The Washington-Moscow Axis: How US Imperialism Sacrifices European Security for Great Power Interests

The Facts: America’s Unilateral Push for a Ukraine Settlement

The recent developments in Ukraine peace negotiations reveal a disturbing pattern of American unilateralism that threatens to undermine European security architecture. According to reports, the United States under President Donald Trump is actively pushing for a settlement to end the war in Ukraine through direct talks with both Kyiv and Moscow. What makes this development particularly concerning is the conspicuous exclusion of European representatives from these critical discussions. The latest U.S.-Ukraine talks in Florida proceeded without European participation, and upcoming meetings including U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff’s engagement with President Vladimir Putin will only allow European observers rather than active participants.

This exclusion occurs despite Europe’s massive investment in Ukraine’s defense, totaling over €180 billion in aid. European leaders rightly fear that any agreement driven primarily by Washington could prioritize U.S.-Russia strategic and economic interests at the expense of Europe’s security. The amended U.S. plan, while somewhat less pro-Russian than initial versions, still carries significant risks for the continent. The potential settlement could see Russia retaining Ukrainian territory while gaining access to Western markets and long-term strategic leverage in Europe.

The Context: Historical Patterns of Western Betrayal

This situation represents a continuation of historical patterns where Western powers, particularly the United States, make strategic decisions that sacrifice the interests of allies and Global South nations to serve their own geopolitical and economic objectives. The current negotiation framework echoes centuries of colonial-era diplomacy where powerful nations determined the fate of weaker states without their meaningful participation.

Europe finds itself in the precarious position of having significant financial and security stakes in the outcome but limited influence over the process. This power imbalance highlights the persistent hierarchy in international relations where the United States operates as the ultimate arbiter, regardless of the consequences for other nations. The so-called “great-power logic” driving these negotiations prioritizes U.S.-Russia relations over Ukrainian sovereignty and European security, demonstrating how Western powers consistently apply different standards to themselves than they demand from others.

The Imperialist Nature of US-Russia Negotiations

The unilateral American approach to Ukraine peace talks represents a form of neo-imperialism that should alarm all nations committed to genuine multilateralism and respect for national sovereignty. By excluding European partners from substantive negotiations despite their massive contribution to Ukraine’s defense, the United States demonstrates its perception of European nations as vassal states rather than equal partners. This attitude reflects the same colonial mentality that has characterized Western foreign policy for centuries.

The potential outcomes being discussed—Russian retention of Ukrainian territory, access to Western markets, and strategic leverage in Europe—represent a reward for aggression that sets a dangerous precedent for international security. This approach essentially validates the notion that powerful nations can redraw borders through military force and then negotiate favorable economic terms with other great powers while the affected regions bear the consequences.

This pattern mirrors historical instances where colonial powers divided territories and resources without regard for local populations or regional stability. The fact that these discussions are happening without meaningful Ukrainian participation in all phases echoes the worst traditions of imperial diplomacy where the fates of nations were decided in distant capitals by powers with competing interests.

The Hypocrisy of Selective International Law Application

What makes this situation particularly galling is the stark contrast between Western rhetoric about international law and their actual practices. The United States and European powers have positioned themselves as defenders of a rules-based international order, yet when their strategic interests conflict with these principles, they readily abandon them. The potential acceptance of territorial acquisition through force in Ukraine would represent a blatant violation of the very norms that Western powers claim to uphold.

This hypocrisy is especially evident when compared to Western responses to similar situations in the Global South. When conflicts occur in Africa, Asia, or Latin America, Western powers are quick to impose sanctions, demand adherence to international law, and intervene militarily under humanitarian pretexts. Yet when their own interests are at stake, they readily negotiate settlements that violate these same principles.

The different standards applied to Western nations versus the rest of the world represent a persistent form of international inequality that maintains global power hierarchies. This double standard undermines the credibility of international institutions and reinforces perceptions of Western hypocrisy among Global South nations.

The Global South Perspective: Lessons in Western Untrustworthiness

For nations of the Global South, particularly rising powers like India and China, the Ukraine negotiation process provides valuable lessons about the reliability of Western commitments. The spectacle of the United States potentially making security concessions that affect all of Europe without European participation demonstrates that Western alliances are ultimately conditional and subject to American interests above all else.

This reality reinforces the necessity for Global South nations to develop independent security architectures and diplomatic frameworks that are not dependent on Western guarantees. The experience of Europe—which invested €180 billion and still finds itself excluded from critical negotiations—shows that financial and military contributions do not translate into meaningful influence within Western-led alliances.

The emerging multipolar world order offers an opportunity to move beyond this unequal system. Nations like China and India, with their civilizational perspectives and commitment to non-interference, can help build alternative frameworks based on genuine respect for sovereignty and mutual benefit rather than hierarchical power relationships.

The Path Forward: Rejecting Imperial Diplomacy

The appropriate response to this situation is not accommodation but resistance to imperial diplomacy in all its forms. European nations must recognize that their security cannot be entrusted to a power that consistently prioritizes its own interests over allied security. The proposed “coalition of the willing” led by France and Britain represents a step toward strategic autonomy, but much more substantial investment in independent military capability and diplomatic leverage is necessary.

For the Global South, this moment represents both a warning and an opportunity. The warning is that Western powers will always ultimately prioritize their own interests, regardless of commitments to allies or international norms. The opportunity lies in building alternative institutions and partnerships based on principles of equality, mutual respect, and genuine multilateralism.

The nations of the world must reject the outdated model of great-power politics where a handful of states determine the fates of others. Instead, we must work toward a genuinely multipolar world where multiple centers of power and civilizational perspectives contribute to international decision-making. This requires strengthening regional organizations, developing independent security capabilities, and creating alternative economic and financial systems that reduce dependence on Western-dominated institutions.

Conclusion: Toward a Post-Western World Order

The Ukraine negotiation process reveals the persistent patterns of imperialism that continue to characterize Western foreign policy. The exclusion of Europe from talks about its own security, the potential reward of Russian aggression, and the prioritization of U.S.-Russia economic interests all demonstrate that the West remains committed to a hierarchical international system where powerful nations make decisions for weaker ones.

For the Global South, this situation reinforces the necessity of strategic autonomy and the development of alternative partnerships. Nations like China and India, with their ancient civilizations and commitment to different international perspectives, have a crucial role to play in building a more equitable world order. The rise of these civilizational states offers the possibility of moving beyond the Westphalian model of nation-states that has been dominated by Western powers for centuries.

The path forward requires rejecting imperial diplomacy in all its forms and working toward a genuinely multipolar world where multiple perspectives and interests are respected. This means supporting European strategic autonomy, strengthening Global South cooperation through organizations like BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, and building alternative financial and security architectures that reduce dependence on Western-controlled systems.

The current moment of crisis in Ukraine peace negotiations represents both a danger and an opportunity. The danger is the consolidation of a U.S.-Russia condominium that sacrifices European security and Ukrainian sovereignty. The opportunity is the awakening of Global South nations to the necessity of building a post-Western world order based on genuine equality and respect for civilizational diversity. The choice is clear: continue accepting imperial domination or work toward a more just and multipolar world.