By Valerie Reynoso
Direct Ukraine-Russia talks recently took place in Istanbul and ended without significant results. These talks echo decades of contestations between NATO member states, their Western allies, and Russia in light of shifts from Western hegemony to multipolarity in the international arena, and the future relevance that NATO bears within it.
THE ORIGINS AND ESTABLISHMENT OF NATO
NATO was established on April 4, 1949, and was formed by the U.S., Canada, and ten Western European countries to serve as a military alliance responding to the geopolitical landscape following World War II. NATO was founded for a broader effort to serve three purposes: deterring USSR expansion, forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe via a strong North American presence on the continent, and encouraging European political integration. Accordingly, NATO generally adheres to U.S. interests and NATO's actions have often aligned with U.S. foreign policy objectives.
The original main three purposes of NATO evolved today to encompass the deterrence of Russian/Eastern geopolitical might against the West, the U.S., and NATO member states; the encouragement of European political integration, particularly those in line with liberal democracy and typical Western socio-political ideologies; and forbidding the revival of nationalist militarism in Europe, especially those opposed to liberal democracy or that adhere to some form of communist thought.
POST-COLD WAR CONTESTATIONS AND NATO EXPANSION
Expansion and hegemony are key components of imperialism, not merely financial or domineering gain. Imperialism encompasses the exertion of control and profit, along with the dissemination of socio-political ideas and territorial domination. NATO has conducted military operations that were often justified under humanitarian grounds or mandates and broader security concerns of Eastern-European states post-Cold War. NATO also has a history of backing military coups and unilateral interventions, and defying international norms without permission from the UN Security Council.
The 1990s served as a pivotal point in shaping NATO-Russia relations that unraveled into what is seen in the international arena today. The meeting between the former U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker, and the former leader of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, on February 9, 1990, was a notable instance of said pivotal point, especially since the U.S. is a vital NATO member state. This is because Baker's famous “not one inch eastward” assurance on NATO expansion in his meeting with Gorbachev was a part of a series of assurances concerning Soviet security provided by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials.
These assurances were given throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and into 1991. However, it does not appear to have been a speculative comment merely about German reunification. This is because Baker agreed with Gorbachev's statement in response to the assurances that NATO expansion is unacceptable. Baker also assured him that neither the U.S. President nor himself intended to obtain unilateral advantages from those processes. Baker added that Americans understood that it is important for the USSR and other European countries to have guarantees that if the U.S. keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, the present military jurisdiction of NATO cannot spread in an eastern direction.
These talks between Baker and Gorbachev informally promising that NATO would not move beyond the eastern border of a unified Germany were followed by NATO's first expansion eastwards when it added 14 new members to the east of Germany between 1999 and 2020. In her memoir “Madame Secretary,” the former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations and Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, asserted that in 1993, the Clinton administration officials decided to endorse the wishes of Central and Eastern European countries to join NATO. The first round was in 1999 and included the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland. The second round was in 2004 and included Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia. Albright admitted that the former Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, and his associates were not satisfied with those developments. The third round was in 2009 and included Albania and Croatia. Montenegro was included in the fourth round in 2017 and North Macedonia in the fifth round in 2020.
Additionally, Finland and Sweden joined NATO in 2023 and 2024, respectively. This marks a significant shift in the NATO-Russia dynamics and presence in the Arctic, since now 7/8 Arctic states are NATO members and NATO's eastern flank security is to be enhanced.
The Clinton administration's endorsement of the expansion of NATO and the interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo were both key actions in sparking a new cold war with Russia. In addition to what is discussed above, the U.S. and other key NATO powers bypassed the UN Security Council's decisions in early 2008 to grant Kosovo full independence. In 2008, Kosovo's declaration of independence was met with newfound unrest. This included the explosion of two bombs in Mitrovica that damaged several UN vehicles two days later, multiple attacks against UN and NATO personnel. It also included the seizure of a UN courthouse in Mitrovica that resulted in a violent confrontation with the UN police and NATO forces and subsequent deaths and injuries. All of this violence even resulted in a temporary withdrawal of the UN police force from northern Mitrovica.
NATO'S ROLE SINCE 2008 AS A PRETEXT FOR THE CURRENT RUSSIA-UKRAINE WAR
The Russian invasion of Ukraine is in direct violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the usage of force, except with approval by the UN Security Council. Similarly, these unfortunate events are a product of numerous factors, including, but not limited to, the previous “violations” of the Minsk Agreement by the Ukrainian Presidents Poroshenko and Zelensky; the reported military actions of these two figures against Lugansk and Donetsk, particularly since 2014; the 2014 coup d'etat; “violations” of the Helsinki Final Act via NATO's expansion eastwards and the addition of 14 new NATO members, most of which are located to the east of Germany. The Russian invasion and its potential nuclear concerns cannot be removed from the historical context that generated these outcomes in the first place.
