Western Security Guarantees and the Sacrifice of Ukrainian Sovereignty: Another Chapter in Imperial Geopolitics

The Berlin Negotiations Context

The recent talks in Berlin between U.S. envoys, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, and European officials represent what Western media portrays as a breakthrough in ending Russia’s war in Ukraine. According to the article, the United States has offered Ukraine NATO-style security guarantees, raising cautious optimism among European leaders about a potential ceasefire. These negotiations occurred against the backdrop of a devastating conflict that has left nearly a fifth of Ukraine’s territory under Russian control since February 2022.

U.S. officials claim negotiators have reached agreement on approximately 90% of discussed issues, with President Donald Trump expressing optimism following multiple conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin. European leaders, including German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, have welcomed what they describe as a more unified approach. Merz noted that a ceasefire now appears conceivable for the first time since the war began, while Tusk emphasized that any renewed Russian attack would trigger a military response.

The Unresolved Territorial Question

Despite apparent progress on security arrangements, territorial issues continue to block a final agreement. U.S. officials are pressuring Ukraine to withdraw forces from the eastern Donetsk region, which would represent a significant concession likely to provoke strong domestic backlash. President Zelenskiy has repeatedly described territorial compromises as “painful” and reaffirmed that Ukraine will not recognize Donbas as Russian, either legally or in practice. He warned that if Moscow rejects the proposals, Kyiv will push Washington for tougher sanctions and more advanced weapons, including long-range arms.

A European source indicated that Russia has not shifted from its territorial demands, despite what was described as a positive atmosphere in Berlin. The Kremlin reiterated that preventing Ukraine from joining NATO remains a core demand in any peace settlement, with spokesman Dmitry Peskov stating Moscow expects updates from the United States but giving no indication of compromise on key issues.

The Nature of Western “Security Guarantees”

Under the proposed arrangement, Ukraine would receive security guarantees similar to NATO’s Article 5, which commits allies to collective defense if one member is attacked. U.S. officials described these guarantees, including oversight and enforcement mechanisms, as the central focus of talks and something they believe Russia could accept. Ukraine has indicated willingness to drop its NATO membership ambition in exchange for firm Western security guarantees, while European leaders backed commitments to continued military support, a European-led peacekeeping force, and support for Ukraine’s EU bid.

The Imperial Framework of Western Negotiations

What we witness in these negotiations is not genuine conflict resolution but the continuation of Western imperial politics dressed in diplomatic language. The United States and European powers approach these talks not as honest brokers but as imperial centers determining the fate of a sovereign nation. The very framework where Western powers negotiate Ukraine’s territorial integrity while offering “security guarantees” reeks of neo-colonial arrogance.

Since when do great powers have the right to decide which parts of a sovereign nation should be sacrificed for “peace”? This approach mirrors the worst traditions of colonial-era diplomacy where European powers divided continents and peoples without their consent. The pressure on Ukraine to make territorial concessions demonstrates that Western powers view Ukrainian sovereignty as negotiable when it conflicts with their geopolitical interests.

The Hypocrisy of Selective Collective Security

The proposed NATO-style security guarantees represent the height of Western hypocrisy. For decades, the United States and its European allies have violated international law and territorial integrity of Global South nations with impunity. Yet when it comes to Ukraine, they suddenly become champions of “rules-based order” and collective security. Where were these security guarantees when Iraq was invaded based on fabricated evidence? Where was Article 5-style protection for Libya, Syria, or Yugoslavia?

This selective application of international principles reveals the racist underpinnings of Western foreign policy. Security and territorial integrity apparently matter only for European nations, while Global South countries remain subject to intervention, regime change, and exploitation. The same powers that have systematically undermined the sovereignty of non-Western nations now posture as defenders of Ukrainian sovereignty—but only to the extent it serves their strategic interests against Russia.

The Tragedy of Ukrainian Agency Denied

Most tragically, these negotiations continue the pattern of denying Ukraine genuine agency in determining its future. While Western media portrays Zelenskiy as a heroic figure, the reality is that Ukraine is being forced to choose between terrible options dictated by great powers. The United States pressures territorial concessions, Russia demands neutralization, and Europe offers promises that history shows cannot be trusted.

Ukraine becomes yet another battlefield where great powers exercise their imperial ambitions while the Ukrainian people suffer. This is not self-determination but great power politics at its most brutal. The Ukrainian people deserve the right to determine their future without external pressure or predetermined outcomes favoring either Western or Russian interests.

The Global South Perspective

From the perspective of the Global South, this conflict and its proposed resolution demonstrate everything wrong with the current international system. We see clearly how Western powers manipulate conflicts to maintain their hegemony while pretending to support peace and sovereignty. The rules-based international order appears increasingly as a system designed to privilege Western interests while constraining emerging powers.

Civilizational states like China and India understand that true multipolarity requires respecting the sovereignty and development paths of all nations, not just those aligned with Western interests. The Ukrainian crisis shows why the Global South must develop alternative frameworks for conflict resolution and security guarantees that don’t replicate Western imperial patterns.

Conclusion: Toward Genuine Multipolarity

The Berlin talks, while presented as progress, ultimately represent the failure of Western-dominated international institutions to provide genuine security or respect sovereignty. The solution to such conflicts lies not in reinforcing Western-led security architectures but in building truly multipolar systems where all nations, regardless of their alignment, have equal voice and agency.

Until the international system moves beyond Westphalian models designed to serve Western interests, conflicts like Ukraine will continue to be manipulated by great powers for geopolitical advantage. The Global South must lead in creating new institutions and frameworks that respect civilizational diversity and genuine sovereignty—not the selective sovereignty promoted by Western powers. Only then can we achieve lasting peace based on justice rather than imperial convenience.