 19th century."For centuries, this territorial entity had no statehood of its own, except for a year and a half of the unsuccessful existence of its national republic, proclaimed in 1917 on the fragments of the Russian Empire, and the modern period that began after the collapse of the USSR with the declaration of independence on December 1, 1991.

Such a long-term moral condition in the role of provincial slaves, living under the influence and guidance of foreigners and neighbors who considered the inhabitants of Little Russia and Novorossiya to be second-class people, developed in some of them a persistent irritation towards the conquerors, whether they were conquerors from Moscow or Poles.

This was vividly demonstrated during World War II, when Ukrainian nationalists killed civilians in the Soviet Union and Poland with equal brutality and sadism.

Ukrainians-Little Russians have not created their own national elite – the nobility, and have not forgotten the times when people were led by people from neighboring countries.

You describe Ukrainian nationalism as “externally imposed”. How did Western powers maintain and encourage these sentiments during the Soviet era and after the collapse of the USSR?

Using this sore point as a “historical injustice,” the collective West has been gradually, slowly, but persistently inflaming Ukrainians’ nationalist sentiments
against the Russians over the past centuries and supporting their struggle for independence from their former homeland, provoking both sides to mutual confrontation.

During the existence of the USSR, these nationalist sentiments, especially in the Western regions of Ukraine, were outwardly overcome, but Ukrainian Nazism did not disappear, it only passed into a latent state.

"The collective West has been gradually, slowly, but persistently inflaming Ukrainians’ nationalist sentiments against the Russians over the past centuries."Almost immediately after the end of World War II, the United States began to consider Ukraine as a territory that should be used to destabilize first the USSR and then the Russian Federation. Thus, the current conflict began at the moment when the United States decided to make Ukraine an instrument of struggle against the USSR, that is, at the dawn of the Cold War.

The Bandera people on the North American continent felt great because they were always needed by the Americans, who persistently instill hatred of Russia in the next generations of Ukrainians. That’s why the CIA did everything possible to introduce Bandera, that is, Ukrainian nationalists, into all the power structures of Ukraine. They were the ones who were supposed to turn this country into an effective tool for harming Russia.

This was confirmed by the process of dismantling the Soviet Union, which was aimed primarily at singling out Ukraine as a separate geopolitical entity, and then significantly strengthening it in contrast to Russia.

Therefore, after the collapse of the USSR, thanks primarily to the leaders of the Ukrainian SSR, active Ukrainian nationalists, Nazism in Ukraine got a second wind and became the main tool for the Ukrainization of all regions of Ukraine, even those who had never felt its presence on their lands before.

Suffice it to recall that geographically, Ukraine has gone beyond the historical Galicia, which could be attributed to the habitat of the people of the Ukrainian type, and has become much larger thanks to the efforts of Lenin and Khrushchev.

The map shows that Lenin in 1918 gave all of Novorossiya, which had always been Russian, to Ukraine, Stalin in 1940 – Southern Bessarabia, and Khrushchev in 1954 - Crimea!

For the first time in many centuries, those who began to position themselves as representatives of a separate nation, Ukrainians, showed national pride. An independent country with its own state language and national culture has appeared on the political map of the world. The Bandera Nazis, with the support of the supreme government, led and turned the development and formation of Ukraine towards fascistization.

As a result of the powerful nationalist propaganda carried out at the expense of the United States and the West, millions of our former compatriots were gradually, year after year, zombified. They have turned from sane people into stubborn idiots, who, when talking about Russia, begin to be overwhelmed with joy at the hatred that is boiling up in them for our and once their native country.

In your view, how did the Orange Revolution of 2004 alter Ukraine’s trajectory? 

The US’s utilitarian approach to Ukraine as a tool for harming Russia was once again openly manifested in 2004, after the Russian-speaking politician Viktor Yanukovych emerged as a central figure in the presidential election. For those who wanted to use Ukraine as a springboard to harm Russia, this figure was unacceptable. Therefore, Yanukovych was accused of corruption and electoral fraud, which caused outrage among politicians tired of lawlessness and poverty in Ukrainian society and led to riots.

"The so-called "color revolutions" in Ukraine, including Euromaidan, were not organic democratic movements but foreign-managed coups."As a result, a third, unconstitutional round of presidential elections was held. This time, Viktor Yushchenko, an ardent Ukrainian chauvinist, won. He was the first in the independent Ukraine who made Stepan Bandera, the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists during World War II, responsible for the brutal murder of 130,000 to half a million Poles and about a million Russians and Russian-speaking Ukrainians, a national hero.

Over the past ten years, the national feeling of the people of Ukraine has been fueled by hostility towards Russia, and dissent is considered a state crime. Ukraine has been reborn into a fascist state, which was formed according to the principle: “One faith (Satanism), one language, one people.”

