[This article by Prof. Ruel F. Pepa was first published by Global Research. You may read it here.] Today, May 15, 2025, Istanbul hosts what is being officially termed a “peace negotiation” between Russia and Ukraine. Yet, this designation obscures the true nature of the gathering. Instead of a genuine dialogue aimed at reaching a mutually acceptable peace, the summit should have been as a capitulation meeting—an event where the dominant power behind the conflict, the United States, is compelled to acknowledge its defeat in the ongoing proxy war that has escalated into a broader confrontation with Russia. For years, the US has been the primary architect and supporter of the military and diplomatic efforts to weaken Russia through its proxy in Ukraine. Its goal was to contain and diminish Russia’s influence, expand NATO’s reach, and establish a new geopolitical order favorable to Western interests. However, recent developments suggest that this strategy has failed. Russia’s military resilience, strategic victories on the battlefield, and diplomatic successes have shifted the balance, revealing that the US-led camp is no longer in the position of strength it once believed. Rather than presiding over a negotiation where concessions might be made, what is unfolding is akin to a capitulation—an acknowledgment that the US has overextended itself and must now accept a diminished role in Eurasian affairs. This moment is comparable to the surrender of a defeated power in wartime, where the victorious side imposes terms, and the vanquished must sign an unconditional surrender. If this process culminates as many analysts predict, the United States will be forced to accept its strategic retreat, recognize Russia’s gains, and withdraw from its ambitions of global hegemony in the region. In essence, the Istanbul summit should not be a peace negotiation but as a historic turning point—the formal acknowledgment of defeat for the US in its proxy war against Russia. This shift signals a new geopolitical landscape, where the balance of power is realigned, and the true victors and losers in this complex conflict are defined not solely by battlefield outcomes but by the broader contest for influence and dominance in Eurasia. The Illusion of Ukrainian AutonomyOne of the most significant issues casting doubt over the legitimacy of this so-called negotiation is the questionable autonomy of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. For years, Zelensky has been perceived less as an independent leader representing Ukraine’s national interests and more as a proxy for the European Union and Western powers, particularly the United States. His rise to power was initially celebrated as a sign of Ukraine’s democratic aspirations, but as the conflict has persisted, it has become increasingly evident that his actions, decisions, and public statements are heavily influenced, if not dictated, by foreign policymakers with vested interests in the outcome of the war. Zelensky’s neo-Nazi-inspired government has often appeared to prioritize Western directives over Ukraine’s sovereign needs, from accepting extensive military aid with strings attached to aligning Ukraine’s political and economic policies with Western standards. His reluctance or outright refusal to engage in meaningful negotiations that could lead to genuine concessions has been interpreted by many as a reflection of external pressures rather than Ukraine’s independent strategic choice. This dynamic raises a fundamental question: can this so-called negotiation truly be an agreement between equal parties, with each side negotiating from a position of genuine sovereignty? Or is it merely a scripted exercise, where Ukraine’s leadership follows and obeys the directives of its western manipulators to promote self-serving agendas aimed at giving the EU and NATO more leeway to achieve their unfinished project to dominate the eastern flank of the European continent? The illusion of Ukrainian autonomy complicates the prospects for a meaningful peace process. If Kyiv’s leadership is essentially operating under the guidance of foreign powers, then the so-called negotiations risk being a façade—a process designed to legitimize externally imposed terms rather than a genuine attempt to resolve the conflict through mutual agreement. This undermines the very foundation of diplomacy, which relies on the assumption that all parties enter negotiations freely and with full control over their respective national interests. Without true sovereignty and independence in decision-making, the legitimacy of any agreement reached becomes questionable, and the potential for a durable and equitable peace remains severely compromised. From Negotiation to CapitulationThe language employed in contemporary reports about the Istanbul talks is highly revealing. Terms like “peace negotiation” or “peace talks” masks the underlying reality. Such phrasing tends to frame the event as a mutual effort toward reconciliation, when in truth, what is needed—and what most observers believe should be happening today—is a formal act of capitulation. This act would mirror, in significance, the unconditional surrender of Japan aboard the USS Missouri in 1945, which marked the definitive end of hostilities in the Pacific theater of World War II. In the context of this conflict, the distinction between negotiation and capitulation is of paramount importance. Negotiation implies a process characterized by