What Does it Mean to Stand with Ukraine?

Why “standing with Ukraine” does not mean “more war”

The phrase “I Stand with Ukraine” presents an interesting study in linguistics. When the phrase was initially coined at the beginning of the Russo-Ukrainian war, the sentence was never meant to be up to individual interpretation. The language was selected to encourage rigidity, as the phrase portrays the war as a simplistic “Us vs Them” conflict.

Ukraine vs Russia. Victim vs villain. Good vs evil.

Photo by Daniele Franchi on Unsplash

We are not intended to have any other interpretation of what it means to stand with Ukraine. We’re not supposed to think about any of the other players involved, and we’re all supposed to visualize a traditional hero vs villain narrative with Russia randomly and evilly attacking Ukraine out of the blue.

One reason I’m so obsessed with the betrayal of Western media is because I always thought I would be able to detect propaganda when I saw it. But I have been absolutely flabbergasted at how effective, quiet, and insidious it is, shaping your personal opinions without you even realizing it.

The phrase “I Stand with Ukraine” is difficult to argue with. Because how can you be against “standing with Ukraine?” Do you not stand with Ukraine, the phrase seems to imply? Do you hate innocent Ukrainians? You want them to lose their sovereignty to evil dictators, don’t you? If you don’t stand with Ukraine, you’re pro-Russian. You’re practically KGB!

These are the kind of accusations a dissenter might get if they questioned the phrase. War is always about linguistics, and there’s a reason why Goebbels was just as terrifying as Hitler.

America is nowhere to be found in the sentence “I Stand with Ukraine.” That’s because when you visualize the war, you’re not supposed to think about them. But it was America and NATO that provoked the war, to weaken Russia and remain a unipolar power.

Photo by Yurii Khomitskyi on Unsplash

I cannot really explain it better than Jeffrey Sachs, Glenn Diesen, Katie Halper, and Aaron Mate, but essentially the Anglo-American empire provoked Russia by consistently expanding NATO despite decades of warnings. They treated diplomacy as if it were not worth engaging in, because Putin’s “just evil and can’t be trusted.” But to claim that Russia invaded Ukraine purely just to expand their empire and steal from them ignores decades long context—where Russia negotiated consistently for NATO to stop expanding, while NATO was uninterested in their concerns.

Now thousands of Ukrainians are dead. Was that actually “standing with Ukraine?”

All countries care about their own borders’ security. If Russia, or China, or Iran had put a BRICS military base in Canada, would anyone be surprised if America objected? Would they be surprised if America treated it as an act of aggression?

American administrations have been warned since the 90s that taking steps to bring Ukraine closer to NATO would be viewed as “a provocative move that would likely provoke pre-emptive Russian military action.” American Diplomat George F. Kenan provided consistent warnings, including this one in 1997, as did intelligence officer Fiona Hill, who was quoted above. This 2008 cable from CIA Director Burns indicates America was perfectly aware NATO enlargement to Ukraine was Russia’s red line:

Despite this, NATO expanded anyway, under both Republican and Democratic administrations. A proxy war was triggered because America benefited from weakening Russia, and they did not even have to sacrifice their soldiers to do so. U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal confirmed this himself, stating:

“Even Americans who have no particular interest in freedom and independence in democracies worldwide, should be satisfied that we’re getting our money’s worth on our Ukraine investment. For less than 3 percent of our nation’s military budget, we’ve enabled Ukraine to degrade Russia’s military strength by half. We’ve united NATO and caused the Chinese to rethink their invasion plans for Taiwan. We’ve helped restore faith and confidence in American leadership — moral and military. All without a single American service woman or man injured or lost, and without any diversion or misappropriation of American aid.”

Similarly, Senator Mitt Romney, Marco Rubio, and former UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson also confirmed the conflict as a proxy war.

So how was it “standing with Ukraine” to sacrifice Ukrainians on the West’s behalf? Why did Ukrainians have to pay the price for them to hold on to their hegemony?

Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash

Currently, Trump, Zelensky, and Putin are negotiating peace in Ukraine, though I am uncertain what will change given Trump is now sanctioning Russia. But the EU and Commonwealth countries are still making “I Stand with Ukraine” noises, which hint at the possibility that the war will continue. They are framing it in a way that makes it sound like it’s in the interest of peace. But what they are actually asking for is a continuation of a war that has already killed thousands of people.

It’s doublespeak. It’s Orwellian “war is peace.”

I do not claim to know what we are to expect in the future with our relationship with Russia. But we have to engage in diplomacy, and right now, there isn’t any evidence that indicates Russia has any plans to expand. Putin’s foreign policy has been relatively consistent in Europe for the past few decades. Territorial advancements only happened in Ukraine when NATO/Western influence was getting too close to their border, and Crimea was only annexed after the West supported and encouraged a coup in Ukraine. If there had been a Russian-backed coup in Canada, would the USA have a right to be concerned about their borders?

Wars do not simply start one day. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand is often cited as the initial trigger for WWI—but no one pretends that it was the cause. Yet our Western politicians and media engaged in wartime propaganda to make us feel like our “Franz Ferdinand” events were the beginning of the 2020 wars.

