In the summer of 1999, just months after NATO bombed an independent country (then Yugoslavia) without the authorisation of the UN Security Council, I attended a lecture by the late Prof. Johan Galtung, the father of peace research. Known for his integrity and intellectual courage, he didn’t mince words. He said bluntly: “This world has a problem. That problem has a name, and its name is: the United States of America.”
Sadly, 25 years later, his words feel more prophetic than ever. Ukraine is just one example among many. After the supposed end of the Cold War, the US cast itself as the ultimate peacemaker and global champion of democracy. Yet rather than being disbanded, the North Atlantic Alliance, now no longer stopped by the USSR or the Warsaw pact, pursued relentless expansion under the guise of spreading peace and democracy.
This Leviathan now seems intent on transforming into a “global NATO” — in other words, on rendering the United Nations obsolete. So far, it has succeeded in making many of us believe that the UN is irrelevant and powerless.
Another key lesson in peace research I learned from Galtung was his approach to conflict analysis: the conflict triangle. To understand the underlying causes of a conflict, one must identify three key elements: 1) the attitudes (A) of the actors involved, 2) their behaviour (B), and 3) the contradiction (C). The contradiction—essentially the conflict itself—arises from the incompatible values or goals between the actors. Furthermore, meaningful conflict analysis requires three steps: diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy.
Sadly, it feels as though the world is at such a dark hour that even correct diagnoses and sound prognoses have proven futile. They failed to prevent the crisis in Ukraine, not to mention other devastating conflicts — like the ongoing genocide in Palestine. In the rush to focus on therapy —how to end the violence — we find ourselves caught in a disturbing paradox: In today’s Orwellian atmosphere, especially within the so-called “collective West,” those who advocate for ceasefires, negotiations, or diplomatic solutions are treated with suspicion or even hostility. As independent journalist Aaron Maté aptly put it: “In NATO state media, there’s nothing more ‘controversial’ than a peace proposal.”
This resistance to peace is nothing new. In 1982, Jonathan Schell warned in his seminal book on the consequences of nuclear war that “we have found it much easier to dig our own graves than to think about the fact that we are doing so.” Sadly, in Macedonia—one of the newest and smallest NATO member states—any serious discussion of the deeper causes of ongoing conflicts, or the resurgence of nuclear threats, has become taboo. The public discourse remains narrowly focused on day-to-day military developments and strategic manoeuvres, while the deeper structural issues that brought us to this point are left unexamined.
Few people realise the parallels between Ukraine and Macedonia when it comes to their political trajectories. Both gained independence after the collapse of socialist federations, both sit on sensitive geopolitical frontlines that the West is determined to control at all costs, and both fell victim to so-called “colour revolutions.” In Macedonia’s case, the regime change — portrayed as a democratic uprising — resulted in the country losing its name, constitutional sovereignty, and identity, though it eventually secured NATO membership. Ukraine, however, risks losing everything unless the world embraces peace talks and negotiations, as proposed by BRICS in the recent Kazan Declaration.
I would even go so far as to say that the outcome of the conflict in Ukraine will determine the future of global peace and security. The stakes couldn’t be higher.
It’s tiresome to even discuss the West’s double standards — especially now, when a genocide is not just tolerated but openly supported. Yet, let me offer an intriguing example of how the West deals with its vassal states. When Macedonia was coerced into signing the so-called Prespa Agreement — sacrificing its name and identity in exchange for NATO enlargement — the most quoted phrase was Thucydides’: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”
But when it comes to Ukraine, the narrative shifts dramatically: suddenly, there’s talk of a possible military victory against a far stronger opponent. The message? Don’t give up, fight to the last Ukrainian! Struggle is not only moral but achievable! Meanwhile, Macedonia capitulated — and now finds itself dragged into a conflict the population never wanted.
This episode is just one illustration of the impotence and Western bias embedded in the current European security architecture. As mentioned earlier, the UN is being portrayed as an incurable patient on its deathbed. Meanwhile, the EU — despite being a Nobel Peace Prize laureate —functions more like a civilian arm of NATO, or rather, a colony of the declining American empire.
Right now, much attention is focused on the outcome of the US elections, as if the person occupying the White House could make a real difference. But the reality is that the military-industrial-media-academic-entertainment complex thrives on war. Expecting anything good or effective from Washington — or its allies — would be wishful thinking at best.
Let me conclude: there is a solution for this ailing world. That solution has a name — the World Majority. This emerging coalition has already demonstrated its resolve by calling for an end to the Ukraine conflict and supporting Palestine’s recognition as an independent and equal state within the UN. Its name is BRICS.
For any meaningful change, NATO’s relentless expansion must stop. On its path of self-destruction, it risks dragging the rest of us down with it. The time has come to embrace a new global order—one built on cooperation, equality, and peace.
