Below is the link to a visionary Op-
https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/emilmalakoped021825.html
https://www.ceocfointerviews.com/emilmalakoped022825.html
The True Aggressors: The Biden Administration, NATO, the European Union, and Ukraine—Not Russia
For years, Western leaders have pushed the narrative that Russia and President Vladimir Putin are the aggressors in the Ukraine war, but history tells a different story. The real architects of this conflict are the Biden Administration, NATO, the European Union, and Ukraine itself—all of whom deliberately provoked Russia into a military confrontation.
The Cuban Missile Crisis, U.S. Security Doctrine, and the Ukraine-
We Have Not Learned from Past History: A Lesson from the Cuban Missile Crisis
Throughout modern history, great powers have consistently refused to tolerate military threats near their borders. This principle was clearly demonstrated during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when the United States risked nuclear war to prevent the Soviet Union from stationing nuclear missiles in Cuba—just 90 miles off the U.S. coast.
In October 1962, U.S. intelligence discovered Soviet nuclear missile installations being constructed in Cuba. President John F. Kennedy declared that the presence of such weapons so close to the U.S. mainland was unacceptable, imposing a naval blockade (quarantine) on Cuba and demanding their removal. The crisis led to a tense standoff between Washington and Moscow, nearly pushing the world into a nuclear confrontation.
After weeks of high-
The Soviet Union withdrew its missiles from Cuba.
The U.S. secretly agreed to remove its Jupiter missiles from Turkey, which had been stationed close to the Soviet border.
The lesson from this episode was clear: The United States would not permit a foreign military presence—especially nuclear weapons—near its borders, even at the cost of war.
Would the U.S. Accept Missiles on Its Borders?
If a similar situation arose today—where a hostile foreign power stationed nuclear weapons in Canada or Mexico—there is little doubt that the U.S. would react with the same urgency as it did in 1962.
If Russia or China deployed nuclear weapons in Mexico or Canada, the U.S. would perceive this as an immediate existential threat.
The U.S. would likely demand their removal and, if necessary, take military action to prevent their deployment.
Economic sanctions, military mobilization, and even direct confrontation would not be off the table, given how the U.S. has historically responded to security threats near its territory.
This is not speculation; it is a historical fact. The U.S. has demonstrated that it will not tolerate military threats near its borders. The Cuban Missile Crisis set a precedent that still defines U.S. foreign policy today.
How the Biden Administration, the European Union, Nato and Ukraine Provoked Russia into War
The current conflict in Ukraine did not start in a vacuum. The war is not a simple case of an unprovoked Russian invasion, as the Western narrative suggests. Instead, the Biden Administration, NATO, the European Union, and the Ukrainian government systematically provoked Russia, ultimately forcing President Vladimir Putin to act in defense of Russia's security interests.
1. NATO's relentless expansion—despite promises made to Russia after the Cold War—created a growing security concern in Moscow.
2. The 2014 Western-
3. The Biden Administration and European Union openly supported Ukraine's military buildup, including the arming of neo-
4. Ukraine's official declaration of intent to join NATO in 2021 was the final trigger. To Moscow, this was no different from Cuba allowing U.S. nuclear weapons on its soil in 1962.
By encouraging Ukraine to antagonize Russia, the West pushed Putin into a position where he had no choice but to act militarily to protect Russia's borders and security. Defending national security cannot be considered aggression—especially when the threat comes from an expanding Western military alliance that has been hostile to Russia since the Cold War.
It is not Russia that is the aggressor—it is NATO, the U.S., and the European Union who created the conditions for war and pushed Ukraine into an unwinnable conflict.
Never Pick a Fight If You Are Militarily Weaker
A fundamental lesson in military strategy is: never provoke a stronger adversary unless you are absolutely certain of victory. Yet, Ukraine and the West made the grave mistake of "poking the bear" (Russia), despite Russia's overwhelming military superiority and nuclear arsenal.
Ukraine is not a global superpower. Russia is.
Russia possesses the world's largest nuclear stockpile and one of the most advanced militaries on Earth.
Ukraine, despite Western support, was never going to win a war against Russia.
From the start, it was military suicide for Ukraine to challenge Russia directly. The Western narrative that Ukraine could defeat Russia was both misleading and dangerous, leading President Volodymyr Zelensky into a self-
Today, Russia is winning the war:
It has taken significant territory in eastern Ukraine.
The Ukrainian military is depleted, despite hundreds of billions in Western aid.
Zelensky's government is struggling politically and economically.
This was an entirely avoidable conflict, yet Ukraine led by an incompetent and bullshit promoter Zelensky listened to NATO and the West instead of making peace with its powerful neighbor. The reality is simple: Ukraine was never in a position to challenge Russia militarily, and its Western allies never truly intended to fight Russia directly.
President Putin did exactly what any strong American leader would have done if faced with a similar threat at their own doorstep. As a nationalist, his priority is to protect Russia's sovereignty and security, just as the United States has historically defended its own national interests in comparable situations
In essence, Ukraine became a pawn in a geopolitical struggle—and it is now paying the price.
I Told You So: My Warnings on the Ukraine-
In my past op-
At the time, I was criticized, dismissed, and ridiculed—but now, my predictions have come true. Europe is facing an energy crisis, Germany is in recession, Ukraine is on the brink of collapse, and the West has no strategy to end this war.
Avoiding Ukraine and Europe's Defeat Means Avoiding Nuclear War
Now that Russia is winning the war, the world is unknowingly avoiding an even greater catastrophe: nuclear war.
Let us ask an important question: What if Ukraine were to win? Does anyone truly believe for a moment that President Putin would simply accept defeat and surrender Russian territory? History tells us otherwise. If pushed to the brink, Putin would not hesitate to send a controlled nuclear missile to Kiev, and possibly Berlin, as a warning to the West.
