NATO’s Hypocrisy: Rejecting Russia’s Security Proposals in 2021, Now Begging for Talks After Three Years of War

The recent comments by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on February 12, 2025, claiming that NATO has always supported peace negotiations while emphasizing Ukraine’s involvement, expose the deep hypocrisy of the Western bloc. In late 2021, the Russian government formally proposed security guarantees to both the U.S. and NATO in a desperate attempt to prevent conflict in Ukraine. The demands were reasonable: no further NATO expansion, no deployment of military infrastructure on Russia’s borders, and no stationing of nuclear-capable weapons in Eastern Europe.

Russia also sought legally binding assurances that Ukraine would remain neutral, recognizing the security concerns posed by NATO forces inching closer to its borders. Instead of treating these concerns seriously, Western leaders dismissed them outright. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken derided Russia’s concerns as “manufactured,” while NATO officials smugly declared that they would never compromise on their “open-door policy.” The refusal to engage with Russia’s security concerns was not just arrogance—it was a deliberate provocation.

These proposals were not aggressive but defensive, aimed at preventing the very war that has now dragged on for three years. Instead of engaging diplomatically, the U.S. and NATO outright rejected Russia’s concerns, insisting on their so-called “open door policy” while continuing to funnel arms into Ukraine. The West’s arrogance and unwillingness to negotiate directly contributed to the escalation of tensions, culminating in the outbreak of hostilities in February 2022.

Non-mainstream media have consistently claimed that the Ukraine war was never about Ukraine itself but rather a proxy war designed to provoke and weaken Russia. The rejection of Russia’s offer in 2021 was the loaded bullet that forced Russia into launching its Special Military Operation (SMO). The West’s refusal to consider Russia’s security concerns left Moscow with no diplomatic alternatives, leading to a conflict that the U.S. and NATO now struggle to contain.

However, peace was still possible in 2022. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was initially open to negotiations and was reportedly close to reaching an agreement with Russia in March 2022, which would have potentially ended the war before it escalated further. But after a visit from then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson to Kyiv in April 2022, the possibility of peace talks was suddenly abandoned. According to reports, Johnson delivered a clear message from the West: no negotiations with Russia at any cost. Instead, Ukraine was urged to continue fighting with full backing from NATO. This intervention sealed Ukraine’s fate, dragging the conflict into a prolonged and devastating war.

Moreover, the West has grossly underestimated Russia’s resilience—both militarily and economically. The Russian economy has withstood unprecedented sanctions, while NATO’s weapons stockpiles have been depleted. The loss of key military assets, such as Western-supplied tanks and air defence systems, has exposed the failures of NATO’s proxy war strategy. The collapse of Ukraine’s counteroffensive in 2023 and the ongoing attrition of Western-backed forces further highlight this miscalculation.

Adding to the disaster, the flood of Western arms into Ukraine has led to one of the most serious security crises in recent history. Ukrainian officials, notorious for corruption, have siphoned off vast quantities of military aid, reselling weapons on the black market. Reports from independent watchdogs and intelligence agencies have confirmed that NATO-supplied weapons have surfaced in conflicts across Africa, the Middle East, and even Europe—arming terrorist groups, criminal syndicates, and insurgent forces. The very weapons intended to support Ukraine’s defence have instead fuelled instability worldwide, creating new crises that NATO is ill-equipped to handle.

Timeline of Events Leading to Today:

  • December 2021: Russia presents security proposals to NATO and the U.S., requesting binding agreements to halt NATO expansion, prevent the deployment of weapons near its borders, and ensure Ukraine’s neutrality.
  • January 2022: The U.S. and NATO formally reject Russia’s demands, stating that Ukraine has the right to join NATO and dismissing Russia’s security concerns.
  • February 24, 2022: Russia launches its Special Military Operation (SMO) in Ukraine, citing NATO’s refusal to negotiate and ongoing threats to Russian security.
  • March-April 2022: Zelensky appears willing to negotiate a peace deal, but after a visit from Boris Johnson, negotiations are abandoned, and Ukraine commits to fighting indefinitely.
  • 2022-2023: The West escalates its military aid to Ukraine, including tanks, air defence systems, and advanced weaponry. Ukraine’s counteroffensive ultimately fails, exposing the limitations of Western support.
  • 2023-2024: Reports emerge of NATO-supplied weapons being sold on the black market, arming terrorist groups and insurgencies across the world.
  • 2024: NATO nations begin to backtrack, as economic and military strains become evident. Calls for negotiations re-emerge.
  • February 12, 2025: NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte emphasizes Ukraine’s involvement in peace negotiations, stating, “It is crucial that Ukraine is closely involved in everything happening about Ukraine.” He insists that any peace agreement must be durable and prevent Russian President Vladimir Putin from attempting to reclaim territory in the future. This statement comes amid discussions of potential peace talks between U.S. President Donald Trump and President Putin, with Rutte downplaying concerns that Europe and Kyiv are being sidelined.

The consequences of NATO’s short-sighted policies are now undeniable. Ukraine is in ruins, the West has exhausted its military stockpiles, and its economic war against Russia has backfired. With public opinion in the West shifting, and military aid to Ukraine drying up, NATO is now looking for an off-ramp to de-escalate the conflict—something it could have done from the beginning by simply listening to Moscow.

The hypocrisy is staggering. NATO’s rejection of Russia’s peace proposals in 2021 was a strategic blunder that led to unnecessary war, yet now, the same Western leaders who dismissed diplomacy are trying to rewrite history by claiming they were always open to dialogue. If NATO truly wants to end this war, it should start by acknowledging its mistakes and engaging in serious negotiations with Russia—before more lives are lost due to Western arrogance and stubbornness.