This is the whole idea behind the false flag concept. If a populace believes that something begins with a single, shocking event, they may not look any deeper into any of the dynamics or details.

Our Western leaders encouraged the media to craft these kind of narratives. Recall that USAID is also involved in propaganda projects. The West designated heroes and villains with the intention of controlling our opinions on foreign policies, while hoping we would not remember or notice the context that came before.

The Zionist Anglo-American empire wanted us to believe that Hamas “started” something on October 7^th. October 7^th was not “justified,” but it also was not the beginning. In the Russo-Ukrainian war, the Cold War 2.0 leading up to the invasion cannot be left out of the narrative.

There is also the fact that the simplistic good guys vs bad guys narrative completely falls apart when you actually look into the dynamics of the Russo Ukrainian war. For instance, if the Western-backed Ukrainian side are entirely the “good guys” in this conflict, what’s up with all of this Nazi shit? Recall that after WWII ended, the influence of the West, Soviet Union, and Nazi Germany did not just vanish. But in contrast to WWII, where the West joined with the Soviets to defeat the Nazis, the West are now apparently allied with neo-Nazi paramilitary groups in the Ukraine to fight Russia in the proxy war. Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian PM who was backed by the West in the 2014 Ukrainian coup, also praised this Neo-Nazi Azov Regiment, while Canadian PM Justin Trudeau invited and praised a former Ukrainian Nazi in Parliament in 2023.

So when the West uses the phrase “I stand with Ukraine,” what does that mean?

Does supporting Nazi groups mean standing with Ukraine?

Was the West standing with Ukraine when they gambled their sovereignty and lives by provoking Russia?

Was it standing with them in 2022, when Ukraine could have had peace when Russia made more concessions than they did in negotiations, yet the West still depicted Russia as the bad guys anyway because they didn’t want to budge on NATO?

If NATO stops expanding, who are we to say whether or not Putin would be satisfied? I have never in my lifetime even experienced a world where NATO was not expanding. I don’t know what that world would even look like.

It is true that what the West feared—that the world order would change drastically if Russia won the war—has already come to pass. But this actually already happened, as the US’ soft power in the world has already completely changed. But this is the empire’s own fault, not Russia’s. Just look at what they along with the rest of their empire have done to Gaza while continuing to send billions to a psychotic, genocidal regime. Netanyahu is the real threat to the world. And so is, unfortunately, our own empire. We cannot be both responsible for the genocide in Gaza and responsible for triggering the proxy war in Ukraine while claiming that the world is safest when it is in our current leaders’ hands.

The phrase “I Stand with Ukraine” turned compassionate people, who thought they were standing up for victims, into war-mongerers. For many, it was not their fault. Evil leaders always use rhetoric (and symbols) with positive connotations to obscure meaning. Otherwise, populaces will not accept the ideas. NGOs with names like “the Society for Democracy, Human Rights, Puppies, and Rainbows” are more likely to escape scrutiny, and wars are more likely to be accepted if they’re “in the name of peace.” In Orwell’s 1984, the “Ministry of Peace” was literally Newspeak for Oceania’s war ministry.

To get past rhetoric, you need to ask yourself, “what are we literally doing?” What is the literal action? What was the lens or presentation, and what actually happened in reality?

No matter how much the word “defense” is thrown around, if Europe and the Commonwealth countries choose to continue the war in Ukraine, this will not, in reality, be “defense” because it’s just about destroying Russia. Also, Ukraine was not even winning the war when America was involved. Is it worth wasting Ukrainian and Russian lives by continuing the war?

In this video, Glenn Diesen and Alex Krainer discuss how the West may be trying to control Ukraine because of the Heartland Theory. They wonder—will all Ukrainians be sacrificed for this war? And once they are gone, who will be sacrificed next?

It is true that the world order has probably changed forever. But what will more deaths change?

Is that really standing with Ukraine?

If not, who are we standing for?

Thank you for reading. If you like my writing and want to support me, please consider subscribing to my newsletter, or sharing my work with people you think would want to read. Thank you so much to my current subscribers.

Writers, videos, articles to read/watch/follow:

• Alex Krainer: Economic Collapse & the End of Europe by Glenn Diesen

• What in the Joseph Goebbels F*ck is Happening on Facebook? by James Fell

• Trump Sells $10 Billion in Weapons to Israel by Ken Klippenstein

• The Trump Administration Vs. The First Amendment. by the Dissident

• British journalists are celebrating the lack of opposition to war in parliament by Ricky Hale and Council Estate Media

• World War III is going to be brilliant actually by Laura K and Normal Island News

• Why was the US funding LGBT "Pride" marches in Ukraine? by Michael Tracey

• What Jeffrey Sachs and Tucker Carlson get right and wrong about the post-9/11 wars by Piers Robinson and Ted Walter

• The Zionist 'loot unit' strips Gaza, south Lebanon and Syria of weapons and valuables by Vanessa Beeley

• Israel & the US Are Self-Destructing, and These are Dangerous Times by Avigail Abarbanel

• Are Zelensky-Trump Theatrics a Distraction from Israel's Criminality? by Sam Husseini