Editor's note: Keith Lamb is a University of Oxford graduate with a Master of Science in Contemporary Chinese Studies. His primary research interests are China's international relations and "socialism with Chinese characteristics." The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

What are the driving causes of the Ukraine conflict? Corporate media, in the typical fashion of its individualizing elite class bias, guides the naive towards a fake narrative. Here, geopolitical and historical complexities can be obfuscated into the Russian President Vladimir Putin "madman theory."

For the naive who like such "grand narratives," Ukraine is crudely summed up as an immaterial battle of good vs evil. As such, no analysis of the facts needs to be done on the actual material causes leading to the Ukraine conflict.

In contrast, the Western left and other independent media frequently point out that the actual geopolitical facts that have contributed to the Ukrainian conflict are largely ignored by the corporate media.

These facts include a U.S.-led "coup d'état," the emergence of neo-Nazi military units incorporated into the Ukrainian army, a brutal civil war killing 14,000, the purposeful failure of diplomacy in the Minsk Protocol, and most importantly a U.S.-led NATO push towards the Russian border, which sparked Moscow's existential angst.

We are left with two different interpretations of the forces driving the Ukraine conflict. Each interpretation of events will lead to radically different outcomes.

If we take the corporate media's narrative, one would feel adverse to peace talks.

If we take the narrative based on real historical facts, supported by much of the neutral world, then there are logical causes leading up to the Ukraine conflict. This means, assuming we take the rational interests of all sides into account, peace through negotiation is winnable.

Considering, the destruction wrought in Ukraine and the fact that the conflict undermines regional security and global development, the sooner peace through negotiation is achieved the better. Why then pump out a narrative that makes peace appear illogical? In whose interest does the continuation of the Ukraine conflict serve?

One explanation is that a continuation of the conflict will allow for the consolidation of U.S. transatlantic capital and their corporate interests over Europe. Seymour Hersh's revelations disclose that the U.S. destroyed the Nord Stream point to benefit the U.S. to retain hegemony over Western Europe by denying it energy independence and integration with Eurasia. This drives up profits for U.S. energy suppliers who are able to sell their expensive fracked gas.

When it comes to hegemony, war, resources, and profits are interrelated and work in tandem with the geopolitical goals of hegemonism. Ukraine, as demonstrated by a recent report from Renmin University of China entitled "Watered Down Aid: The Inside Story and Anatomy of Western Military Assistance to Ukraine," is no different.

This report, using statistical evidence, demonstrates that funds going to Ukraine, which is often termed "aid," are predominantly used to prop up the U.S. military-industrial complex. Thus, like in Afghanistan, "winning the war" is about winning huge profits. The longer the war can go on for the greater the profit margins – peace is not an option.

The report shows that, as of January 15, 2023, the total amount of U.S. aid pledged to Ukraine amounted to $76.8 billion. However, only 5 percent ($3.9 billion) went to humanitarian aid while 61 percent ($46.5 billion) went to military aid and 34 percent ($26.4 billion) went to financial aid.

Consequently, the report concludes that the main purpose of U.S. financial assistance is to continue the Ukrainian government's wartime operations with the ultimate aim being the perpetuation of the Ukrainian crisis. With aid in fact being a financial loan for the purchase of U.S. military goods, the continuation of the Ukrainian conflict, as pointed out by the report, is profiteering by shareholders and profits from war can be reinvested into advanced military equipment while outdated equipment can be sold off.

Coming back to the two narratives I introduced at the start, the one supported by the corporate media, is an advertisement for war.

Here, the U.S. and its allies, backed by the military-industrial complex, who claim to act righteously in support of Ukraine, merely continue their war that finished in Afghanistan. The disaster that fell upon Afghanistan was the war while the disaster that fell on the interests tied to the 20 years of war profiteering was the peace!

Despite the "adverts" of 9/11, "turban-wearing savages" living in caves, and terrorists that "hate U.S. freedoms" after 20 years of war the U.S. public was no longer buying it. Today, a new "advertising campaign" depicting the madman embodied by Putin and a new manichaeanistic battle of good vs evil, is used to resell war over peace talks.

Even those who are anti-war, who talk about the war being "unwinnable for the West" miss the point by buying into partially what the advertising is selling – a decisive victory. No, "winning" for "them" is the continuation of war where ever it may be – in the caves of Afghanistan or the plains of Ukraine.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on Twitter to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)