U.S. new foreign policy on Ukraine splits NATO allies

The hypothesis that sovereign autonomy underpins domestic and foreign policy in progressive democratic nations is accurate, subject to three pertinent interwoven riders. First, democratic credence and constitutional legitimacy anchor sovereign autonomy.

Second, is the capacity to enforce sovereign autonomy through superior overwhelming military force, which is often the “preserve” of nuclear superpowers and the permanent five (p5) veto wielding members of the United Nations Security Council viz; China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and United States.

Third, is the financial capability to enforce sovereign autonomy, whether acting independently or in concert with strategic allies through the levers of economic and trade sanctions, to coerce a policy shift by an offending country. The United States is the world’s pre-eminent superpower and its foreign policy, underpinned by its own strategic interests, characterised by the new Administration as “America First”; fundamentally redefines global affairs with striking ramifications.

Today marks three years and two days since the unprovoked Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. The discourse is therefore poignant, given its wider implications on the U.S./Russia nexus; U.S./Ukraine relations; European security independence; the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO); moral signalling; and world peace.

Russia premised its invasion on Ukraine’s decision to join NATO, the western military alliance comprising 32 countries including the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and Canada. Asserting its justification for the invasion, Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, contended that his country’s goal was to “demilitarise and denazify” Ukraine. To date, the war has claimed hundreds of thousands of military casualties, internally displaced over seven million Ukrainians, and triggered the exodus of approximately eight million people, causing Europe’s largest refugee crisis post-World War II.

The UN asserts that the conflict has killed approximately 12,654 Ukrainian civilians and 673 children. For exactness, Russia had previously infringed Ukraine’s sovereign autonomy by unlawfully annexing the Crimean Peninsula and seizing Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast in 2014.

According to Foreign Policy, Russia occupies 20 per cent of Ukraine. On its part, Ukraine has exercised its sovereign autonomy by defending its territory, with pivotal American military aid and technical assistanceworth approximately $93 billion. The previous U.S. Biden administration’s foreign policy was unwavering in supporting Ukraine to fight, and defeat, Russia. Likewise, NATO allies have contributed approximately $150 billion towards Ukraine against Russia.

The quandary, however, was the “absence” of a clear, compelling, and just strategy to end the war–which has claimed hundreds of thousands of lives; destroyed swathes of Ukraine; risked expanding the conflict to other parts of Europewith a heightened intensity, given the introduction of North Korean troops by Russia into the conflict. Ukraine’s strategy of robustly prosecuting the war sharply splits opinions.

Some scholars vehemently support Ukraine’s NATO membership; and establish the case that for every day Ukraine prosecutes its defence, the Russian military and financial architecture gets weaker. The necessary implication being the heightened prospect of a Ukrainian victory;respect for international boundaries and the inviolability of international law; and a rules-based global orthodoxy.

They include Victoria Somoff (Dartmouth College); Sarah D. Phillips (Indiana University); Oxana Shevel (Tufts University); and contend that: “Russia’s actions demonstrate a clear intent to destroy Ukraine as a nation, rather than alleviate its own security concerns.” Nevertheless, no war goes on forever and the strategic calculus is for a pragmatic settlement, which reasonably, albeit imperfectly, accommodates the strategic interests of Russia and Ukraine.

It is scarcely surprising therefore that Stanford University’s independent Hoover Institution opines that “settlement of the war in Ukraine will be an important piece, and perhaps the first piece, of a new security architecture for Europe. Appropriate roles must be found for the OSCE, EU, NATO, the UN, and other organisations, and Russia must accept a responsible role in this effort.”

So, yes, the extant U.S. Ukraine foreign policy, consistent with President Trump’s pre-election campaign theme, focuses on ending the conflict! On what terms? Will it entail Russia’s reversal to its pre-2014 international borders and returning all Ukraine’s lost territory? Upon what security guarantees? Will it entail direct talks between Russia and Ukraine? Is Ukraine’s NATO membership a precondition to an enduring settlement between both belligerent states? Is the United States still a trusted ally as a European security backstop against Russian aggression?

Answers to these posers turn on the strategic calculus of national interests, deliberate policy choices, and realpolitik. Whilst Ukraine’s sovereign autonomy and territorial integrity are incontestable, and political appeasement is an unreasonable proposition, nevertheless, Russia is a p5 nuclear superpower and its interests should be concurrently factored into any durable peace settlement.

Not least because Russia has threatened to unleash nuclear weapons against Ukraine and those nations that it considers as serious risks to its corporate existence. And whether that’s a serious threat or mere political brinkmanship, coherent strategicforesight demands that sound mitigatory mechanisms exist to contain that risk, however miniscule. The inference being that tough choices would have to be made by both countries and serious confidence-building measures would need to be undertaken by prospective mediators.

