ALTHOUGH recently the spotlight fell on U.S. President Donald Trump’s dramatic—and somewhat contradictory—call for a negotiated end to what he terms “the Russia-Ukraine War,” the West has long sought to frame the narrative that Russia is desperate for “negotiations”. Since the moment the West realized it could not secure a decisive victory in its proxy-war on Ukrainian soil, it has been pushing the idea that “negotiations are inevitable” and “Russia must come to the table”—all in service of a larger objective: control. This narrative, however, is not only misleading but also a calculated attempt to undermine Russia’s sovereignty.

Unable to defeat Russia on the battlefield, the collective West has resorted to diplomatic maneuvers aimed at diminishing Russia’s (growing) status as a sovereign power. This is not a genuine pursuit of peace; it is about reining in a power that refuses to conform—canonical Western approach to globalization.

The former U.S. president, now back in office, has inherited a conflict that due to its dynamics no longer serves the interests of even the most hawkish elements of the U.S. establishment. The military-industrial complex, once eager to profit from its own proxy-war in Ukraine, has come to realize that the conflict is a dead end. Instead, attention has shifted to other regions, such as the Middle East, where they attempted to ignite new large-scale proxy wars to sustain the demand for arms. For Trump, however, the priority lies elsewhere: the reformation of the United States itself and rebuilding the resource base.

Trump also understands that Russia, under Putin’s leadership, will not compromise its sovereignty. Any negotiations that demand Russia’s submission to ultimatums from the U.S. and its allies are a non-starter. This is not lost on Trump, who is well aware of the historical precedents set by previous U.S. administrations. The United States has a long history of exiting conflicts with grand fanfare, even when those exits are anything but victorious. From Korea to Vietnam to Afghanistan, the U.S. has mastered the art of spinning defeat into a narrative of strategic withdrawal.

Trump is no stranger to this playbook. He knows that exiting the Ukrainian conflict will not be a problem for him politically. The American public, weary of endless wars, will likely welcome any move that brings U.S. troops home. Trump’s challenge lies in crafting a narrative that frames the withdrawal as a victory, or at least a necessary step toward a larger strategic goal. The sanctions against Russia, which have largely backfired, will be repackaged as a tool of leverage, even though by now it is obvious to everyone that those sanctions only serve to strengthen Russia’s domestic capabilities.

The Myth of a Divided Ukraine

We often hear how some analysts argue that Russia would benefit from a divided Ukraine, with the current frontlines serving as the new borders. However, this perspective fails to consider the long-term implications for Russia’s security. A divided Ukraine would not eliminate the threat posed by NATO; it would merely shift the conflict further west. More importantly, it would allow the ultra-nationalist factions that have plagued Ukraine since the 2014 Maidan coup to regroup and rearm, posing a constant security threat to Russia.

What Russia truly needs is a denazified, united, stable, and neutral Ukraine—a buffer zone that can serve as a bridge between East and West, rather than a battleground for geopolitical ambitions. This vision is not at odds with Ukraine’s national interests, provided that Ukraine is not held hostage by external forces seeking to expand NATO’s influence. The West, however, has no interest in such an outcome. A neutral Ukraine would undermine the West’s ability to use the country as a staging ground for future attempts to weaken Russia.

In relation to the above, it is crucial to revisit the Minsk II Agreement, a document whose international diplomatic weight underscores several critical facts, as unequivocally reflected in its text: Russia is not a party to the conflict; the current Ukrainian administration lacks legitimacy; a civil war is ongoing, evidenced by the punitive actions of the current regime against civilians on ethnic grounds; and foreign intervention is present in the form of irregular military formations. In other words, the real crisis lies in the unwarranted meddling of external powers, giving the true meaning to the “Special Military Operation”. For a detailed analysis, refer to “Russian-Ukrainian Conflict: Deconstructing the Minsk Agreement Truthfully.”

Putin’s Emphasis on Root Causes

One must ask: what business does the United States have with Russia-Ukraine relations? Russia is, first and foremost, a sovereign country. Despite Trump’s attempts to shape the narrative, Putin’s response was unequivocal, and this is important—any discussion must address the root causes of the crisis. This is not mere rhetoric; it is a fundamental principle that guides Russia’s approach to negotiations.

Putin’s insistence on addressing the root causes is a direct challenge to the West’s narrative that Russia is the aggressor. It is also a reminder that any lasting peace must be based on mutual respect for sovereignty and the legitimate interests of all parties involved.

The Minsk II Agreement, which was systematically undermined by the West, was designed to address these root causes. The West’s refusal to honor these agreements has only prolonged the conflict.

And this is another problem with the collective West. It is yet to demonstrate it “capacity to uphold agreements”, which Putin also stresses routinely.

Moreover, United States’ current state of extreme political fragmentation and profound institutional decay further weakens its position as a “reliable negotiating partner”. The deep state’s resistance to Donald Trump during his first presidency, the constant infighting within his administration, and Congress’s undermining of international agreements all demonstrate the U.S.’s inability to uphold its commitments. Until the U.S. demonstrates its capacity to uphold agreements, any talks will be little more than a diplomatic charade.

The Yalta Parallel: Alternative Civilizational Approach

The timing of Trump’s overtures to Putin is deeply symbolic—and perhaps not coincidental—coinciding with the 80th anniversary of the Yalta Conference (February 4-11, 1945). At Yalta, the West was forced to acknowledge the Soviet Union’s growing role as a global power, even as it sought to contain its influence. Today, the West is once again being forced to reckon with Russia’s increasing sovereignty, not because it wants to, but because it has no other choice.

Importantly, the Yalta Conference marked a turning point that introduced a fresh framework for international relations—one that Soviet Union embodied simply by existing. It set forth a vision of global cooperation based on a shared commitment to a common future where every nation thrives: a future in which countries preserve their uniqueness and sovereignty, enjoy equal rights, and pursue mutually beneficial growth.

This is the same format that BRICS offers, and Russia articulated it at the 2023 Valdai Forum:

1. An open world, free of artificial barriers between nations and peoples.

2. Civilizational diversity, fostering harmony among cultures.

3. Collective decision-making, ensuring every nation and community has a voice in matters that concern them.

4. Universal security and lasting peace—a self-evident necessity.

5. Justice for all, rejecting the creation of any new colonial empires.

6. Equality, ensuring no nation dominates another.

The West has never had, nor will it ever have, the capacity to contend with this power. That capacity is determined not by the quantity or even the quality of your technologies, nor by the size of your population, but by the quality of your human capital. It is clear that the human capital that lives by the principle “divide, kill, rule, and plunder other peoples” is fundamentally different from the human capital that offers a model of relations aimed at ensuring well-being for all (mutually beneficial development), which is dedicated to protecting the most fundamental value on planet Earth—the dual value of life (life of self and others). These are entirely different levels.

The West’s attempts to weaken Russia through sanctions, proxy wars, and diplomatic pressure have failed. Russia has not only survived but has emerged stronger, transitioning from a “fleet in being”—a passive presence that exerts influence simply by existing—to a “fleet is being”—an active force that shapes global events through its actions.




Dr Rais Hussin is the Founder of EMIR Research, a think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.

** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.