Let's cut the bullshit right now. I am absolutely sick to death of hearing the pathetic, spineless apologia for Vladimir Putin's bloodthirsty rampage across Ukraine. The narrative that "NATO expansion forced Russia's hand" isn't just wrong—it's a disgusting whitewash of a dictator's naked imperial ambition.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, it fucking lost. That's what happens in geopolitics—winners win, losers lose. The West didn't just marginally outperform the USSR; we watched that rotting empire collapse under the weight of its own contradictions, corruption, and catastrophic economic failures. The Cold War victory wasn't ambiguous. It wasn't a draw. It was total.

Putin had to sit there and watch it. He was a KGB Agent, and he was sworn to the Motherland to defend it at all costs. He was a soviet intelligence officer. So Misinformation, Disinformation, and regulatory control of the “Information machine” was his job.

So spare me the tearful laments about poor, wounded Russian pride. When you lose a multi-decade global competition, you don't get to dictate terms to the winners. The countries that sprinted away from Moscow's orbit after decades of oppression weren't confused about what they wanted. They weren't tricked by Western propaganda. They were goddamn desperate to join NATO precisely because they remembered what Russian domination felt like.

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania—these weren't pawns in some Western chess game. They were nations with fresh memories of Soviet tanks, secret police, and economic stagnation. Their citizens weren't manipulated into NATO membership; they practically begged for it. And why the hell wouldn't they? History had taught them exactly what happens when you exist as Russia's neighbor without protection.

The whole "betrayal" narrative is perhaps the most infuriating piece of historical revisionism in this entire bloody mess. Let's be crystal clear: there was never—I repeat, NEVER—a formal agreement that NATO wouldn't expand eastward. This myth has been debunked by actual historians and participants in those negotiations countless times. What existed were some verbal assurances during German reunification discussions that specifically addressed NATO forces in former East German territory—not the entire fucking Warsaw Pact.

But even if there HAD been some promise (there wasn't), so what? The Soviet Union ceased to exist. New democracies emerged. Those democracies, with their newly-found sovereignty, made their own choices. The idea that the West should have said to Poland, "Sorry, we promised your former oppressor that you can't join our club" is absurd on its face.

And let's talk about the laughable double standard here. Russia has violated virtually every international agreement it's ever signed when it suited its interests. It has broken ceasefire agreements in Georgia, violated the Budapest Memorandum (where it EXPLICITLY promised to respect Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for nuclear disarmament), and routinely disregards human rights conventions. Yet we're supposed to be wringing our hands about an alleged informal promise from the early 1990s? Give me a fucking break.

If the West bears any blame in this catastrophe—and it absolutely does—it's not because we were too aggressive. It's because we were too damn weak. Too comfortable. Too willing to believe our own post-Cold War fantasies about the "end of history" and the inevitable march of liberal democracy.

While we slashed military budgets, cashed in the so-called "peace dividend," and focused on expanding markets rather than securing them, Putin was rebuilding Russia's military and studying our weaknesses. We saw the warning signs repeatedly and chose to ignore them:

Georgia, 2008: Russia invades a sovereign nation. The West's response? Some strongly worded statements and then back to business as usual within months.

Ukraine, 2014: Russia seizes Crimea and foments war in the Donbas. Our response? Limited sanctions that didn't even target Russia's energy sector in any meaningful way. Germany simultaneously deepened its energy dependence on Russian gas with Nord Stream projects.

Syria, 2015: Putin tests his revamped military by helping Assad slaughter his own people, including with chemical weapons that crossed America's own "red line." Our response? We essentially ceded the Middle East to Russian influence.

Each time Putin crossed a line, we redrew the line further back. Each act of aggression was met with what he correctly perceived as Western irresolution. We told ourselves comforting stories about "off-ramps" and "diplomatic solutions" while he prepared for the next escalation.

Our European allies—especially Germany—have been particularly pathetic in this regard. Despite warnings from Eastern European nations, American security experts, and even their own intelligence services, they continued to entangle their economies with Putin's kleptocracy. All while slashing their defense budgets to laughable levels, failing to meet even the modest 2% of GDP NATO commitment.

Now, with thousands dead and millions displaced, some "realists" have the audacity to suggest Ukraine should surrender territory for "peace." Let's call this what it is: not peace, but appeasement. It's rewarding Putin's aggression with exactly what he wanted—territorial conquest and the demonstration that military force works.

A "peace deal" that allows Russia to keep any Ukrainian territory wouldn't just be a defeat for Ukraine—it would be a catastrophic reversal of the post-Cold War order. It would confirm Putin's core belief: that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical tragedy that can be reversed through force. It would tell every dictator with irredentist claims that patience and violence will eventually be rewarded.