United States holds important aces on four counts. First, global pre-eminence. Second, Ukraine is a huge beneficiary of United States’ military assistance exceeding $90 billion. Third, there is no U.S. Treasury blank cheque for the billions of military aid to Ukraine. U.S.’s a creditor and Ukraine’s a debtor.

Well, Ukraine cannot repaywhilst fighting! Thus, the U.S.has advanced serious negotiations with Ukraine for a deal granting America approximately 50 per cent of Ukraine’s revenues from critical minerals, oil, gas and stakes in pivotal infrastructure like ports through JVs.

The quid pro quo will be U.S. guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty- or what remains thereof.Fourth, is the patent U.S./Russia diplomatic rapprochement given the Marco Rubio’s (U.S. Secretary of State) meeting with Sergei Lavrov (Russia’s Foreign Minister) in Saudi Arabia on February 18, 2025.

Whilst the latter has generated huge controversy amongst U.S. European/NATO allies over Ukraine’s non-involvement, the meeting has, nonetheless, provided an initial basis for the emergence of a future peace settlement. It’s clearly early days, and the process is fraught with huge complexities. Still, it’s a significant first step!

The prognosis of Russia returning annexed territory to Ukraine appears pretty slim. Because Russian antecedents in various conflicts in recent history do not justify any such optimism. Eleven years after Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, Russia has made no attempt to return the territory to Ukraine. Quite the opposite, in fact. Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, opined at the time that Russians and Ukrainians: are not simply close neighbours but one people. Kiev is the mother of Russian cities. “Ancient Rus is our common source and we cannot live without each other.”

Furthermore, Russia mobilised its military forces to support the creation of the rebel states of Transnistria in Moldova in the aftermath of the Transnistria War, ditto Abkhazia and South Ossetia, following the Georgian War in 2008–the three states have advanced proposals to join Russia.

Russia explicitly laid the foreign policy rationale out to contest the United States “single-pole” global pre-eminence, whilst asserting a geostrategic sphere of influence around the Russian Federation. The inference is that Ukraine is caught in the Russian expansionist stratagem and its NATO/European allies, despite all the rhetoric and material support, important though it is, have so far failed to put their own troops on the ground to fight for Ukraine. The implication, therefore is that Ukraine must carry its own cross–another argument for innovative U.S.foreign policy engagement.

Indeed, Ukraine’s sovereign autonomy is an unimpeachable argument for its inclusion in future peace negotiations with Russia, the United States and NATO/European allies. However, the U.S. foreign policy has altered the fundamentals quite significantly. From the status of an international pariah, Russia has been welcomed into direct talks with the United States, to the bitter consternation of European leaders who now view the States as a duplicitous ally.

The new German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, who has articulated U.S. indifference to the European continent’s fate has demanded that it should develop its own defence strategy, vowing: “my absolute priority will be to strengthen Europe as quickly as possible so that, step by step, we can really achieve independence from the USA.”

Russian/ Ukrainian peace talks although fraught with complexities have nevertheless begun under the prospectus of American First foreign policy. The current United States administration clearly values a robust relationship with Russia in furtherance of mutually beneficial strategic interests. Evidence for this is the decision of both countries to normalise diplomatic relations and establish top level negotiating teams towards war cessation.

Further material evidence of the dénouement in Russo/U.S. relations is the fact the United States allied with Russia in crucial UN General Assembly votes in February 2025. The U.S. voted, alongside Russia, Belarus, and North Korea, against a European-drafted resolution condemning Moscow’s belligerent actions and supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Subsequently, the U.S.advanced and supported a UN Security Council resolutionS/RES/2774 (2025) calling for the cessation of the conflict without criticising Russia. Strikingly, the resolution passed after heroic attempts by UK and France, two key US NATO/European allies, to amend it failed, pursuant to the veto power exercised by the United States.

Summarising, Russia is back from the cold! Could a robust U.S./Russia strategic alliance undermine determined Chinese efforts to rival the United States economic and military pre-eminence? Only time will tell.

The new U.S.Administration’s foreign policy, perceived as excluding Ukraine, has alienated NATO/European allies, spurring calls for a separate European security system, potentially, albeit paradoxically, strengthening NATO.

For Nigeria, Africa and developing nations, the message is clear; elect strong leaders, build sustainable institutions, prioritise defence and economic development, and fix your countries!

The analysis further highlights the escalating dominance of military might, transactionalism, and the mercurial force of personality politics in global affairs, jeopardising international law. Accordingly, the survival of weak nations hangs in the balance in geopolitical and geostrategic skirmishes with superpowers! Realpolitik wins!
Ojumu is the Principal Partner at Balliol Myers LP, a firm of legal practitioners and strategy consultants in Lagos, Nigeria and the author of The Dynamic Intersections of Economics, Foreign Relations, Jurisprudence and National Development.