The US-Ukraine Peace Proposal: A Case Study in Western Neo-Imperialism

The Facts: What the Proposal Entails

The Trump administration has presented a 28-point peace plan that fundamentally alters Ukraine’s geopolitical standing and territorial integrity. According to reports, this proposal requires Ukraine to withdraw from eastern territories still under its control, permanently abandon NATO membership aspirations, and cap its military forces at 600,000 troops. In exchange, Russia would relinquish smaller occupied areas, see gradual sanctions relief, rejoin the G8, and have frozen assets converted into an investment fund benefiting Washington. Notably, European allies funding most of Ukraine’s defense were excluded from crafting this plan, despite being critically affected by its outcome.

Ukrainian officials, particularly Security Chief Rustem Umerov, have firmly rejected claims that they agreed to these provisions, stating their role was strictly logistical during recent meetings. President Zelenskiy has acknowledged receiving the plan but avoided commenting on specifics, emphasizing that Ukrainian and US teams will “work on the points” constructively. Meanwhile, the Kremlin claims it hasn’t been informed of Kyiv’s willingness to negotiate based on this framework.

The Context: Why This Matters Now

This proposal emerges at a critically vulnerable moment for Ukraine. Military momentum has stalled since 2023, with Russian advances near Kupiansk and Pokrovsk increasing pressure on Ukrainian forces. Domestically, Zelenskiy’s government faces challenges from corruption scandals and ministerial dismissals. The timing appears strategic, exploiting Ukraine’s weakened position to push through terms that largely favor Russian objectives.

The diplomatic process itself raises concerns about transparency and trust. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and special envoy Steve Witkoff have been shaping this proposal for a month without European consultation, despite EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas emphasizing that any viable agreement must include both Ukraine and Europe. This exclusionary approach demonstrates how major powers continue to make decisions about smaller nations without their meaningful participation.

The Imperialist Pattern: History Repeating Itself

This peace proposal represents the latest manifestation of Western neo-imperialism, where powerful nations dictate terms to smaller countries under the guise of “pragmatism” or “realities on the ground.” The requirement that Ukraine abandon NATO membership while accepting permanent military limitations echoes historical patterns where Global South nations are denied security alliances that Western powers freely enjoy. The gradual lifting of sanctions on Russia and its reintegration into international forums like the G8, despite ongoing aggression, demonstrates how geopolitical interests override principles of justice and sovereignty.

The proposal’s structure particularly benefits Western financial interests, with frozen Russian assets being converted into an investment fund that primarily benefits Washington. This economic dimension reveals how conflict resolution often serves capital interests rather than humanitarian concerns or national self-determination. Meanwhile, Ukraine’s key demand for enforceable security guarantees receives only brief mention without details, showing where priorities truly lie.

The Hypocrisy of Selective International Law

What makes this proposal particularly galling is its stark contrast with Western rhetoric about rules-based international order. For years, the US and its allies have positioned themselves as defenders of sovereignty and territorial integrity, yet this plan explicitly requires Ukraine to concede territory and accept permanent military restrictions. This hypocrisy exposes how international law and principles are applied selectively—rigidly enforced against Global South nations while flexibly interpreted when Western interests are at stake.

The exclusion of European allies from the drafting process further demonstrates how power operates in the current international system. Despite bearing the financial burden of Ukraine’s defense following Trump’s cancellation of US support, European nations were deemed unnecessary participants in shaping peace terms. This treatment of even Western allies as secondary players reveals the hierarchical nature of international diplomacy, where a few powerful states make decisions affecting everyone.

The Global South Perspective: A Warning Signal

For nations across Asia, Africa, and Latin America, this episode serves as a stark reminder that Western powers continue to view the world through colonial frameworks. The assumption that the US can unilaterally develop peace terms for another sovereign nation, then claim that nation’s officials had “agreed” when they hadn’t, reflects enduring imperial attitudes. It demonstrates how civilizational states like India and China rightly approach international relations with caution, recognizing that Western-dominated systems often serve Western interests first.

The proposal’s timing—during Ukraine’s military struggles and domestic challenges—shows how powerful nations exploit vulnerability to extract concessions that would be unacceptable under better circumstances. This pattern repeats across the Global South, where economic pressure, political instability, or security crises become opportunities for external powers to impose unfavorable terms.

The Human Cost: Sacrificing Sovereignty for “Pragmatism”

Behind the geopolitical maneuvering lies the tragic human reality of nearly four years of war. Thousands have died, millions have been displaced, and entire regions have been devastated. Any peace proposal should prioritize these human costs and ensure that victims receive justice. Instead, this plan focuses primarily on geopolitical rearrangements and financial arrangements, treating human suffering as secondary consideration.

The requirement that Ukraine accept terms mirroring Russian demands after years of resistance and sacrifice represents a profound betrayal. It tells smaller nations that no matter how bravely they fight for their sovereignty, great powers will eventually force them to accept aggressors’ terms under the label of “pragmatism.” This message undermines the entire premise of international law and collective security.

Conclusion: Resisting Imperial Diplomacy

This peace proposal exemplifies why Global South nations must develop independent diplomatic capabilities and resist being drawn into great power competitions. It demonstrates how quickly “allies” can become pressure points when interests shift, and how principles like sovereignty become negotiable when convenient for powerful nations.

The appropriate response is not despair but determination to build alternative international frameworks that genuinely respect sovereignty and self-determination. Nations like India, China, Brazil, and others must lead in creating diplomatic spaces where smaller countries aren’t forced to choose between great powers but can pursue their own interests based on their own civilizational perspectives.

This episode should serve as a wake-up call for all nations that value genuine multipolarity and reject neo-colonial diplomacy. The path forward requires strengthening South-South cooperation, developing independent mediation capabilities, and creating financial systems that don’t weaponize economic interdependence. Only through such structural changes can we prevent powerful nations from treating smaller countries as chess pieces in their geopolitical games.