On March 4, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky delivered a blistering attack on NATO for refusing to implement a no-fly zone over his country.

Zelensky has become a global icon for rallying his people and the world to oppose Russia's barbaric invasion of his country.

But his recent tirade against NATO suggests that he's resisting being simply used as a pawn by Western leaders to try to rid the world of the very problematic Vladimir Putin at very little cost to themselves.

"NATO deliberately decided not to close the sky over Ukraine," Zelensky declared. "We believe that NATO countries have created a narrative that the closure of the sky over Ukraine would provoke Russian aggression against NATO. 

"You have to think about people, about humanity itself," he continued. "And what did you think about at that summit? All the people who will die, starting from today, will die because of you. Because of your weakness. Because of your disunity.

"All the alliance has managed to do so far is to carry fifty tons of diesel fuel for Ukraine."

Those are fairly astonishing words, given the extent of the economic sanctions against Russia. But the man is fighting for the lives of his people, so it's understandable that he's ticked off.

NATO's recent history

What led up to this situation?

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Clinton administration began the process of expanding NATO in the 1990s.

In 1997, that drew a sharply worded letter of opposition from 50 U.S. foreign-policy experts, including former senators and retired military officers.

"In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties," the letter stated.

"In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division between the 'ins' and the 'outs,' foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included," it continued. "In NATO, expansion, which the Alliance has indicated is open-ended, will inevitably degrade NATO's ability to carry out its primary mission and will involve U.S. security guarantees to countries with serious border and national minority problems, and unevenly developed systems of democratic government."

And on it went.

The U.S. government didn't listen to this advice. Instead, it plowed ahead.

When Bill Clinton was president, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic joined NATO in 1999.

Then in 2004 with George W. Bush as president, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia joined the alliance.

In 2009, Albania and Croatia were admitted to the club. Montenegro was added in 2017 and North Macedonia became a NATO member in 2020.

The Russian government was vehemently opposed to NATO's 2008 declaration to welcome the aspirations of Ukraine and Georgia to join the alliance. Both were former members of the U.S.S.R.

Russia invaded Georgia that same year. But there was no need to invade Ukraine as long as its pro-Russian president, Victor Yanukovych, remained in power after being elected in 2010.

But in 2014, after Yanukovych was chased out of office in a revolt, pro-western businessman Petro Poroshenko was elected. He had previously served as foreign affairs minister in the pro-western government of Ukraine in 2009 and 2010.

With Poroshenko as president, Ukraine resumed its quest to become integrated into NATO. That continued under Zelensky, which provoked Putin's war of aggression.

Make no mistake: Putin has committed the supreme war crime, as defined by the Nuremberg Tribunal, of launching a war on an independent country. His actions will go down as one of the greatest war crimes of the 21st century, according to U.S. intellectual Noam Chomsky.

It's why Zelensky has become a hero to so many in the West. He's standing up to the Russian bully.

But what's the role of the bystanders in this confrontation?

NATO knew that its growing membership list would create "haves" and "have-nots" in Eastern Europe. That was clear as early as 1997 when pillars of the U.S. establishment warned Clinton not to expand NATO.

At the same time, NATO encouraged the Ukrainians to think that they might one day come under the security umbrella of the western alliance. This occurred most notably at the 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest.

But this security umbrella was never delivered. Now, Zelensky isn't getting much military help in countering his well-armed neighbour.

No wonder he's so irate at NATO.

But let's look a little more deeply into this issue. What might be the real goal of the U.S. administration and its NATO allies in this situation? 

Is it simply to create the conditions for someone in Russia to kill Putin so that there will be a less menacing leader in the Kremlin?

Western leaders have probably had enough of Putin poisoning expats in their countries, meddling in their elections, and trying to undermine efforts to grapple with the climate crisis. 

The end of Putin could be one outcome of a harsh regime of western sanctions.

And this economic strangulation could only really be justified by Putin launching a war of aggression on his neighbour.

Putin likely felt that he could get away with this war because Ukraine was not protected by Article 5 of the security pact. It states that an attack on one member is an attack on all of them.

After all, the U.S.S.R. invaded Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 with impunity because they were not then protected by NATO's Article 5.

Similarly, the U.S.S.R. invaded Afghanistan in 1979 without getting into a shooting war with the Americans. The worst thing that happened back then was a U.S.-led boycott of the 1980 Olympics.

And more recently, Putin suffered no serious consequences by offering massive military support to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Asaad.

American officials in the upper reaches of the State Department and the Pentagon probably weren't surprised when Putin finally invaded Ukraine.

The West was warned of this possibility for years, and especially when he started amassing massive firepower on Ukraine's border.

Putin's now wrecking Ukraine. The U.S. and its allies are trying to do the same to the Russian economy.

If it leads to the fall of Putin, this will no doubt put a smile on the faces of the major powers in NATO. Even if it involves the sacrifice of thousands, if not millions, of Ukrainian lives.

But in this instance, the proverbial pawn in the chess match between NATO and Russia—Ukrainian president Zelensky—is not following the script.

He's lambasting NATO just as it's delivering an economic body blow to his Russian enemy.

It's reminiscent of a couple of quotes.

"If I am a pawn in someone else's chess game, you better believe I am going to demand an explanation before being shoved at some rook," wrote author Thomm Quackenbush. 

And then, there's this...

"Pawns are such fascinating pieces, too... So small, almost insignificant, and yet they can depose kings," wrote another author, Lavie Tidhar. "Don't you find that interesting?"

If this Ukrainian pawn—a former comedian turned world leader—somehow ends up turning western citizens against their leaders for not providing sufficient aid to his country, it could indeed have interesting geopolitical implications. Especially as the U.S. moves closer to the midterm elections.

For western leaders, Zelensky's a bit like Greta Thunberg—someone to be admired from afar but also someone who should be feared for his potential to transform public opinion within their own countries.

Update

On March 7, Zelensky tweeted the following message.

https://twitter.com/ZelenskyyUa/status/1500472014452273157