mutual concessions, dialogue, and the possibility of compromise—an exchange where each side seeks to attain its objectives while making concessions to reach an agreement. It suggests a relationship between equals, with both parties having agency and sovereignty in shaping the outcome. Capitulation, on the other hand, signifies a markedly different reality. It reflects the defeat of one party, which must accept terms dictated by the victor. It is an acknowledgment of irrevocable defeat, often accompanied by the imposition of conditions that favor the stronger side and diminish the losing party’s sovereignty. Historically, capitulations have been associated with the surrender of military forces, the loss of independence, or the ceding of territory—elements that fundamentally alter the defeated nation’s status. Given the current geopolitical landscape, the ultimate signatory of such a surrender document should not be Ukraine itself, but the United States, which has served as the primary architect, supporter, and enforcer of this ongoing conflict. The US’s role has extended beyond mere facilitation; it has actively shaped the conditions, supplied weapons, and influenced diplomatic narratives to serve its strategic interests. As such, the real power to impose terms and dictate the outcome resides predominantly with Washington and its allies, rather than Kyiv or Moscow alone. The US as the Defeated PowerThe ongoing Ukraine conflict can be most accurately understood not merely as a regional dispute but as a de facto confrontation between two global superpowers: Russia and the United States. While Ukraine itself bears the immediate burden of frontlines, casualties, and territorial disputes, the broader strategic contest is rooted in the rivalry for influence, geopolitical dominance, and the reshaping of the international order. Washington’s overarching objective has been to escalate and prolong the conflict in order to weaken Russia’s position, diminish its regional influence, and reinforce Western dominance. This approach aligns with a broader Cold War-era strategy of containment and containment’s modern iterations. However, recent developments and evolving circumstances suggest that the United States has suffered a significant strategic defeat rather than achieved its intended objectives. The signs of this shift are increasingly apparent and include several key indicators:
ThemountingcostsbornebytheUS-led Westernbloc, both economically and politically, reveal the limits of prolonged engagement and the unintended consequences of escalation, including internal political strains and economic disruptions. These developments collectively point toward a conclusion that the US is not the victorious power it sought to be; instead, it is the one facing a strategic retreat. The narrative of a successful containment or weakening of Russia has been challenged by the resilience and adaptability displayed by Moscow, which has managed to maintain its core strategic objectives despite significant external pressure. Given this context, the appropriate historical analogy is not that of a peace negotiation, but rather that of a surrender ceremony—an event where the defeated power formally acknowledges its diminished position. In this scenario, the US should be compelled to accept terms that reflect its reduced influence, possibly through signing an unconditional surrender document. Such a gesture would symbolize a recognition that Washington’s efforts to dominate the geopolitical landscape through this conflict have failed, and that its capacity to impose its will has been substantially eroded. This paradigm shift underscores a new era where the US’s previous supremacy is challenged, and the global balance of power is shifting away from unipolarity towards a more complex multipolar world. Implications of a CapitulationShould the current trajectory continue and the United States be compelled to accept defeat, the consequences would be far-reaching and transformative for the global geopolitical landscape. A formal or de facto capitulation by Washington—whether through a negotiated surrender, acknowledgment of strategic defeat, or an irreversible shift in influence—would signify the end of its hegemonic ambitions in Ukraine and, more broadly, in Eurasia. This recognition would mark a fundamental realignment of power dynamics, signaling a retreat from the unipolar dominance the US had sought to maintain since the end of the Cold War. Such a paradigm shift would have profound implications across multiple levels: 1. Erosion of US Global Hegemony Washington’s influence in shaping international institutions, setting global norms, and projecting military power would be substantially diminished. The US might be forced to recalibrate its foreign policy, reduce military commitments, and accept a diminished role in Eurasian affairs. This could embolden other regional powers and challenge the longstanding American dominance in global security, economic, and diplomatic arenas. 2. Emergence of a Multipolar World Recognizing Russia’s sphere of influence in Eurasia would likely accelerate the transition toward a multipolar international order, where multiple great powers—such as Russia, China, and emerging regional actors—share influence and compete for dominance. This new balance of power could lead to a more complex and less predictable global environment, with multiple centers of influence exerting independent policies and forming shifting alliances. 