However, despite all the Banderainspired efforts Yushchenko imposed on Ukraine, poisoning the country with hatred of Russia was not as easy as expected.

After the political shifts under Viktor Yushchenko, Viktor Yanukovych’s 2010 victory marked a change in Ukraine’s trajectory. How significant was his win, and how did Western governments respond to his presidency and later decision not to sign the EU Association Agreement?

To the surprise of Americans, Viktor Yanukovych won the 2010 presidential election. He shouldn’t have won, but he did.

Because for Bandera men, who have ruled Ukraine since 2004, solving the real problems of Ukrainians was by no means a priority. The defeat of Bandera men was such a bitter pill for their American sponsors that, seizing the moment, they provoked another crisis by investing $5 billion in its organization.

The reason was President Yanukovych’s failure to sign the Association Agreement with the European Union in 2013, for which there were good reasons. Meanwhile, Anglo-Saxon agitators managed to convince Ukrainians that the key to their prosperity was the European Union, so not signing the agreement seemed to be a blow to the Ukrainian people’s dream of a happy and carefree life. The agitation resulted in mass protests that began on November 21, 2013, and led to the overthrow of President Yanukovych.

At that moment, Bandera men assumed full power in Ukraine. Their goal was —and they did not hide it — the deprivation of the political rights of the Russian-speaking population and the immediate expulsion from Ukraine of any manifestations of Russian-speaking culture. Overnight, everything connected in any way with Russia became the object of repression.

How do you assess the Euromaidan protests of 2013–14 and their consequences for Ukraine’s Russian-speaking population? 

The starting point for the development of further events was the so-called Euromaidan 2014. This conflict quickly escalated into armed clashes and led to a coup d’etat, the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych, and the establishment of a new regime in the country opposed to Russia.

In Ukraine itself, in the Russian-speaking city of Odessa on the Black Sea coast, on May 2, 2014, Bandera men burned 48 people in the House of Trade Unions who disagreed with the political coup in Kiev.

Residents of the Russian-speaking Crimea did not accept the Bandera coup in Kiev. On March 18, 2014, Crimea was attached to Russia as a result of a referendum. The overwhelming majority of the votes of residents of Crimea (96.77%) and Sevastopol (95.6%) were cast in favor of the incorporation of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, which remained part of Ukraine after the collapse of the USSR in 1991, into the Russian Federation.

In the east of the country, residents of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions of Ukraine also did not accept such a change of power in Kiev and joined the opposition to the new Ukrainian regime. The Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics (DPR and LPR) were proclaimed in these territories. Referendums on the status of the regions were held on May 11. The independence of the DPR was supported by more than 89% of voters, and the LPR — by more than 96%.

In turn, the new Kiev authorities did not recognize the decision of the new leadership of the DPR and LPR, as well as their independent status. Regular Ukrainian troops launched a military operation to quell civil protests, calling it “anti-terrorist.” In fact, the operation turned out to be punitive.

By the summer, clashes between militia units and the army and Ukrainian nationalist battalions had escalated into full-scale military operations using heavy armored vehicles and aircraft. During the active phase of the war, the forces of the LPR and the DPR conducted major defensive and offensive operations. The government forces of Ukraine suffered significant losses.

As the conflict escalated after 2014, the Minsk Agreements were presented as a path to de-escalation. From your perspective, what was their significance, and why do you think they ultimately failed to bring lasting peace?

The course of hostilities led to the fact that the Ukrainian authorities were forced to conclude the Minsk Agreements, but they were not going to implement them, as was openly stated in February 2023 by Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky and confirmed earlier by former German Chancellor Angela Merkel. She openly admitted this in an interview with Spiegel back in November 2022, saying that during the negotiations in Minsk, she “bought time that Ukraine could use to better repel the Russian attack.”

Thus, on September 5, 2014, the first Minsk Agreements were signed in Belarus.

Normandy format talks in Minsk (February 2015): Alexander Lukashenko, Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande, and Petro Poroshenko take part in the (Minsk II) talks on a settlement to the situation in Ukraine. 

But despite the agreements, the shelling in Donbass continued. By the beginning of 2015, the situation had escalated again.

The crisis needed to be resolved urgently. To this end, a meeting of the leaders of four countries was held in 2015: Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany. A new package of measures was approved, which included 13 points. The Minsk Agreements on Ukraine were to be implemented consistently by the parties to the conflict.

But in all subsequent years, of all the points of the Minsk Agreements that have passed since their signing, only one has been fulfilled — the prisoner exchange.
The years of armed conflict have brought a lot of grief to the residents of Donbass.

The number of victims is estimated in the thousands. It is impossible to determine the number of deaths over the years, as many are considered missing.

After years of stalled implementation of the Minsk Agreements, Russia put forward draft security proposals to NATO and the U.S. in late 2021. How were these initiatives received in the West, and what impact did their rejection have on the path to war?

