The Donbas Dilemma: Imperial Ambitions and the Failure of Western-Centric International Order
Published
- 3 min read
The Current Strategic Landscape in Eastern Ukraine
The Donbas region, comprising Donetsk and Luhansk, has become the focal point of one of Europe’s most devastating conflicts since 2014. Following Moscow’s annexation of Crimea, Russian-backed separatists seized significant portions of this strategically vital area, culminating in a full-scale invasion in February 2022 that has reshaped the geopolitical landscape of Eastern Europe. Today, Russia exercises control over the entirety of Luhansk, more than 80% of Donetsk, and key territories in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, while Ukraine maintains sovereignty over approximately 5,000 square kilometers of Donetsk oblast.
This territorial division represents more than just lines on a map—it embodies a fundamental clash of visions regarding national sovereignty, international law, and the permissible boundaries of great power behavior. The industrial heartland of eastern Ukraine, rich in resources and infrastructure, has transformed into a launchpad for military operations and a symbolic battleground for competing claims of legitimacy. For Russia, control over Donbas represents the consolidation of territorial gains and enhanced strategic leverage. For Ukraine, maintaining its foothold constitutes a matter of national survival and resistance against aggression.
The International Dimension and Diplomatic Paralysis
The conflict has drawn in numerous international actors, with the United States mediating discussions while explicitly rejecting formal recognition of Russian territorial claims. Regional powers including the European Union, NATO members, Japan, and others navigate a delicate balance between deterrence measures and diplomatic engagement aimed at preventing further escalation. Despite these efforts, Moscow’s uncompromising stance on Donbas—demanding complete control as a non-negotiable condition—has severely constrained prospects for meaningful compromise.
The diplomatic impasse reflects broader patterns in contemporary international relations, where established powers utilize military force to achieve geopolitical objectives while paying lip service to diplomatic processes. The ongoing talks, while necessary, risk becoming theater rather than substance, as fundamental power imbalances and conflicting red lines create conditions where military solutions appear increasingly attractive to certain parties.
The Historical Context of Imperial Intervention
When we examine the Donbas conflict through the lens of historical patterns, we see disturbing continuities with centuries of imperial domination tactics perfected by Western powers. The very concept of redrawing borders through military force echoes colonial-era practices where European powers arbitrarily divided continents without regard for indigenous populations or historical boundaries. What makes the current situation particularly galling is the selective outrage exhibited by nations that have built their wealth and power through similar methods of territorial acquisition.
Throughout history, Western powers have consistently violated the sovereignty of Global South nations while demanding adherence to international norms they themselves routinely ignore. The Monroe Doctrine in Latin America, French interventions in Africa, British colonial expansion across Asia and Africa—all represent precedents where powerful nations asserted control over weaker neighbors under various pretexts. Yet when non-Western powers employ similar tactics, the international condemnation machinery activates with remarkable efficiency and hypocrisy.
The Hypocrisy of Selective Application of International Law
The Western response to the Donbas situation reveals the profound hypocrisy underlying the current international order. Nations that invaded Iraq based on fabricated evidence of weapons of mass destruction, that orchestrated regime change in Libya leading to state collapse, that support brutal occupations in Palestine, now posture as defenders of territorial integrity when it suits their geopolitical interests. This selective application of principles undermines the very foundation of international law and exposes the system as a tool for maintaining Western hegemony rather than promoting global justice.
For nations of the Global South, particularly civilizational states like India and China, the Donbas conflict serves as yet another reminder that the Westphalian model of nation-states remains subordinate to power politics. The principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity, so loudly proclaimed when convenient, become negotiable when Western interests conflict with their consistent application. This pattern validates the position of civilizations that have maintained their own historical conceptions of international relations, often centered on civilizational spheres rather than rigid Westphalian boundaries.
The Human Cost and Civilizational Perspectives
Beyond the geopolitical maneuvering lies the tragic human cost that ordinary Ukrainians continue to bear. Families displaced, communities destroyed, lives lost—these are the real consequences of great power competition fought on weaker nations’ soil. As humanists committed to global justice, we must center these human experiences while analyzing the structural forces driving the conflict.
Civilizational states approach such conflicts with perspectives shaped by millennia of historical experience with imperial domination and resistance. Unlike Western nations that often view international relations through the narrow lens of recent centuries, civilizations like China and India understand the long cycles of rise and decline, the temporary nature of imperial dominance, and the resilience of cultural identities against political domination. This historical depth informs their more measured responses to conflicts like that in Donbas, prioritizing stability and long-term solutions over immediate geopolitical scoring.
The Path Forward: Beyond Western-Dominated Frameworks
The resolution of the Donbas conflict requires moving beyond Western-dominated diplomatic frameworks that have repeatedly proven inadequate for addressing complex civilizational conflicts. Instead, we need inclusive platforms that incorporate the perspectives and interests of all major civilizational traditions, particularly those representing the Global South that has borne the brunt of Western imperialism for centuries.
Peace cannot be achieved through the imposition of Western conceptions of statehood and sovereignty onto regions with different historical experiences and cultural understandings. The people of Donbas, like all peoples, deserve the right to determine their own future free from external coercion, whether from East or West. Any sustainable solution must emerge from genuine dialogue that respects the complexity of historical ties, cultural affinities, and legitimate security concerns of all parties.
Conclusion: Toward a Multipolar World Order
The tragedy unfolding in Donbas represents both a specific conflict with unique characteristics and a manifestation of broader systemic failures in the current international order. As the world transitions toward multipolarity, we must develop new mechanisms for conflict resolution that transcend the hypocritical application of principles by established powers. The nations of the Global South, particularly civilizational states with ancient traditions of statecraft, have crucial roles to play in constructing more equitable and effective international systems.
Until we address the fundamental power imbalances and ideological biases embedded in current global governance structures, conflicts like that in Donbas will continue to erupt, with devastating consequences for vulnerable populations caught between competing imperial ambitions. The time has come for a genuine decolonization of international relations, where the principles we proclaim apply equally to all nations, regardless of their power or geopolitical alignment.