Source: FMT
In the week of 14 March 2022, a few weeks after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Time Magazine published an issue entitled The Return of History. This was a clear reference to Francis Fukuyama’s famous work The End of History and the Last Man, in which he argued that liberal democracy would become the universal form of government after the fall of the Soviet Union and the ideological evolution of humanity had come to an end.
As it turned out, however, history never disappeared, only dormant. Russia now positions itself as the guardian of its own historical narrative. Putin’s invasion was dressed up with rhetoric about ‘decolonisation’ and ‘denazification’, portraying Ukraine as an artificial state led by a neo-Nazi regime. This narrative resonated with some in the West, who saw Ukraine as a plaything in a larger geopolitical struggle between the US and Russia.
Despite the West’s pledge to defend Ukraine’s sovereignty, recent developments point to an uncomfortable truth: our support seemed less focused on an actual Ukrainian victory than on keeping the conflict alive. The country has been fighting in survival mode for years, whereas real support should be focused on a victory that actually secures sovereignty. This lack of clear strategy has led to growing scepticism, both inside and outside Ukraine.
The threat of geopolitical sacrifice
A nightmare scenario now seems to be coming true: President Trump has hinted that he is ready to end the war by giving up Ukrainian territory, with no security guarantees. This would confirm exactly what critics thus already feared: Ukraine was never more than a geopolitical pawn, and the West is proving hypocritical. This has implications not only for Ukraine, but also for the credibility and security of the Western alliance as a whole.
Putin has maintained that there are only two types of states: sovereigns and vanquished. For him, Ukraine falls into the latter category. But how does the West see Ukraine? As an independent nation, or merely as a strategic tool against Russia? Slavoj Žižek aptly summed it up: our response must be to see Ukraine as nobody’s colony – not Russia’s, but not the West’s either.
Political crisis in Washington
The tension between Ukraine and the United States was recently made painfully clear during Zelensky’s visit to Washington on 28 February 2025. What began as a fragile relationship between the two countries ended in a total rift. Trump and his vice-president J.D. Vance accused the Ukrainian leader of ingratitude and risking a Third World War. Ceasefire negotiations seemed closer, but a just peace seemed further away than ever.
A telling moment during this meeting was the exchange between Trump and Zelensky:
President Trump: ‘You are in a very bad position right now. You have allowed yourself to be put in a bad position. You have no cards to play. With us, you will get cards back in your hands.’
President Zelensky: ‘I don’t play cards. I am the president of a country at war.’
Here stood the only man in the room who understood what this was really about. For Trump, it seemed like just a strategic game, while for Zelensky, the battle was literally about his country’s survival.
An uncertain future, a European responsibility
The way forward for Ukraine is unclear and dangerous. Internal and external actors will increase pressure on Zelensky to resign or hold elections. But how can this take place during a war without plunging the state into chaos?
What is clear, however, is that European leaders increasingly realise that they can no longer rely on the US as guardian of the international legal system. Ukraine cannot build on the false promises of a country that treats it as a plaything. So it will have to come from Europe. This is a crucial moment for the EU: will it remain an economic giant and a geopolitical dwarf, or will it finally take responsibility for security on its own continent?
For years, European countries and the US have hesitated: should we send this kind of missile? Should we really take this action? What if we provoke Putin too much? But while the West hesitated, Russia acted unscrupulously. The time for careful consideration is over. NATO should spend less time worrying about what Russia might do, and more time creating a situation where Russia has to worry about what the West will do. Only by acting decisively can sovereignty be protected-not as an abstract idea, but as a tangible reality for Ukraine and for Europe itself.
Written by Puria Atahi
