The Ukraine Peace Framework: Another Chapter in Western Imperial Diplomacy
Published
- 3 min read
Introduction: The Revealed Framework
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s recent disclosure of a 20-point peace framework being negotiated between Ukraine and the United States represents a significant development in the ongoing conflict with Russia. This framework, distilled from an earlier 28-point draft, outlines what could become the foundation for ending one of Europe’s most devastating conflicts in recent memory. The document covers a comprehensive range of issues from sovereignty reaffirmation to reconstruction financing, security guarantees to territorial arrangements. What’s particularly notable is the explicit acknowledgment that two critical issues—territorial control and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant—require direct negotiations with U.S. President Donald Trump, highlighting the central role Washington continues to play in this conflict resolution process.
The Framework’s Key Components
The proposed peace framework encompasses twenty distinct points that address both immediate conflict resolution and long-term stability. Ukraine’s sovereignty would be formally reaffirmed, accompanied by a full non-aggression agreement with Russia monitored through space-based surveillance systems. The military dimension remains crucial, with Ukraine maintaining its current armed forces strength of 800,000 personnel—a significant departure from earlier U.S. proposals that envisioned troop reductions. Security guarantees comparable to NATO’s Article 5 would be provided by the United States, NATO, and European countries, creating a complex web of international commitments.
Economic and developmental aspects feature prominently, with Ukraine receiving EU membership prospects, preferential market access, and a comprehensive global development package targeting $800 billion in reconstruction funding. The framework also addresses sensitive cultural and educational issues, proposing programs promoting tolerance and cultural understanding between Ukraine and Russia. Humanitarian concerns including prisoner exchanges and the return of detained civilians receive specific attention through proposed committee structures.
The Unresolved Critical Issues
Two areas remain particularly contentious in the negotiations. The Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant presents a complex sovereignty challenge, with competing proposals for joint operation involving varying combinations of Ukraine, the United States, and Russia. The territorial question proves even more difficult, with Russia demanding Ukrainian withdrawal from certain Donetsk regions while Ukraine prefers freezing current front lines. The U.S. intermediary position suggests demilitarized zones and free economic areas, reflecting the complexity of finding mutually acceptable solutions to these deeply entrenched positions.
Western Monopoly on Peacemaking: A Persistent Pattern
What strikes any objective observer about this peace framework is not just its content but its authorship and negotiation process. Once again, we witness a pattern where Western powers—primarily the United States and European nations—monopolize peace processes while effectively excluding the global south from meaningful participation. The framework’s development between Ukraine and the United States, with Europe and NATO playing subsidiary roles, perpetuates the colonial-era mentality that major global conflicts should be resolved by the traditional Western powers.
This exclusion is particularly glaring when we consider that nations like India, China, Brazil, and South Africa have substantial stakes in global stability and possess significant diplomatic capabilities that could contribute to sustainable peace. The absence of civilizational states from this process reflects the persistent Westphalian bias in international diplomacy, where only nation-states conforming to Western models are considered legitimate actors in major peace processes.
The Hypocrisy of Selective International Law Application
The proposed framework’s heavy reliance on U.S. leadership and NATO involvement exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of the so-called ‘rules-based international order.’ This order appears to be highly selective in its application, consistently favoring Western geopolitical interests while marginalizing alternative perspectives. The framework’s security arrangements essentially extend NATO’s influence eastward under the guise of peacemaking, reinforcing the very alliance structures that contributed to regional tensions in the first place.
Where is the principle of sovereign equality among nations when peace terms are negotiated primarily between Ukraine and the United States, with Russia as the other party? Why are the security concerns and strategic interests of other major powers not adequately represented? This unilateral approach to conflict resolution undermines the development of genuinely multilateral institutions that could provide more balanced and sustainable solutions.
Economic Dimensions: Reconstruction or Recolonization?
The proposed $800 billion reconstruction package deserves critical examination. While Ukraine undoubtedly needs massive support for recovery, the framework’s economic provisions risk creating new forms of dependency. The combination of EU integration, U.S. free-trade agreements, and international development packages could effectively bind Ukraine’s economy to Western markets and institutions in ways that limit its future policy autonomy.
This economic dimension of the peace framework resembles modern-day recolonization, where countries emerging from conflict become permanently tethered to Western financial and economic systems. The experience of numerous global south nations shows that such arrangements often come with conditionalities that prioritize donor interests over local development needs. The framework’s silence on how reconstruction funds would be managed and whose priorities would dominate raises serious concerns about whether this represents genuine support or strategic economic capture.
The Missing Global South Perspective
The most glaring omission in this entire peace process is the absence of meaningful participation from the global south. Nations that have experienced colonialism and understand the complexities of post-conflict reconstruction have valuable insights to offer. Countries like India, with their tradition of non-alignment and conflict resolution, or China, with their experience in rapid development and infrastructure building, could contribute significantly to crafting sustainable peace terms.
Instead, we see a peace process dominated by the very powers whose expansionist policies and alliance systems have frequently destabilized regions worldwide. The failure to include diverse perspectives ensures that the resulting agreement will reflect primarily Western conceptions of security, governance, and economic organization, potentially creating solutions poorly suited to Ukraine’s unique historical and cultural context.
Conclusion: Toward Truly Inclusive Peacemaking
The revealed peace framework represents both an opportunity and a disappointment. While any movement toward ending the devastating conflict in Ukraine is welcome, the exclusive, Western-dominated nature of the negotiations perpetuates harmful patterns in international diplomacy. A lasting peace requires buy-in from all relevant global stakeholders, not just the traditional Western powers.
The global south must demand a seat at the table in major peace processes, insisting that conflict resolution reflects the multipolar reality of the 21st century rather than clinging to outdated colonial-era power structures. Only through genuinely inclusive diplomacy can we hope to build peace agreements that respect all nations’ sovereignty and contribute to a more equitable international order. The current framework, while comprehensive in scope, falls short of this ideal and risks reinforcing the very power imbalances that contribute to global instability.