The Biden administration's approach of "escalation management" is a pathetic half-measure that neither deters Putin nor truly helps Ukraine win. We're caught in the worst of both worlds—doing enough to keep Ukraine fighting but not enough to ensure victory, prolonging the war while micromanaging Ukraine's defense to avoid "provoking" a nuclear-armed thug who understands only strength.

And don't get me started on Germany's role in this catastrophe. They've spent decades building economic ties to Russia while ignoring warnings from allies who understood Putin's true nature. Their energy policy made them dependent on Russian gas while their anemic defense spending made them incapable of contributing meaningfully to European security. When Ukrainians needed weapons, they offered helmets. When they needed decisive action, they debated bureaucratic procedures.

Make no mistake—this war isn't just about Ukraine. A Russian victory would embolden Putin to further aggression. Moldova, the Baltic states, potentially even Poland would face increased pressure and hybrid warfare. The lesson China would take regarding Taiwan is obvious. Iran would accelerate its nuclear program with renewed confidence. North Korea would push even more aggressively against South Korea.

The entire international order—imperfect as it is—rests on the basic principle that borders cannot be changed by force. If Russia succeeds in Ukraine, that principle dies, and we return to the law of the jungle. The post-1945 peace that has, despite its flaws, prevented great power conflict and enabled unprecedented global prosperity will be severely undermined.

Those pushing for Ukraine to surrender territory for "peace" aren't realists—they're fantasists. There is no evidence whatsoever that Putin would stop with eastern Ukraine. His own writings and speeches make clear that he doesn't even recognize Ukrainian nationhood as legitimate. He views the very existence of an independent Ukraine as a historical mistake to be corrected.

The truth—the bitter, uncomfortable truth—is that deterrence works only when it's credible. We spent the post-Cold War era dismantling our deterrent capacity in Europe while hoping that economic integration would somehow transform Russia into a responsible stakeholder in the international system.

That strategy has failed catastrophically. Russia isn't integrated into our value system; it's exploiting our openness while rejecting our values. Economic ties haven't moderated its behavior; they've funded its military buildup and provided leverage over European decision-making.

What's needed now isn't more diplomatic niceties or carefully calibrated half-measures. What's needed is an overwhelming demonstration that aggression fails and costs far more than it gains. Ukraine must be given every tool it needs to defeat Russian forces and restore its territorial integrity—not just to survive, but to win.

For too long, we've acted as if the mere possession of nuclear weapons gives Russia immunity for conventional aggression. This perverse logic means that any nuclear-armed state can invade its neighbors with impunity. It creates an incentive for nuclear proliferation and makes a mockery of the entire concept of collective security.

The West has overwhelming advantages over Russia—economic, technological, and even military. Russia's GDP is smaller than Italy's. Its military has been exposed as corrupted and incapable against a determined opponent with modern weapons. Its technological base is crumbling under sanctions and brain drain.

The only advantages Putin has are his willingness to sacrifice Russian lives for imperial ambition and his confidence that Western resolve will break before his does. We must prove him wrong on the latter point, because history has shown he will never relent on the former.

This means:

The path to peace runs through Ukrainian victory, not through concession to aggression. Anything less guarantees more bloodshed, not less. Any "peace" that rewards Putin's war of choice will only ensure the next war comes sooner.

I'm tired of the moral equivocation, the strategic confusion, and the cultural squeamishness that prevents us from calling this situation what it is: a bloody imperial war of choice by a dictator who views might as right and neighbors as vassals.

The West isn't responsible for Putin's decision to invade. NATO expansion didn't "provoke" this war any more than a woman's clothing "provokes" assault. Putin chose this path because he believed—based on our past responses—that he could get away with it.

The only language Putin understands is force. The only peace worth having is one based on Ukraine's victory and Russia's defeat. Anything else isn't peace—it's a pause before the next, likely larger conflict.

So let's drop the pathetic hand-wringing about "NATO provocation." Let's stop pretending there's some diplomatic solution that will satisfy both Ukrainian sovereignty and Putin's imperial ambitions. There isn't. One side must win, and one must lose.

If we want peace—real, lasting peace—it can only come through Ukraine's victory. Everything else is delusion or appeasement dressed up as "realism." And history has taught us, at the cost of millions of lives, exactly where appeasement leads.

The choice is clear: help Ukraine win decisively, or prepare for a darker, more dangerous world where dictators know that violence works and democracies lack the resolve to defend their values. That's the stark reality we face, and no amount of diplomatic niceties or historical revisionism can obscure it.

This is Broadcasting Wendy, out. Peace to all of you.