Ukraine Talks Expose Great Power Rivalries Over Resources

Analysis of: Zelenskyy says no agreement on key issues in peace talks as he accuses Russia of ‘dragging out negotiations’ – Europe live
The Guardian | February 18, 2026

TL;DR

US-brokered Ukraine-Russia talks stall over territory as Trump pressures Kyiv while Russia delays—revealing how great powers treat smaller nations as bargaining chips. Meanwhile, the Cuba oil blockade and European defense scramble show imperialism's contradictions sharpening across multiple fronts.

Analytical Focus:Contradictions Historical Context Interconnections

The Geneva peace talks between Ukraine and Russia, mediated by the United States, reveal the fundamental contradictions of inter-imperialist rivalry in the current phase of capitalist development. While framed as diplomacy aimed at ending bloodshed, the negotiations expose how great powers treat smaller nations as strategic assets to be divided according to their interests. The US, under Trump, pressures Ukraine to make territorial concessions while publicly demanding Kyiv take 'steps for success'—a classic imperialist maneuver that treats the sovereignty of dependent nations as negotiable. The material stakes are clear: control over eastern Ukrainian territory, the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant (Europe's largest), and the broader question of which imperial bloc will dominate the region's resources and labor power. Russia's demand for Ukrainian-held territory 'as the price for ending the war' strips away diplomatic pretense to reveal naked resource competition. Meanwhile, the US energy blockade of Cuba—discussed in parallel at the same diplomatic venue—demonstrates how imperial powers weaponize economic dependency, cutting off Venezuelan oil supplies to force compliance. These seemingly separate stories form a coherent picture of a multipolar world where declining US hegemony creates new contradictions. European powers, suddenly contemplating defense without US support, scramble to assert autonomy while remaining structurally dependent on American military infrastructure. The article's framing naturalizes these power dynamics as 'negotiations' and 'diplomacy,' obscuring the class character of decisions made by ruling elites that will determine the fate of millions of Ukrainian and Cuban workers who have no seat at these tables.

Class Dynamics

Actors: Ukrainian state leadership (Zelenskyy government), Russian state/oligarchy (Putin regime), US state apparatus (Trump administration), European state actors (UK, France, Germany, Italy), Cuban government, Ukrainian working class and military conscripts, Russian working class and conscripts, European defense industry capitalists

Beneficiaries: Military-industrial complexes across all parties, Energy corporations controlling fossil fuel access, Financial institutions managing war debt and reconstruction, Russian oligarchs seeking territorial consolidation, US geopolitical strategists seeking European dependency

Harmed Parties: Ukrainian civilians and workers facing ongoing war, Cuban population suffering energy shortages, Russian conscripts and their families, European workers facing austerity to fund rearmament, Refugees displaced by conflict

The negotiations demonstrate asymmetric power relations where great powers (US, Russia) set terms while smaller nations (Ukraine, Cuba) are positioned as objects rather than subjects of diplomacy. The US leverages its mediator role to pressure Ukraine, while Russia exploits military gains to demand territorial concessions. European powers, historically dependent on US security guarantees, find themselves marginalized yet desperate to maintain relevance, revealing their subordinate position within the Western imperial bloc.

Material Conditions

Economic Factors: Control of Ukrainian industrial and agricultural regions in the east, Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant as critical energy infrastructure, European energy dependency and transition costs, Cuban oil import dependency and US blockade economics, European rearmament spending requirements

The conflict centers on which capitalist bloc will control the productive forces of eastern Ukraine—its industrial capacity, agricultural output, and energy infrastructure. The Zaporizhzhia plant represents not merely energy production but strategic leverage over European markets. Cuba's crisis illustrates how peripheral nations remain locked in dependency relations where core powers can weaponize access to essential commodities like oil.

