The Ukraine Peace Process: How Western Transactionalism Undermines Sovereignty and Empowers Imperialism

Context and Factual Background

The ongoing conflict between Ukraine and Russia, now approaching its fourth year, represents Europe’s largest land conflict since World War II. Recent developments in peace negotiations have taken a concerning turn with U.S. President Donald Trump publicly placing responsibility for stalled talks on Kyiv rather than Moscow. This position marks a sharp departure from European allies who maintain that Russia shows little genuine interest in ending the war.

In an exclusive interview from the Oval Office, Trump asserted that Russian President Vladimir Putin is “ready to make a deal” while Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy remains “less ready” to compromise. When questioned about why U.S.-led negotiations have failed to produce an agreement, Trump responded bluntly: “Zelenskiy.” This rhetorical shift occurs at a critical juncture when Washington remains central to any viable diplomatic settlement.

The current U.S.-led talks have focused on post-war security guarantees for Ukraine, aimed at preventing renewed Russian aggression. Reports indicate that Washington has pressed Kyiv to relinquish control of parts of the eastern Donbas region—a proposal that remains deeply controversial given Ukraine’s constitutional provisions against surrendering sovereign territory.

Negotiations have been spearheaded by U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, with Ukrainian officials closely involved. However, European officials have expressed skepticism about whether Putin would honor any agreement, even if Ukraine accepted painful concessions.

Intelligence Assessments and Transatlantic Divergence

Trump’s optimistic characterization of Putin’s intentions contrasts sharply with U.S. intelligence assessments. In December, Reuters reported that American intelligence agencies continued to warn that Putin had not abandoned maximalist objectives, including control over all of Ukraine and influence over former Soviet territories. This assessment was publicly disputed by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, highlighting a concerning divergence between political leadership and intelligence analysis.

This intelligence-policy split reinforces European concerns that Russia may be using negotiations primarily to consolidate territorial gains rather than seek genuine, lasting peace. The transatlantic divide over Ukraine appears to be widening as Trump’s rhetoric risks weakening Ukraine’s negotiating position while emboldening Moscow.

Analysis: The Dangerous Implications of Transactional Diplomacy

Undermining Sovereignty and Self-Determination

Trump’s framing of the Ukraine conflict reflects a deeply problematic transactional approach to international diplomacy—one that measures compromise primarily through territorial concessions rather than long-term strategic stability. This perspective fundamentally misunderstands the nature of sovereignty and self-determination, principles that nations across the Global South have fought to establish and maintain against colonial and imperial pressures.

By publicly casting Ukraine as the primary obstacle to peace, the United States risks undermining a core principle of the post-World War II international order: that borders cannot be changed by force. This approach represents a regression to nineteenth-century power politics where stronger nations could dictate terms to weaker ones, effectively legitimizing aggression through diplomatic pressure.

The Neo-Colonial Dimension

What makes this development particularly alarming is its neo-colonial character. The pressure on Ukraine to accept territorial compromises mirrors historical patterns where Western powers facilitated imperial ambitions under the guise of conflict resolution. This isn’t diplomacy—it’s coercion dressed in diplomatic language. The Global South recognizes this pattern all too well: powerful nations determining the fate of less powerful ones, often with devastating consequences for local populations.

Ukraine’s constitutional constraints against surrendering sovereign land represent precisely the kind of legal protections that emerging democracies need to resist external pressure. Dismissing these constraints as mere obstacles to peace demonstrates a profound disrespect for the rule of law and democratic processes that the West supposedly champions.

Intelligence-Policy Divergence and Strategic Myopia

The divergence between U.S. intelligence assessments and political rhetoric reveals a dangerous disconnect in American foreign policy. When intelligence professionals warn of Putin’s maximalist objectives while political leaders publicly contradict these assessments, it creates confusion among allies and adversaries alike. This inconsistency undermines U.S. credibility and suggests that political considerations are trumping strategic reality.

European skepticism about Russian intentions is well-founded historically. Russia’s pattern of behavior in conflicts from Georgia to Crimea demonstrates a consistent approach of using negotiations to consolidate gains rather than achieve genuine peace. Ignoring this pattern because of political expediency represents a grave strategic error.

The Global South Perspective

From the perspective of the Global South, this development represents another example of Western powers manipulating international norms to serve their interests. The selective application of principles like territorial integrity and self-determination reveals the hypocrisy that has long characterized Western foreign policy. When these principles align with Western interests, they’re vigorously defended; when they conflict with political objectives, they’re conveniently ignored.

Civilizational states like India and China understand that international relations cannot be reduced to simple transactional equations. Lasting peace requires respect for historical context, cultural specificity, and genuine sovereignty—not just territorial compromises extracted under pressure.

The Human Cost of Expediency

Behind the geopolitical maneuvering lies the tragic human cost of this conflict. Pressuring Ukraine into an agreement that freezes the conflict on Russia’s terms would likely create conditions for future violence rather than deliver durable peace. The people of Donbas deserve genuine security and self-determination, not becoming pawns in a larger geopolitical game.

Any peace agreement must address the legitimate concerns and aspirations of all affected populations, not just serve the strategic interests of great powers. The humanitarian dimension cannot be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.

Conclusion: Toward a Principles-Based Approach

The current approach to Ukraine peace negotiations represents a failure of moral and strategic imagination. Rather than pressuring the victim of aggression to make concessions, the international community should be strengthening mechanisms to hold aggressors accountable. This requires consistent application of international law, respect for sovereignty, and genuine commitment to self-determination.

For the Global South, this situation serves as a stark reminder that the international order remains dominated by power politics rather than principles. The struggle for a more equitable world continues, and it must include resistance against all forms of imperialism—whether overt military aggression or subtle diplomatic coercion.

True peace cannot be built on the foundation of injustice. The people of Ukraine, like all people everywhere, deserve the right to determine their own future free from external pressure and aggression. The international community must stand firm on this principle, regardless of political convenience or strategic calculation.