By Prof. Ruel F. Pepa
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine has become one of the most defining and contentious geopolitical issues of our time.
Official narratives emphasize diplomacy, sovereignty, and the defense of democratic values. However, a deeper analysis suggests that the situation is far more complex, and the conventional approaches may be inadequate or even counterproductive.
At first glance, the war appears to be a straightforward struggle between Ukraine and Russia.
Yet, beneath the surface lies a broader geopolitical contest involving Western powers, notably the European Union (EU), NATO, and the United States particularly under the past Biden administration. The narrative promoted by Western media and policymakers often frames this as a fight for democracy and sovereignty. Still, evidence indicates that the real dynamic is a proxy war driven by strategic interests aimed at containing Russia’s influence and diminishing its regional power.
From this perspective, the current state of the conflict reveals that the Western-backed forces have already suffered significant setbacks. Despite extensive military aid, sanctions, and diplomatic pressure, the EU, NATO, and the US have failed to prevent Russia from consolidating its strategic objectives. The prolonged nature of the conflict, with its mounting economic and human costs, suggests that these powers are now engaged in a futile effort to subjugate Russia or weaken it to a point where it becomes manageable in an exercise that, in reality, has already resulted in their strategic defeat.
Given these realities, some analysts argue that the most pragmatic course of action is for Ukraine and its Western allies to acknowledge the reality of defeat and pursue a formal surrender. Such a move could open the door to stabilization, reconstruction, and the avoidance of further unnecessary bloodshed. The goal should shift from futile attempts at total victory to pragmatic peace-building, recognizing that prolonged warfare only exhausts resources, destabilizes the region, and risks broader escalation.
Diplomatic negotiations often led by the United States have increasingly appeared to be exercises in futility. Many of the demands put forward by Kyiv and its Western sponsors seem designed more to prolong the conflict than to resolve it.
These demands often include territorial concessions, military escalations, and economic sanctions that serve the interests of Western political and economic elites rather than the Ukrainian people or regional stability. Zelensky’s government, in this context, has sometimes been used as a pawn spouting demands that are not genuinely Ukrainian but are dictated by Western puppeteers seeking to sustain a proxy confrontation.
This dynamic raises questions about the true purpose of Western diplomacy. Are these negotiations genuinely aimed at peace, or are they a strategic distraction designed to buy time and stretch Russia’s military and economic endurance? Many argue that the West, especially under Biden, has a different agenda that seeks to weaken Russia’s regional influence, perhaps even to engineer regime change, rather than seek a realistic and sustainable peace.
Adding to this complexity is the divergence in US policies across different administrations. Under Donald Trump, US foreign policy appears more pragmatic and less confrontational, emphasizing strategic stability and avoiding unnecessary escalation. Conversely, the Biden administration adopted a more aggressive stance by arming Ukraine extensively, imposing sweeping sanctions, and actively supporting efforts to weaken Russia. These differing approaches have created a disjointed and inconsistent strategy, undermining diplomatic efforts and complicating any possibility of a peaceful resolution.
In this context, some analysts contend that diplomatic efforts are a distraction i.e., an exercise that delays inevitable military decisions and prolongs suffering. From this viewpoint, Russia should pursue a no-holds-barred military campaign to decisively defeat Ukrainian resistance and eliminate any possibility of future conflict. Such an approach would serve as a stark lesson to Western warmongers and their allies demonstrating that their efforts to contain and weaken Russia have failed.
Critics of Western policies argue that the demonization of Russia and Vladimir Putin has been exaggerated, often driven by propaganda and geopolitical ambitions rather than objective realities. They see the Western powers, NATO, and the EU as the true troublemakers composed of small-time players whose reckless actions threaten regional and global stability. The ongoing conflict, they claim, is rooted in Western arrogance and a desire for dominance rather than genuine concern for Ukrainian sovereignty.
In their view, the ultimate solution to the crisis is for Russia to achieve an unconditional victory by forcing the Western powers to accept their strategic defeat. This would entail Russia securing its objectives in Ukraine and establishing a stable, neutral buffer zone free from NATO influence. Such a resolution, while controversial, could bring peace by ending Western interference and restoring a balance of power that has been absent since the Cold War.
The argument for this approach hinges on the belief that lasting peace can only be achieved when the root causes of conflict are addressed decisively. A victory for Russia, in this sense, would not be a matter of conquest but a recognition of geopolitical realities which is an acknowledgment that the West’s attempts to dominate or destabilize Russia have failed. It would serve as a warning to other potential aggressors and a lesson in the limits of Western power projection.
In conclusion, the current trajectory of the Ukraine conflict demands a radical reassessment. The Western narrative of endless diplomacy and military escalation may serve short-term political interests but risks long-term instability and suffering. The most effective path to peace, albeit a controversial one, is to recognize that the conflict’s resolution lies in Russia’s strategic victory. An unconditional surrender by the EU, NATO, and the US to Russia’s terms could finally end the cycle of confrontation, restore regional stability, and establish a new geopolitical equilibrium based on mutual respect and sovereignty.
While this perspective challenges mainstream narratives, it underscores the importance of honest, pragmatic diplomacy rooted in reality rather than illusion.
Only through such a profound shift can lasting peace be achieved in Europe, ensuring that the terrible toll of this conflict does not continue to escalate indefinitely.
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.
21 August 2025
Source: globalresearch.ca