Fighting to the last Ukrainian: Why does the West believe it occupies the high moral ground?

For almost three years, NATO countries have boycotted diplomatic contact with Russia, even as hundreds of thousands of men die on the Ukraine conflict’s battlefield. The decision to reject diplomacy is morally repugnant. Diplomacy could have reduced violence, prevented escalation, and even opened a path to peace. Instead, political and media elites skillfully presented this rejection as a sign of moral righteousness, labeling dialogue as treason and war as virtuous.

NATO’s Long War

To exhaust Russia in a long war, the goal was to ensure that the Russians and Ukrainians kill each other for as long as possible. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin outlined the US objective in the Ukraine War as weakening its strategic adversary: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.” In late March 2022, Vladimir Zelensky revealed in an interview with The Economist: “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.”

The aim has been to exhaust Russia in a protracted conflict, ensuring that Russians and Ukrainians continue killing each other for as long as possible. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin outlined the objective: “We want to see Russia weakened to the degree that it can’t do the kinds of things that it has done in invading Ukraine.”  In March 2022, Vladimir Zelensky revealed in an interview with The Economist: “There are those in the West who don’t mind a long war because it would mean exhausting Russia, even if this means the demise of Ukraine and comes at the cost of Ukrainian lives.”

Israeli and Turkish mediators confirmed that Russia and Ukraine had agreed to a peace deal in Istanbul, where Russia would withdraw and Ukraine would restore its neutrality. Yet the West rejected this. The goal wasn’t peace — it was to bleed Russia through its proxy army in Ukraine. Both Germany and France have admitted that the Minsk Peace Agreement was never meant to be implemented, but used as a vehicle to build up Ukraine’s military.

The Turkish Foreign Minister and former Israeli Prime Minister have both acknowledged that NATO states actively wanted the war to continue. Former NATO figures, such as retired General Harald Kujat, have said the war was deliberately provoked by NATO, with the US and UK blocking peace efforts to weaken Russia politically, economically, and militarily.

US lawmakers, such as Lindsey Graham, have been openly supportive of fighting Russia “to the last Ukrainian.” They argue that assisting Ukraine without risking American lives is a smart investment in weakening Russia. Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell called it an investment in America’s national security, and Mitt Romney called financing the war “the best defense spending ever.”

These statements underscore the growing sentiment in the West that the war is a proxy battle where Ukraine is expendable, serving merely as a tool to diminish Russia. NATO’s leadership, including Jens Stoltenberg, has stated that a “victory” for Ukraine would result in a battle-hardened Ukrainian army on the West’s side, with a weakened Russia.

Diplomacy as Treason and War as Virtue

The West’s propaganda has framed the conflict as a battle of good versus evil, with peace through diplomacy portrayed as dangerous appeasement. In contrast, war is presented as virtuous. In practice, this means that Western countries have continuously avoided negotiations, while pretending Russia is unwilling to engage. Despite calls for talks from US military leaders like General Mark Milley, who acknowledged Ukraine might be in a better position to negotiate after recapturing territories, the West’s strategy has been to prolong the conflict, not resolve it.

EU leaders, such as Josep Borrell and Kaja Kallas, have rejected any notion of diplomacy, dismissing Putin as a “war criminal” and portraying negotiations as unthinkable. The EU, once a peace project, has now become a geopolitical one, punishing any country or leader that dares to propose an end to the war. Hungary’s Viktor Orban was smeared for attempting to mediate, much like anyone who opposes further escalation.

Opponents of peace argue that conceding territory to Putin would reward his aggression, yet the war’s roots go far beyond territorial disputes. The Istanbul peace agreement showed that Russia was ready to pull back its troops in return for Ukraine’s neutrality. But NATO wasn’t interested in peace; it saw the conflict as an opportunity to weaken Russia and further entrench its military foothold in Europe.

As the war rages on, Ukrainian casualties grow, and the public’s support for the fight wanes. A Gallup poll recently revealed that no region in Ukraine has a majority supporting continued warfare. Ukrainian leaders, once hopeful, now face a reality where their own people are increasingly disillusioned.

The Coming Backlash

As Ukraine’s frontlines collapse, there is growing recognition that NATO sabotaged peace efforts, aiming to prolong the war to bleed Russia. This strategy is ultimately backfiring. Ukrainians will resent Russia for decades, but they will also turn their anger toward the West. The idea of “fighting to the last Ukrainian” is no longer a noble cause — it’s a tragedy.

The war was never about territorial disputes. It’s about NATO’s geopolitical ambitions, and it’s Ukraine that’s paying the price. The longer the conflict persists, the more it becomes clear: the West’s strategy is failing, and the war will only end when Kiev’s hostile stance toward Russia is abandoned.

By Glenn Diesen, professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway and an editor at the Russia in Global Affairs journal. Follow him on Substack.