Sacrificial Ukraine

Conflict is far more complicated than a cartoonish good‑versus‑evil script

This is not to claim Russia is the good guy and Ukraine the bad guy. Ukraine is clearly the smaller kid on the block being shoved around by a much larger, heavily armed bully. But the conflict is far more complicated than a cartoonish good‑versus‑evil script. Both governments have acted as bad actors in various ways. The real tragedy lies with the ordinary people caught in a twisted war that global power brokers have found ways to profit from. Regardless of who fired the first shot or who should stand down, the war has been an “opportunity” for the global cabal and hard‑left operatives eager to expand their power, enrich themselves, and weaponize the conflict against Trump.

Under Obama and Biden, Democrats and the Deep State were either too weak to stop Russia or too willing to let Moscow advance. Whether through incompetence or corruption, they failed to recognize, or refused to confront, what was happening because the chaos benefited them. The American Left and globalist class played the war for their own advantage while remaining unsure how to handle Putin, who had no interest in joining their New World Order project.

Donald Trump understood that ending the war that erupted under Biden required one decisive move: unleash American energy. By ramping up domestic oil production and flooding the global market, the U.S. could have sold cheap fuel to Europe, undercutting Russia’s oil revenue and starving Moscow’s war machine. A fully energized American oil sector would have also squeezed Middle Eastern producers and likely crippled Iran’s ability to fund Hamas and Hezbollah, possibly preventing the October 7 attacks on Israel. Lower energy costs would have eased inflation, reduced transportation expenses, lowered the cost of doing business, and brought down prices across the board. But such prosperity would have made America great again, and Democrats wanted no part of that.

“A George Floyd–style U.S. government–backed color revolution”

Although the full‑scale war began with Russia’s invasion in 2022, the groundwork was laid during the Obama presidency, and even in the final stretch of George W. Bush’s administration. In 2008, Russia seized South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia. Early moves toward Crimea began in Bush’s final months, but Russia formally occupied the region in February 2014. That summer, pro‑Russia separatists shot down a Ukrainian military transport plane, killing all 49 aboard, while Russia funneled tanks and heavy weapons into eastern Ukraine. Moscow launched its assault on Crimea, and Obama effectively handed the region over without resistance. In January 2016, Russian hackers took down Ukraine’s power grid. Obama projected weakness, refused to unleash America’s energy potential, and signaled to Russia that it could act with impunity.

As Donald Trump, still only a potential candidate, said in 2014, “If Russia respected the United States, they would not have mobilized forces into Ukraine after indicating they would not.”

Meanwhile, the Bidens were cashing in on Ukraine’s corruption. Reports, now conveniently scrubbed from the internet, suggested the FBI hid evidence that the Bidens took $10 million from Ukrainian sources. Democrats, far from seeking a Ukrainian victory, seemed content to let the bloodshed mount, using the chaos to bury their own dealings in the region. After tens of thousands of Russian and Ukrainian bodies piled up, they could claim they had “weakened Russia,” much like Rocky wearing down the Soviet boxer by absorbing punch after punch.

Jack Posobiec recently argued that the situation may be even more sinister than what I’ve described. In his view, it wasn’t merely weakness, corruption, or a willingness to let Russia run wild in Ukraine. Instead, he contends the real objective was to engineer a U.S.-backed color revolution to illegally remove Ukraine’s democratically elected president and place the country under direct Western control.

Posobiec described it as “a George Floyd–style U.S. government–backed color revolution,” involving elements of John McCain, Democratic operatives, and George Soros. He emphasized that regardless of anyone’s opinion of Viktor Yanukovich, “He was a democratically elected president… elected by the people of Ukraine, and there was no legal process to remove him from power.”

According to Posobiec, Yanukovich wasn’t removed through constitutional means but was forced out through U.S. intervention.

“He was ousted… forced to step down and flee the country by elements of the U.S. government, all in the name of democracy,” he said.

Posobiec tied this to broader U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, pointing to what he described as open hostility toward Russia from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, no doubt to support their “Trump is a Russian asset” narrative.

“…the U.S. government under Obama, working with Hillary, was openly hostile toward Russia…[was] Russia’s response was truly unprovoked, or whether something triggered it,” he argued.

Mike Benz then expanded the discussion, referencing a New York Times report on the reconstruction of Ukraine’s intelligence services after the government was overthrown. According to Benz, Western intelligence agencies moved immediately to seize control of Ukraine’s security apparatus. The newly appointed head of Ukrainian intelligence entered the agency’s headquarters the day after the coup to find the building dark, documents scattered, and operations in disarray.

“And the first thing he did,” Benz said, “was place two phone calls; one to the CIA chief of station, and one to the MI6 chief of station in Ukraine.”

Benz concluded that a three‑way intelligence partnership was formed on the spot.

“A partnership was struck the very day after the coup to rebuild Ukraine’s intelligence state from the ground up between Ukraine, the CIA, and MI6,” he said.

“Not only did the Obama administration and the British government overthrow the democratically elected government of Ukraine, but they immediately took control of Ukraine’s intelligence services through the CIA and MI6.”

And after securing control, they allowed Russia to tear through the country.

With Ukraine’s government and intelligence infrastructure under Western management, they had the opportunity to bury secrets, destroy evidence, and reshape the narrative. Russia’s invasion then provided the perfect smokescreen, obliterating whatever remained and allowing Western actors to blame Moscow for the chaos while concealing their own role in orchestrating the takeover.