The Ukraine War and U.S. Foreign Policy: A Path to Negotiated Peace?

The Ukraine War. The Need for a New Approach to Global Conflicts

The ongoing war in Ukraine has become a defining geopolitical crisis of the 21st century. What began as a regional conflict has evolved into a global flashpoint, drawing in NATO, the European Union, and even distant powers like China and India. Yet, despite massive military aid and sanctions, the West’s goal of a Ukrainian victory over Russia remains elusive. As the war grinds on, many analysts and diplomats are questioning whether the current path leads to peace—or deeper entanglement in a costly and unwinnable stalemate.

In a recent conversation between political scientist Nicolai Petro and Pascal of Neutrality Studies, these concerns were brought into sharp focus. Petro argues that the West must move beyond the myth of military victory and embrace diplomacy as the only viable route to peace. His insights offer a compelling case for rethinking U.S. foreign policy, especially in light of shifting global alliances and the rise of multipolarity.

The Illusion of Victory: Why Military Solutions Fall Short

Petro begins by addressing the central fallacy driving Western policy: the belief that Ukraine can achieve a decisive military victory over Russia. This assumption, he argues, is increasingly detached from reality. Despite billions in Western aid, Ukraine faces mounting challenges—manpower shortages, dwindling ammunition supplies, and the slow pace of Western military deliveries.

Russia, on the other hand, continues to gain ground, leveraging its larger population base, industrial capacity, and strategic patience. Petro suggests that unless there is a dramatic shift in battlefield conditions—an unlikely scenario—the war will likely end not with a Ukrainian triumph, but with a negotiated settlement.

He also highlights the psychological dimension of the conflict. Ukrainian leaders, particularly President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, have tied their legitimacy to the idea of full territorial restoration. However, Petro warns that clinging to this ideal could lead to greater losses and even threaten the survival of the Ukrainian state itself.

The Limits of U.S. Power and the Rise of Multipolarity

A key theme in the discussion is the changing role of the United States in global affairs. While Washington still holds considerable power, its ability to dictate outcomes unilaterally is diminishing. Petro critiques the so-called “Trump Doctrine” articulated by Vice President JD Vance, which emphasizes aggressive diplomacy and military force. He calls this approach not only outdated but dangerously counterproductive.

Instead of seeking dominance, Petro advocates for a more balanced and inclusive world order—one rooted in mutual respect and cooperation among diverse civilizations. This vision aligns with the growing influence of multipolar institutions like BRICS, which now includes nine full members and several observer states.

Petro notes that BRICS represents a significant shift in global governance. Rather than imposing Western norms, the bloc seeks to promote development, economic cooperation, and cultural diversity. This model resonates with many nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, who feel excluded from traditional Western-led institutions.

The Case for Peace Negotiations

One of the most provocative arguments made by Petro is that peace negotiations must begin soon—not because Ukraine is winning, but precisely because it may not be. He points out that prolonging the war without a clear path to resolution only deepens suffering and increases the risk of broader conflict.

Petro also criticizes the belief held by some Ukrainian elites that escalating the war will compel the U.S. to intervene directly against Russia. He dismisses this as wishful thinking, noting that American public opinion is already showing signs of fatigue. With Donald Trump’s potential return to the White House and growing skepticism in Europe, continued support for Ukraine is far from guaranteed.

Instead, Petro urges a shift toward realism. He argues that the West should encourage Kyiv to adopt a more flexible negotiating position, one that prioritizes long-term stability over maximalist demands. This would require difficult compromises, including potentially recognizing certain Russian security concerns and territorial realities.

The Role of BRICS and Emerging Powers

Petro also explores how emerging powers like Brazil, India, and South Africa are positioning themselves in the conflict. These countries have largely avoided taking sides, emphasizing the importance of dialogue and non-alignment. Their stance reflects a broader trend in the Global South, where many nations view the Ukraine war through the lens of sovereignty, self-determination, and economic development rather than ideological confrontation.

Brazil, as host of the 2025 BRICS Summit, is playing a pivotal role in shaping this narrative. Petro sees the summit as an opportunity for BRICS to present a unified front on global governance, climate action, and conflict resolution. By promoting multilateralism based on equality rather than hierarchy, BRICS could help redefine how international disputes are managed.

This approach stands in stark contrast to the confrontational tone of U.S. foreign policy under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Petro warns that if the U.S. continues to act unilaterally and ignore the interests of other nations, it risks isolating itself further on the global stage.

Cultural Erosion and the Crisis of Western Rationality

Another striking aspect of the conversation is Petro’s analysis of the cultural and intellectual roots of Western foreign policy. He draws on the work of French demographer and historian Emmanuel Todd, who argues that the West is experiencing a form of moral and cultural nihilism—a loss of shared values and meaning that undermines rational decision-making.

This erosion of cultural cohesion, according to Petro, explains why Western leaders often fail to understand the motivations of their adversaries. Instead of engaging with alternative worldviews, they resort to demonization and simplistic narratives. This not only hampers diplomacy but also fuels domestic polarization.

Petro warns that until the West regains a sense of humility and openness to dialogue, it will continue to struggle in managing complex global conflicts. He calls for a renewed emphasis on intercultural understanding, historical awareness, and ethical responsibility in foreign policy.

The Future of International Order: Toward a More Balanced World

In the final part of the conversation, Petro outlines his vision for a more just and stable international order. He acknowledges that no system is perfect, but insists that the current U.S.-led liberal international order is unsustainable. It is too rigid, too exclusionary, and too focused on maintaining Western hegemony at the expense of genuine cooperation.

Instead, he proposes a multipolar framework that allows for coexistence among different civilizations and political systems. This does not mean abandoning principles like democracy or human rights, but rather recognizing that these values must be interpreted and applied within local cultural contexts.

Petro sees the United Nations as a potential foundation for this new order, though he admits that significant reforms are needed. He also expresses cautious optimism about initiatives like BRICS and the Non-Aligned Movement, which could serve as alternative platforms for global cooperation.

Ultimately, Petro believes that the future of international relations depends on our willingness to engage in honest, respectful dialogue—even with those we profoundly disagree with. Only through such engagement, he argues, can we hope to build a world that is not only peaceful but truly just.

A Call for Pragmatism, Dialogue, and Hope

As the Ukraine war drags on and global tensions escalate, the need for a new approach to diplomacy has never been more urgent. Nicolai Petro’s insights challenge us to think beyond simplistic binaries of good versus evil and instead embrace the complexity of international relations.

His message is clear: military solutions alone cannot resolve today’s crises. True peace requires compromise, empathy, and a recognition of shared humanity. And while the road ahead may be difficult, Petro offers a hopeful vision—one in which dialogue, not domination, becomes the cornerstone of global governance.

For policymakers, scholars, and concerned citizens alike, this conversation serves as a timely reminder that the future of international peace and security lies not in confrontation, but in cooperation.

Share your thoughts in the comments, and explore more insights on our Journal and Magazine. Please consider becoming a subscriber, thank you: https://dunapress.org/subscriptions/.
Follow: https://youtube.com/@paulofernandodebarros-oficial