As the war in Ukraine drags on, a disturbing pattern has emerged: NATO’s actions and rhetoric seem less about helping Ukraine win and more about facilitating its gradual downfall. Recent developments, such as the West’s tacit approval for Ukraine to use long-range missiles to strike deeper into Russia, signal a cruel sacrifice. Far from supporting Ukraine’s ultimate victory, this move appears to serve a different purpose: winding down the conflict by forcing Kyiv into a weakened position, ready to accept a peace deal that will mark its defeat.

From the very beginning, the West’s strategy in Ukraine has followed a clear trajectory of escalation. As early as September 2023, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov warned that Moscow recognized the Western plan. The US, primarily through Secretary of State Antony Blinken, had been coyly withholding official support for Ukrainian missile strikes deep into Russia. However, it was always clear that Washington and London would eventually allow it, a fact that Moscow was well aware of. With this latest approval, NATO appears to be prolonging the war not to win but to manage its endgame.

The West’s escalation is no surprise. It has become a well-established pattern: as the proxy war against Russia continues, the stakes keep rising. The West has steadily increased its supply of intelligence, mercenaries, tanks, missile systems, and most recently, F-16 fighter jets. Now, NATO is unleashing longer-range missiles, like the Storm Shadow and potentially ATACMS, allowing Ukraine to hit deeper into Russian territory. Western officials claim this is necessary to strengthen Ukraine’s position in negotiations, but in reality, it is a cynical ploy.

The West’s justification for this escalation often includes unfounded accusations against Iran, alleging it is supplying Russia with short-range ballistic missiles. Tehran has vehemently denied these claims, but the truth is almost irrelevant. Even if Iran were supplying missiles to Russia, this would not justify the West’s reckless escalation at this point in the war. The real reason lies elsewhere: Ukraine is now more desperate than ever, and NATO’s member states are preparing for their exit strategy.

Ukraine’s situation has become increasingly dire. Despite initial successes, the war has turned into a costly, bloody quagmire. Russia has successfully contained Ukraine’s recent offensive, and Moscow’s counterattacks are increasingly devastating. Even the usually pro-Kyiv *New York Times* has admitted that Ukraine’s military operations are faltering. As Kyiv’s hopes fade, the decision to use long-range Western missiles becomes another desperate gamble.

However, this latest escalation is unlikely to save the Zelensky government. Ukraine does not possess a large supply of these advanced missiles, and given the slow production rates in the West, it never will. At best, Ukraine might cause some isolated damage within Russia, but as with previous high-tech weaponry, these missiles will not change the outcome of the war. Russia’s sophisticated air defenses and countermeasures will likely blunt their impact.

Despite these limitations, President Volodymyr Zelensky and his government cling to the hope that these missile strikes might somehow tip the balance or trigger a broader conflict that forces NATO into direct engagement with Russia. This, however, is an increasingly far-fetched fantasy. Kyiv is left with little but propaganda victories to boost morale and maintain Western support.

The real danger here is not that Ukraine will win with missile strikes but that the conflict could spiral into a much larger regional or even global war. Ukrainian forces cannot target Russia without extensive NATO assistance, which includes logistical support, intelligence, and military advisors on the ground. In effect, NATO is waging war against Russia through Ukrainian proxies.

President Vladimir Putin recently made this point explicit: by helping Ukraine fire missiles deep into Russian territory, NATO is essentially declaring war on Russia. But what remains unclear is how Moscow will respond. Russia could retaliate against NATO targets, potentially in Poland or Romania, but such a move would escalate the conflict beyond Ukraine’s borders, which is something Moscow seems keen to avoid. As Peskov stated, Russia’s response will be “appropriate” but may not occur everywhere.

Rather than retaliating directly against NATO members, Russia is likely to continue focusing its efforts on Ukraine. By refusing to escalate the war beyond the Ukrainian theater, Russia can continue its successful military operations without being drawn into a wider conflict.

While Ukraine struggles to fend off Russian advances, its so-called Western allies are quietly preparing for Kyiv’s inevitable collapse. The timing of NATO’s decision to allow missile strikes deep into Russia coincides with subtle signals from the West that Ukraine must lower its expectations. For example, a recent Wall Street Journal article called for “pragmatism” and “realism” in Ukraine’s approach to ending the war. The implication is clear: Ukraine will have to compromise, and those compromises will likely include territorial losses.

This shift in Western messaging reveals the cold calculus at play. By allowing Ukraine to escalate with missile strikes, Washington and London can make it appear as though they are still fully committed to Kyiv’s cause. However, this move is likely designed to provoke a retaliatory Russian response that will further weaken Ukraine. Once Kyiv is battered enough, the West will push for a negotiated settlement, all while claiming that it did everything possible to support Ukraine.

This scenario should come as no surprise. From the start, Ukraine’s “friends” in the West have treated it less as an ally and more as a pawn in their geopolitical game. Western leaders spoke of values, democracy, and supporting Ukraine for “as long as it takes.” But behind the rhetoric, NATO has always viewed Ukraine as a disposable tool to weaken Russia. Now, as the war drags on, Ukraine is becoming a liability.

One of the most telling aspects of this strategy is that the West appears willing to allow Russia to escalate its retaliation against Ukraine. This calculated decision reveals the true extent of the betrayal. Ukraine will bear the brunt of Russia’s counterattacks while the West prepares to cut its losses. Zelensky’s government will face the consequences of this disastrous policy, and when Ukraine finally collapses, the West will wash its hands of the conflict.

The West’s actions in Ukraine are reminiscent of another proxy war: the Vietnam conflict. The Paris Peace Accords of 1973 allowed the US to withdraw from Vietnam, but it did not end the war. Instead, it simply delayed the inevitable defeat of Washington’s South Vietnamese allies, who were overrun by North Vietnamese forces in 1975.

Similarly, a peace deal in Ukraine, perhaps based on the nearly agreed-upon settlement reached in Istanbul in 2022, will not save Kyiv from ultimate defeat. By sabotaging that earlier peace process, the West condemned Ukraine to further devastation. The eventual agreement will likely be far worse for Ukraine than the deal that could have been signed in 2022.

In the end, the West’s decision to allow Ukraine to use long-range missiles against Russia is not a sign of support but a calculated move in a cynical geopolitical game. NATO is preparing for Ukraine’s defeat, and Kyiv will suffer the consequences of this betrayal. When the dust finally settles, Ukrainians will be left to ask what all the suffering was for, and by then, their Western “friends” will be long gone.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel