The Coercive Peace: How Western 'Diplomacy' Threatens Sovereignty in Ukraine and Guinea-Bissau

The Facts: A Twin Assault on Self-Determination

The recent Geneva meetings between Ukrainian, U.S., and European officials reveal a deeply troubling development in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Washington has unilaterally drafted a 28-point peace plan that demands significant concessions from Ukraine, including ceding territory, restricting its military capabilities, and abandoning its NATO membership aspirations. President Trump has imposed a deadline on Ukrainian President Zelenskiy to approve this plan, which many Ukrainians perceive as a surrender after years of sacrifice and resistance. European allies, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, have expressed confusion and non-involvement in the drafting process, while U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has openly claimed authorship and defended the proposal on social media.

Parallel to this, Guinea-Bissau is conducting presidential and legislative elections amidst significant political turmoil. President Umaro Sissoco Embalo seeks to become the first leader in three decades to win a consecutive term, facing 11 opponents including Fernando Dias, who is backed by the historical African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde. The country has experienced nine coups since independence in 1974, and Embalo claims to have survived three coup attempts since taking office in 2020. Critics accuse him of manufacturing crises to justify cracking down on dissent, while Dias has raised alarms about democratic erosion and the government’s failure to address a surging cocaine trade that fuels political corruption.

The Context: Historical Patterns of Interference

The situations in Ukraine and Guinea-Bissau, though geographically distant, are interconnected through the lens of Western geopolitical maneuvering. The U.S.-proposed peace plan for Ukraine echoes historical patterns where powerful nations impose solutions on weaker states under the guise of diplomacy. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen’s insistence that Ukraine’s borders must not be altered by force rings hollow when the proposed plan effectively legitimizes Russian territorial gains. Similarly, Guinea-Bissau’s political instability cannot be divorced from decades of external interference, resource exploitation, and the legacy of colonial boundaries that continue to foster internal division.

Russia’s slow advances on Ukrainian frontlines, coupled with devastating attacks on infrastructure, have created a humanitarian crisis that the West now seeks to ‘resolve’ through diplomatic coercion. Meanwhile, Guinea-Bissau’s election occurs against a backdrop of polarized politics and alleged drug trafficking involvement at the highest levels, highlighting how Global South nations often struggle to maintain sovereignty amid external and internal pressures.

Opinion: The Hypocrisy of ‘Rules-Based Order’

The U.S.-drafted peace plan for Ukraine is not merely a diplomatic initiative; it is a stark manifestation of neo-imperialism dressed in the language of conflict resolution. By demanding Ukraine surrender territory, limit its military, and abandon its NATO aspirations, Washington is effectively rewarding Russian aggression while paying lip service to Ukrainian sovereignty. This approach exposes the fundamental hypocrisy of the so-called ‘rules-based international order’—a system designed primarily to serve Western interests while imposing burdens on the Global South.

President Trump’s deadline ultimatum to Zelenskiy is particularly egregious, reducing a complex, bloody conflict to a transaction with artificial time constraints. This is not diplomacy; it is coercion. The fact that European allies were excluded from the drafting process further demonstrates how the U.S. continues to act unilaterally, undermining multilateralism when it suits its geopolitical objectives. The vague security guarantees offered to Ukraine in the draft are insultingly inadequate compared to the concrete concessions demanded, revealing a calculated disregard for Ukrainian dignity and self-determination.

Similarly, the situation in Guinea-Bissau illustrates how Western nations often benefit from and sometimes exacerbate political instability in the Global South. The country’s history of coups and alleged drug trafficking connections cannot be understood in isolation from global power dynamics that perpetuate dependency and corruption. When leaders like Embalo face accusations of undermining democracy, we must question the role of external actors who may prefer pliable regimes over truly representative governments.

The parallel timing of these events is no coincidence. They represent two facets of the same problem: the persistent undermining of sovereignty in non-Western nations through either overt coercion or subtle manipulation. The West’s approach to Ukraine—forcing concessions that favor aggressors—mirrors historical colonial practices where powerful nations redrew maps and dictated terms to serving their interests. Likewise, Guinea-Bissau’s political challenges reflect the enduring legacy of colonial borders and economic structures that foster instability.

The Path Forward: Rejecting Coercive Diplomacy

Ukraine must not be forced into a peace that sacrifices its territorial integrity and future security. True diplomacy requires genuine negotiation, not ultimatums drafted by external powers. The European Union’s potential role in any peace agreement, as emphasized by von der Leyen, must be substantive rather than symbolic, ensuring that Ukrainian interests are prioritized over geopolitical calculations.

For Guinea-Bissau, the international community should support free and fair elections without interference, while addressing the root causes of instability, including economic inequality and external exploitation. The Global South must strengthen alliances to resist coercive diplomacy and neo-colonial practices, promoting a multipolar world where nations can determine their destinies without external pressure.

The situations in Ukraine and Guinea-Bissau are test cases for the future of international relations. Will we uphold a system where powerful nations impose their will on others, or will we move toward genuine respect for sovereignty and self-determination? The answer will define not only the fates of these nations but the credibility of the global order itself.