In this same sense, the former Ukrainian Foreign Minister, Dmytro Kuleba, served from March 4, 2020 to September 4, 2024 and was a key figure in Ukraine's diplomatic efforts during the ongoing conflict with Russia. Kuleba had stated that refusing to accept Ukraine into NATO would be "suicide" for Europe; it would "lay the foundations for a new war," because he believed that Russia would not want to repeat this experience again. Kuleba reportedly thought that if Ukraine had become a NATO member in 2014, then a full-scale war could have been avoided. NATO also reaffirmed its commitment to NATO's Open Door Policy, thus justifying its goals for expansion.
On the other hand, Ukraine potentially joining NATO might not have necessarily impeded Russia from going to war with Ukraine nor guaranteed a Ukrainian victory. However, it might have facilitated a higher chance of Ukrainian success on the battlefield, since NATO members would have been obligated to defend Ukraine, beyond the varied support that said states are already providing Ukraine with, due to NATO's principle of “collective defence” and Article 5 of the Washington Treaty.
This is also historically consistent and substantial because, since 2008, senior US government officials reportedly knew that the possibility of adding Ukraine to NATO was regarded as a serious "military threat" by Russia that would cross its security "redlines" and prompt Moscow to intervene.
In the 2008 NATO Summit, the former U.S. President, George Bush, advocated for the integration of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. The then NATO Secretary General had declared that said countries would eventually be integrated into the alliance. US diplomats reportedly knew that this could serve as a potentially provocative move that could prompt a Russian military invasion of Ukraine. In fact, the former U.S. ambassador to Russia, William J. Burns, who then became a CIA director, had stated in a February 2008 embassy cable that Ukraine constituted a security "redline" for Moscow.
NATO, UKRAINE, AND THE RECENT 2025 MINERAL AIDS DEAL
Despite not being a NATO member, several NATO member states have already been providing varied support to Ukraine, including military support, throughout the war and continue to do so. In early May 2025, the U.S. State Department reportedly certified a proposed license to export “$50m or more” of defense hardware and services to Ukraine, according to a communication sent to the U.S. committee on foreign relations. This is the first permission of its kind since U.S. President Trump paused all Ukraine-related military aid shortly after taking office. This also indicates that the minerals deal recently signed by the U.S. and Ukraine may open a path to renewed weapons shipment.
Accordingly, the minerals deal solidified investment in Kyiv's defense against Russia and enabled the creation of a fund that will allow the Trump administration to begin to repay approximately $175 billion to Ukraine. The deal will allow Washington and Kyiv to share profits and royalties from the future sale of Ukrainian minerals and rare earths, which U.S. President Trump said will economically incentivize continuous U.S. investments in Ukraine's defense and its reconstruction after Trump brokers a peace deal with Russia.
Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister, Yulia Svyrydenko, stated that the fund would “attract global investment,” and she confirmed that the Ukrainian state determines where and what to extract. Despite this, a crucial context for the minerals deal is that several of the Russia-Ukraine war hotspots are situated in areas where Ukraine provenly has an abundance of gas reserves and mineral resources, including lithium, uranium, rare earths, titanium, and others. Additionally, Ukraine holds approximately 5% of the world's mineral resources and rare earths and many of these resources are currently untapped, including those in Russian-controlled areas.
THE RECENT RUSSIA-UKRAINE PEACE TALKS AND A PROSPECTIVE TIMELINE
Recently, there were direct talks between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul that served as the first such talks between the two states since 2022 after a period of stalled communications. These talks ended without any significant outcomes.
In the talks, Russia primarily demanded the complete withdrawal of all Ukrainian military forces from the four regions it claims to control—Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhizhia, and Kherson. This demand is critical for Russia because it wants to solidify its territorial claims following the control of said areas and it is a central condition for any ceasefire agreement. Russia also seeks recognition of its territorial claims over the regions mentioned above, which it considers a part of Russian territory following the contested referendums that took place in 2022. This is also critical for Russia to concretize its control over said areas.