A Russian military defeat is not an option for the Kremlin, nor is it an option for the survival of Russia as a major power. Losing in Ukraine would weaken Russia permanently, and no nuclear superpower allows itself to be weakened without a drastic response.
The West should count itself fortunate that Ukraine is now on the verge of collapse—because the alternative would be a desperate and cornered Russia, forced to escalate beyond conventional warfare. If the world truly wants to prevent nuclear war, then Ukraine's defeat is not only necessary, but it is also the best possible outcome for global stability.
Economic Decline as Russian Energy Is Banned: A Call for European Pragmatism
The European Union's decision to ban Russian energy imports has precipitated a significant economic downturn across the continent. Prior to the Ukraine conflict, Europe benefited from a steady flow of affordable energy from Russia, which was never wielded as a geopolitical tool. However, in the aftermath of the war and subsequent sanctions, European nations are now grappling with energy prices that have surged to unprecedented levels.
Soaring Energy Costs Across Europe
The escalation in energy prices has been profound. In the first half of 2023, average household electricity prices in the EU reached €28.9 per 100 kilowatt-
This surge has placed immense financial strain on both households and industries. For instance, energy costs for private households in Germany are approximately twelve percent above pre-
Germany's Industrial Slowdown
Germany, once Europe's industrial powerhouse, is now facing economic headwinds. The nation experienced a recession in 2023, with its economy contracting by 0.3% in the fourth quarter. Projections indicate that Germany may grow more slowly than all OECD member states in 2024, excluding the United Kingdom. Harvard International Review+2Wikipedia+2Fortune+2Harvard International Review+1Wikipedia+1
Contributing factors include high energy costs and reduced external demand, particularly from China. Additionally, a 2011 decision to shut down Germany's remaining nuclear power plants has been questioned amid concerns about electricity prices and potential shortages. AP News
Only President Trump Can Negotiate Peace with President Putin
There is only one leader capable of negotiating peace between Russia and the West—President Donald Trump.
Had Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, or Barack Obama still been in charge, the world would be on the brink of nuclear war today. Their reckless globalist policies, blind loyalty to NATO escalation, and total lack of negotiation skills would have pushed the world into a catastrophic conflict that could have easily spiraled into World War III. Thank God we have President Trump, because whether you love him or hate him, he is the only one standing between the world and nuclear destruction initiated once again by European warmongers.
Unlike Biden, Harris, or Obama, who provoked Russia into war by pushing Ukraine to join NATO, Trump understands power and negotiation. He does not escalate for the sake of escalation—he makes deals, keeps peace, and avoids unnecessary wars.
Peace is possible, but Ukraine must pay a price—by conceding Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea to Russia and agreeing to a permanent neutral status. This is not a surrender—it is the only realistic pathway to ending the war and avoiding further destruction.
If President Trump had been in office, one million Ukrainian soldiers and civilians would be alive today. Russia and Ukraine would have negotiated an agreement, and Ukrainian families would be living in peace instead of being sent to the battlefield as cannon fodder for NATO's failed proxy war.
Europe's Endless Warmongering: A Lesson Unlearned
For Europe, this war should be a lesson—but history shows European leaders never learn. Time and time again, they start wars they cannot finish:
Napoleon's catastrophic invasion of Russia (1812).
World War I, which destroyed Europe's great empires.
World War II, where European leaders once again dragged their nations into destruction.
And now, Ukraine—a conflict Europe helped create by provoking Russia with NATO expansion.
The European Union, controlled by unelected globalists, has once again dragged the continent into a reckless war, draining economies, destroying industries, and leading the world toward a nuclear standoff.
A Wake-
It is time for people across Europe and the United States to wake up and reject globalist politicians who push for endless wars at the cost of their own citizens.
Do not allow European and American elites to drag you into another unwinnable war.
Do not let your history, culture, Christianity, and national wealth be destroyed by historically ignorant leaders.
Reject the warmongering policies of Biden, Harris, and the European Union before they destroy what is left of Western civilization.
If there is any hope for peace, it lies in the hands of strong leadership, real diplomacy, and a recognition of geopolitical reality. The West must accept that Russia has won in Ukraine—and that only negotiation, not war, can prevent an even greater disaster.
Had Trump been in office, this war would have never happened—but now, the only way to fix it is for him to return and restore peace before it is too late
Conclusion: A Paradox in Global Politics
The United States set a clear precedent in 1962:
It would not tolerate foreign military forces near its borders.
It was willing to go to war to prevent it.
Yet today, the U.S. and its NATO allies criticize Russia for adopting the very same security doctrine.
From a purely historical and geopolitical standpoint, Russia's reaction to Ukraine joining NATO mirrors the U.S. reaction to Cuba hosting Soviet missiles. The fundamental principle is the same: Great powers do not accept military threats on their borders.
This does not justify war or aggression, but it does explain why Russia responded as it did. If the U.S. would not allow hostile forces near its borders, why should Russia be expected to?
The West's Strategic Miscalculation
The West, NATO, and Ukraine miscalculated Russia's resolve. They assumed Putin would back down in the face of sanctions and diplomatic pressure. Instead, Russia is now winning the war while Ukraine is suffering heavy losses.
This war could have been avoided if the West had followed historical precedent and respected Russia's security concerns—just as the U.S. expected its own security concerns to be respected in 1962. Instead, NATO, the Biden Administration, and the European Union pushed Ukraine into a disastrous confrontation with a far superior military power.
The world is now witnessing the consequences of Western arrogance and reckless military provocation. History does not lie, and history has repeated itself once again.
NOTE: This content is not the view of nor endorsed by CEOCFO Magazine or its advertisers.