Resources at Stake: Eastern Ukrainian territory and its resources, Europe's largest nuclear power plant, Venezuelan-Cuban oil trade routes, Arctic resources (Greenland subtext), European defense contracts worth hundreds of billions

Historical Context

Precedents: Post-WWI territorial carve-ups at Versailles, Cold War proxy conflicts and spheres of influence, US blockades of Cuba since 1962, NATO expansion post-1991 as imperial project, Historical great power 'peace' negotiations (Congress of Vienna, Yalta)

This represents a critical juncture in the transition from unipolar US hegemony to contested multipolarity. The pattern echoes early 20th-century inter-imperialist rivalries that culminated in world wars. The current phase of financialized capitalism, facing declining profit rates and resource constraints, intensifies competition for control over strategic territories and infrastructure. Europe's sudden reckoning with defense autonomy mirrors historical moments when junior imperial powers were forced to assert independence from declining hegemons.

Contradictions

Primary: The fundamental contradiction lies between the rhetoric of 'peace negotiations' serving Ukrainian interests and the reality of great powers determining the fate of a smaller nation based on their own strategic calculations—what Lenin identified as the contradiction between the formal equality of nations and their substantive inequality under imperialism.

Secondary: US simultaneously mediating 'peace' while maintaining pressure on Ukraine to concede, European states claiming solidarity with Ukraine while being excluded from core negotiations, Russia demanding territory it doesn't fully control militarily, Trump's 'America First' isolationism conflicting with maintaining US global hegemony, Cuba seeking Russian support while Russia's resources are tied down in Ukraine

These contradictions cannot be resolved within the current framework. Any 'peace' will likely represent a temporary stabilization of inter-imperialist competition rather than genuine resolution. The pressure on Ukraine to cede territory may produce short-term settlement but will generate long-term instability, potentially reigniting conflict as material conditions shift. European rearmament, if realized, would create new contradictions as EU powers develop independent military capacity that could challenge both US and Russian interests.

Global Interconnections

The Geneva talks cannot be understood in isolation from the broader restructuring of global imperialism. The parallel Cuba-Russia meeting highlights how US sanctions regimes create alternative alliance networks among nations targeted by Western economic warfare. Russia's cultivation of Cuba, Venezuela, and other states reflects the formation of counter-hegemonic blocs—not as socialist alternatives but as competing capitalist formations resisting US dominance. The European defense discussion reveals the crisis of the post-WWII Atlantic order. NATO's function as a mechanism for US control over European capitalism is being questioned as Trump's transactional approach strips away ideological cover. The question of whether Europe can 'defend itself' is fundamentally a question of whether European capital can assert autonomy from American capital—a contradiction that will intensify as economic competition between the blocs sharpens. The Greenland subtext, with Denmark's king visiting amid Trump's territorial threats, shows how even NATO allies face predatory treatment when their resources become strategically valuable.

Conclusion

For working people across all affected nations, these elite negotiations offer little hope. Ukrainian workers face the prospect of their homeland being carved up by powers that view them as strategic assets rather than human beings with self-determination. Russian workers continue dying in a war that serves oligarchic interests. European workers will bear the costs of rearmament through austerity and redirected public spending. Cuban workers suffer immediate deprivation from blockade policies. The path forward requires recognizing that peace imposed by imperialist powers serves those powers' interests, not those of ordinary people. Genuine solidarity means opposing all imperial actors—including one's own government—while supporting workers' movements that transcend the false choices presented by competing capitalist blocs.

Suggested Reading

• Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism by V.I. Lenin (1917) Lenin's analysis of how capitalism's development into monopoly and finance capital necessarily produces inter-imperialist rivalry directly illuminates the great power competition underlying these 'peace' negotiations.
• The New Imperialism by David Harvey (2003) Harvey's concept of 'accumulation by dispossession' explains how territorial control and resource extraction remain central to contemporary imperialism, directly relevant to the Ukraine territorial disputes.
• The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein (2007) Klein's analysis of how crises are exploited for capitalist restructuring provides framework for understanding how post-war Ukraine will likely face neoliberal 'reconstruction' regardless of which power wins.