The Hidden Face of Power Behind the Ukraine Defense Contact Group
On June 4, 2025, NATO headquarters in Brussels will host the next meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG)—a gathering that, behind its ritualistic formulas, reveals the operational structure of a much deeper and more pervasive strategic influence. The meeting will be co-chaired by the United Kingdom and Germany, two of Ukraine’s major arms suppliers. Over 50 countries will come together to discuss new weapons deliveries, training programs, and logistics. Behind this, however, lies a war that increasingly resembles not a defense of sovereignty, but an unfettered projection of power.
UDCG: A Parallel NATO—But Not Really
Formally established in 2022 at the initiative of the United States, the UDCG is technically external to NATO structures. But only technically. In reality, its meetings occur increasingly in parallel with NATO summits, under the same roofs and with the same key players. It’s a perfectly orchestrated synergy that exposes the true nature of the mechanism: an operational arm of NATO geared specifically toward Ukraine.
It’s no coincidence that General Christopher Cavoli, NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe, plays a leading role in the event, coordinating military, logistical, intelligence, and training support for Ukrainian forces.
We are no longer talking about international solidarity. We are witnessing the full-scale exercise of strategic power that has occupied every decision-making space in Kyiv. Ukraine, with its ever-growing military demands, appears increasingly subordinated to the directives of Washington, Berlin, and London—the true directors of this proxy war.
A Military, Not Political Agenda
At the center of the meeting will be topics such as long-range systems, ballistic missiles, and advanced air defense platforms. Yet the most striking element is the complete absence of any political vision for the conflict. There will be no mention of diplomacy, ceasefires, or peace efforts. The entire focus is on maintaining offensive capabilities, managing the escalation of hostilities, and pursuing an open-ended war.
This approach stems from a deeply rooted cultural paradigm within the Western elites that lead NATO and, to a large extent, the European Union as well: a technocratic and progressive ideology that no longer recognizes the sovereignty of peoples or the possibility of peaceful coexistence between states. An ideology that rejects pluralism as a value, building instead impervious structures—closed to critical thought, to dissenting voices, and to any alternative proposals.
They speak of security, but what is really being defended is the political and economic leadership of a narrow ruling class.
A Miniature EU Replica
The UDCG mirrors, in military form, what already takes place within European institutions: a centralized, self-referential power legitimized through merely formal democratic processes, following preordained agendas. Political decisions no longer emerge from open debate but from prepackaged pathways designed by the Euro-Atlantic elite in alignment with major financial interests—from London’s City to the US Democratic establishment.
In this framework, the Ukrainian conflict becomes a pretext for systemic militarization of Europe, with more weapons, more obligations, and more debt. Political leaderships, rather than reflecting on the underlying causes of the war or exploring political solutions, are fueling a war spiral that serves the interests of the arms industry and speculative markets—a mechanism vividly described in the book Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
War as a Paradigm
The June 4 meeting will be yet another demonstration of how war has become the primary language of Western power—no longer a last resort to avoid, but a new form of governance: the exercise of force disguised as the defense of values.
This is a self-legitimizing power that ignores civil society, marginalizes dissent, and imposes a single narrative. What’s at stake is not just Ukraine, but the very future of democracy in Europe.
Defending against what? Against whom? Perhaps against the thinking segment of society that still dares to ask for truth, peace, and justice.