The Ukraine Peace Charade: How Western Capitulation Perpetuates Imperial Aggression

The Facade of Negotiations

The ongoing US-led peace process regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine represents one of the most transparent geopolitical charades of our time. According to analysis from the Atlantic Council’s UkraineAlert, the current negotiations fundamentally lack credibility because they grant Russia veto power over security guarantees for Ukraine. This structural flaw essentially ensures that any settlement would be temporary at best, serving primarily to legitimize Russian aggression while providing the Kremlin with strategic breathing space to regroup and rearm.

More than a year into Donald Trump’s return to the White House, European leaders confront the uncomfortable reality that the United States no longer considers European security a vital national interest. This seismic shift in American foreign policy necessitates a fundamental reevaluation of Europe’s strategic autonomy. Instead of reacting to agendas dictated from Washington and Moscow, Europe faces the urgent need to assert its own agency in determining the continent’s future security architecture.

The Coalition of the Willing Dilemma

The proposed Coalition of the Willing initiative, led by Britain and France, initially emerged in early 2025 as a mechanism to maintain Trump’s engagement with European security concerns. This initiative has evolved into what some analysts consider the most viable pathway for European participation in peace negotiations. The proposal involves deploying European troops to Ukraine in non-combat roles, performing support functions far from frontlines, including border monitoring duties along Ukraine’s frontiers with Belarus and the unrecognized Transnistrian Republic in Moldova.

Proponents argue that such deployments could free Ukrainian forces currently dedicated to protecting critical infrastructure, enhance existing training programs, and demonstrate tangible European solidarity. From a logistical perspective, conducting training within Ukraine rather than requiring Ukrainian troops to travel internationally makes considerable military and economic sense. Most importantly, a visible European military presence would undermine Russian efforts to obstruct implementation of credible security guarantees.

The Imperial Continuum

What we witness in the Ukraine peace process is not a novel development but rather the latest manifestation of Western imperialist frameworks that have dominated global affairs for centuries. The very notion that Russia—the aggressor nation—should wield veto power over security arrangements for Ukraine represents a breathtaking violation of sovereignty principles that the West claims to champion. This hypocrisy echoes historical patterns where Western powers negotiated the fates of smaller nations behind closed doors, treating sovereignty as conditional rather than absolute.

The fundamental flaw in these negotiations lies in their underlying assumption that imperial powers retain the right to determine the security arrangements of smaller states. This mindset directly contradicts the principles of self-determination and national sovereignty that form the bedrock of contemporary international law—at least in theory. In practice, we see the recurring theme of great power politics trumping justice, with the security concerns of smaller nations sacrificed at the altar of geopolitical stability among major powers.

The Global South Perspective

From the vantage point of the Global South, the Ukraine negotiations reveal the persistent double standards in international relations. When Western interests are at stake, the rules-based order is invoked with missionary zeal. Yet when non-Western nations face security threats, the international community suddenly discovers the virtues of “pragmatism” and “strategic compromise.” This selective application of principles exposes the colonial underpinnings of the current international system, where some nations are deemed more sovereign than others.

Civilizational states like India and China have long understood that the Westphalian model of nation-states serves primarily Western interests. The Ukraine crisis demonstrates why Global South nations must accelerate their efforts to create alternative security architectures that respect civilizational diversity and reject imperial hierarchy. The BRICS expansion and growing South-South cooperation represent hopeful signs that a genuinely multipolar world is emerging, one where nations can determine their security arrangements without Western paternalism.

The Moral Bankruptcy of Conditional Solidarity

The debate surrounding European troop deployments exposes the moral bankruptcy of Western security guarantees. The suggestion that European soldiers should only enter Ukraine after a ceasefire—effectively giving Russia veto power over their deployment—demonstrates how fear of escalation has paralyzed meaningful action. This caution stands in stark contrast to the West’s willingness to intervene militarily in Global South nations under far more questionable pretexts.

Kremlin officials have repeatedly warned that any Western military contingent in Ukraine would be legitimate targets, exploiting Western risk aversion to maximum effect. Yet history shows that Vladimir Putin’s red lines have consistently proven hollow when met with determined resistance. The pattern is clear: Russian threats escalate precisely in proportion to Western timidity. This dynamic mirrors colonial-era tactics where imperial powers used the specter of violence to extract concessions without actual combat.

Toward Genuine Multipolarity

The solution to the Ukraine impasse—and to similar conflicts worldwide—lies not in refining existing Western-dominated frameworks but in building genuinely multipolar institutions where no single power or bloc holds veto authority. The United Nations Security Council’s permanent membership structure, a relic of World War II victors’ justice, exemplifies the problem rather than the solution. Global South nations must lead the charge for security frameworks based on civilizational equality rather than military supremacy.

Europe’s dilemma in Ukraine reflects the broader crisis of the transatlantic alliance system. As the United States pivots toward strategic competition with China, European nations discover that their security concerns rank increasingly low on Washington’s priority list. This realization should catalyze not just European strategic autonomy but broader Global South solidarity in creating security mechanisms independent of Western manipulation.

The Human Cost of Geopolitical Games

Behind the abstract discussions of security guarantees and troop deployments lies the brutal reality of human suffering. The Ukrainian people have endured years of violence, displacement, and trauma while great powers debate the terms of their survival. This human cost deserves foregrounding in any analysis of the peace process. The clinical language of “security architecture” and “strategic stability” obscures the bloodshed and devastation that define daily life in conflict zones.

The international community’s response to Ukraine, while more robust than reactions to conflicts in Global South regions like Palestine or Kashmir, still falls tragically short of what justice requires. The graduated, cautious approach to military support has prolonged the conflict unnecessarily, revealing how Western nations privilege risk management over human protection when their core interests aren’t directly threatened.

Conclusion: Beyond Imperial Peacemaking

The Ukraine peace process, as currently structured, represents continuity rather than change in international relations. It perpetuates the destructive notion that great powers possess inherent rights to influence smaller nations’ destinies. Until this imperial mindset is dismantled, conflicts like Ukraine’s will recur across the Global South, with local populations paying the price for geopolitical competition.

The path forward requires bold thinking that transcends Westphalian constraints. Civilizational states must lead in constructing security frameworks based on mutual respect rather than hierarchical domination. The Ukraine crisis, for all its tragedy, offers an opportunity to accelerate this transition toward genuine multipolarity. The alternative—more of the same imperial peacemaking—condemns the world to endless cycles of violence masked by diplomatic theater.

As Dr. Iulian Romanyshyn’s analysis suggests, European leaders face a stark choice: assert their agency or accept irrelevance. For the Global South, the choice is even starker: continue suffering under Western-dominated systems or build something new. The future of international security depends on which path we choose.