President Putin did everything to prevent the war. So, the Russian side prepared two draft agreements — one for the United States, the other for NATO — and submitted them on December 17, 2021. The projects, in particular, provided for the cessation of NATO’s expansion to the east and the withdrawal of NATO forces from countries that joined the alliance after 1997.

In addition, they also assumed the conclusion of an agreement on the non-proliferation of offensive weapons near the borders of Russia and the limitation of the number of medium and short-range missiles launched from land. These proposals were ignored by the West.

Despite the blatant and cynical behavior of Western countries, in January and February 2022, Russia tried to negotiate to de-escalate the conflict and establish peace with the Ukrainian side. Formally, negotiations continued until the very beginning of the special military operation, but the Ukrainian side only imitated the process.

Kiev was stalling for time, and in February 2022, it began an active concentration of troops in the Donbas. By the beginning of the Russian military operation, Kiev had managed to concentrate from 60 to 80 thousand troops there. Ten days before the Russian army entered Donbass, Ukrainians began intensive artillery shelling of the territories occupied by the people’s militia of Donbass.

The Minsk Agreements had not been implemented by anyone! Then, on February 21, 2022, Russia recognized the DPR and the LPR as independent state entities.

And in this situation, Russia had no choice but to launch a special military operation.

How do you interpret Russia’s launch of the “special military operation” in February 2022, its stated aim of protecting Donbass, and the early negotiations in Gomel and Istanbul?

On the morning of February 24, Putin announced the start of a Special military operation on the territory of Ukraine, the purpose of which was to protect the residents of Donbass. In his address to Russian citizens and military personnel of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, Putin referred to Article 51 of the UN Charter, the decision of the Federation Council on the use of Russian troops in Ukraine, and treaties of friendship and mutual assistance concluded with the DPR and LPR.

The Russians did not want to conquer Ukraine; they needed Ukraine to come to the negotiating table. And it worked. Six days after the start of the meeting, the Ukrainian delegation went to negotiations in Gomel, Belarus. Three rounds of negotiations took place there, after which the negotiations were moved to Istanbul.

In early April, an official memorandum was signed in the Turkish capital, which was a draft peace treaty, according to which Ukraine, in exchange for ensuring the rights of the Russian-speaking population, was to receive back its territories occupied by Russian troops (naturally, without Crimea, which had already officially become part of the Russian Federation on 18 March 2014).

As you said, in the spring of 2022, negotiations between Russia and Ukraine appeared to be moving toward a draft peace framework. How do you assess the role of Western leaders — particularly Boris Johnson — in influencing the course of those talks?

Almost everything was ready. The Russians, as a gesture of goodwill, withdrew troops from Kiev, Chernigov and Sumy. But the then British Prime Minister Boris Johnson urgently arrived in Kiev (as it turned out, he received money /bribe/ from a manufacturer of combat drones) and convinced Zelensky to say “no.”

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky walk at Khreschatyk Street and Independence Square during their meeting in Kiev, Ukraine on April 9, 2022. 

Therefore, the current phase of the military conflict is a consequence of this refusal. It is necessary to understand and realize that the current crisis has been going on since the so-called collective West began to use Ukraine as a tool to inflict damage first on the USSR and then on Russia.

From your perspective, what were the West’s main objectives in the Ukraine conflict, and how have they played out?”

According to the West, the Ukrainian conflict was supposed to lead to a complete economic collapse of Russia, which, in recent years, it has tried to arrange with the help of sanctions. The total economic crisis, in turn, should have led to the collapse of social structures.

The goal of all these plans was to replace Vladimir Putin with an obedient Anglo-Saxon puppet like Boris Yeltsin and return Russia to the state it was in in the 90s of the twentieth century. This would be Russia’s strategic defeat. But to the great chagrin of the Anglo-Saxons, everything did not go according to their plan.

"Europe, which thoughtlessly designated Russia as its enemy, is committing collective suicide."The strategy of defeating Russia by dragging it into an unsuccessful war has completely failed. Currently, Russia is constantly biting off the “Ukrainian cheese” in small pieces, which means the liberation of the territory of Ukraine from government Bandera troops. And, apparently, the Anglo-Saxons will not only not get to the rich Ukrainian minerals, but will also lose their existing assets in the Ukraine they plundered.

The Russian Federation is stronger today than it has ever been in its post-Soviet history. If the goal and objective of the conflict in Ukraine on the part of the West was to exhaust Russia to the limit, then the exact opposite happened. 

Obviously, this was understood by US President Donald Trump, who, realistically assessing the situation, knows that this conflict must be ended, and therefore, no matter what, offers his plan for resolving the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Meanwhile, Europe, which thoughtlessly designated Russia as its enemy, is committing collective suicide.