3. Reconfiguration of Alliances and Regional Politics A US capitulation would prompt realignments among countries in Europe, Asia, and beyond. Some nations that relied heavily on American security guarantees might seek new alliances or deepen ties with Russia or China. Conversely, some countries could feel compelled to bolster their own military capabilities or seek neutrality in the face of a weakened US global posture. The European Union, for example, might pursue greater strategic autonomy, reducing its dependence on US military support. 4. Impact on International Norms and Rules The decline of US hegemonic influence could challenge the existing international order based on Western-led institutions and norms. This might lead to a fragmentation of global governance, with different power centers advocating for alternative rules and standards. It could also diminish the enforcement of international law in certain regions, leading to increased geopolitical instability. 5. Domestic Political and Economic Consequences in the US A capitulation would resonate within American domestic politics, potentially undermining confidence in US leadership and prompting debates over foreign policy strategy. Economically, the costs of prolonged conflict and the perception of strategic failure could influence future budget priorities, military spending, and diplomatic engagement. 6. Long-Term Strategic Repercussions In the longer term, a US acknowledgment of defeat in Ukraine could embolden adversaries and challenge existing security architectures. It might also inspire other regions to pursue their own strategic ambitions, leading to increased competition, regional conflicts, or new spheres of influence emerging outside Western control. In essence, a capitulation by the United States would mark a decisive turning point—ending an era of American dominance in Eurasia and heralding the rise of a more multipolar, competitive international system. The implications would ripple across global politics, economy, security, and diplomatic relations, fundamentally reshaping the world order for decades to come. ConclusionToday’s Istanbul summit should have been viewed less as a conventional gathering aimed at fostering peace and stability, but more as a symbolic moment of capitulation. The true purpose of such a summit, in this context, should be to serve as a formal acknowledgment of the United States’ strategic defeat in the ongoing confrontation over Ukraine and Eurasian influence. This would entail the US publicly recognizing its diminished position and accepting terms that reflect its reduced influence—effectively signing an unconditional surrender akin to the historic WWII documents that marked the end of hostilities and the recognition of defeat by the Axis powers. In this scenario, Ukraine’s role is reduced to that of a battleground—a pawn manipulated and sacrificed in the larger geopolitical chess game. Its sovereignty has been compromised, with its government functioning increasingly as a puppet of Western powers, primarily the United States and its allied nations. The Ukrainian leadership, under Western influence, has become entangled in a conflict that is not solely about national security or independence but about serving the strategic interests of larger powers seeking regional dominance. The Ukrainian people, therefore, are caught in a proxy war, their sovereignty overshadowed by the geopolitical ambitions of external actors. The broader reality that must be acknowledged is that the outcome of this conflict extends far beyond Ukraine itself. The true victors and losers are not merely Ukraine or Russia, but the overarching geopolitical forces that have underpinning this struggle—namely, the United States and Russia. These two powers embody the fundamental contest over influence, ideology, and control of the global order. While Ukraine is the immediate battleground, the larger stakes involve the future shape of international power dynamics, with the US’s waning hegemony giving way to a more multipolar world where Russia asserts its influence in Eurasia. Recognizing this, the summit should emphasize that the conflict’s resolution is not simply about ending hostilities in Ukraine but about acknowledging the shifting balance of power. The US’s strategic retreat, if formalized, would serve as a clear signal to the world that the era of American unchallenged dominance is concluding. Conversely, Russia’s resilience and strategic gains demonstrate that it has emerged as a significant, if not the primary, geopolitical force in the region. Ultimately, this summit should be seen as the culmination of a process where the global community recognizes that the real geopolitical contest is between two great powers—each representing different visions for the future order. The focus must shift from short-term peace negotiations to understanding the deeper implications of this shift, which demands acceptance of the new reality: that the US’s influence has been curtailed, and a new multipolar balance is emerging. In this context, the summit’s outcome should symbolize the end of an era and the beginning of a new geopolitical chapter—one where the true victors are those who shape the emerging world order, and the losers are those clinging to outdated notions of dominance. *** Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a regular contributor to Global Research. |
No comments:
Post a Comment