Russia has demonstrated a willingness to discuss a ceasefire; however, Russia has unequivocally shown that an unconditional ceasefire is not on the table. Russia links the cessation of hostilities to Ukraine's compliance with its territorial demands, instead. As for long-term security guarantees, Russia wants long-term security arrangements that would prevent Ukraine from joining NATO or aligning with Western military alliances. This echos Russia's broader strategic goal of limiting NATO's influence in Eastern Europe.
Additionally, Russia has recently agreed to participate in prisoner exchanges that could possibly lead to a broader peace agreement, albeit not being a direct ceasefire demand like those discussed above. Most of Russia's demands are contrary to U.S. President Trump's proposed peace plan and specifically reject certain aspects of the U.S. peace proposal. The U.S. reportedly presented Russia with a seven-point peace plan in April 2025 that offered Russia “de jure” U.S. recognition of Russian sovereignty over occupied Crimea and “de facto” recognition of Russian control over the parts of Ukraine that Russian forces currently occupy. It also included “a robust security guarantee” involving a group of European, and possibly also non-European, states as a likely peacekeeping force.
Ukraine rejected Russia's demands, which reflected the Ukrainian government's commitment to maintaining its territorial integrity. The Russian delegation subsequently walked out of the talks and this demonstrated the challenges continuously faced in reaching a diplomatic solution regarding this matter.
More broadly, the failure of these talks speak to implications in the international arena with respect to NATO's involvement in the conflict and the responses of Western nations to it, and to the current significant barriers in achieving a ceasefire or peace agreement. This is in light of the fact that, as of May 19th, 2025, Ukrainian forces recently advanced in Kursk Oblast and near Borova and Toresk, and Russian forces recently advanced in Kursk Oblast and near Chasiv Yar, Torestk and Novopavlivka.
These advancements on both sides are amplified by reported signals from the Kremlin's officials suggesting that Russia is prepared to continue or escalate the conflict with Ukraine should the latter and the West not agree to Russia's demands. Russia reportedly would view any negotiations that do not fulfill their proposals discussed above as “unsuccessful.”
Similarly, Russia occupies approximately 20% of Ukraine's territory as of 2025 and has gained over 4,000 square kilometers in 2024 alone. Ukraine continues to face severe challenges in the war, high casualty rates, vast territorial losses, and the internal displacement of approximately 3.7 million people and counting. This war reality continues to be exacerbated by the present tensions discussed above and the uncertain nature of the future impact of the talks, and by the fact that the NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, had previously announced that NATO membership for Ukraine is off the table and that relations with Russia need to be normalized post-war.
Given all of this, the chances of a peace timeline or ceasefire being achieved through similar talks in the near future is unlikely without considering the aforementioned realities — realities that overwhelmingly indicate the concessions mentioned above will likely have to, at least, be seriously considered in order for a ceasefire to effectively be implemented and pave the path to peace in the international arena.
NATO'S RELEVANCE, BRICS, AND THE NEAR-FUTURE'S GEOPOLITICAL AMBIT
The relevance that said talks currently bear is also reminiscent of U.S. President Trump's criticisms on NATO member countries inability to meet the alliance's defense spending target of 2% GDP. Trump argues that the U.S. bears an unfair burden because it pays a disproportionate share of NATO's costs in comparison to its European counterparts, and especially Germany. Trump has reportedly threatened to withdraw the U.S. from NATO if member countries do not increase their defense spending.
Additionally, Trump has criticized NATO allies for their spending levels compared to those of the U.S. This was seen as undermining the principle of collective self defense reflected in Article 5 of the NATO treaty. This is of vital concern particularly in light of the indefinite future of transatlantic relations and security alliance structures in Europe, NATO member states, and relevant proxies. It is also paramount in assessing how the geopolitical nature of the near future will unravel in the international arena, especially because some prominent analysts and sources predict that a Ukraine peace deal may be concretized by the end of June 2025. The reality is that Europe is running low on weapons, Ukraine is running low on fighters, and this is hindering the transatlantic unity. Thus, the Ukrainian President, Zelenskyy, will likely have to accept a negotiated settlement with Russia.
Similarly, this sheds light on whether NATO is able to fulfill its evolved purpose of deterring Russian/Eastern geopolitical might against the West, or if this goal will inevitably be rendered obsolete in the foreseeable future. In addition to the points discussed above, this is also because the decline of U.S. hegemony is on the rise, given the current economic trends and the impact that they will have in this regard and within the theoretical scope of what imperialism entails.
As discussed above, the key components of imperialism are expansion and hegemony and this includes, but is certainly not limited to, financial or domineering gain because it also encompasses the exertion of control and profit. As for Russia, its nominal GDP is approximately $1.48 trillion, making it the 11th largest economy in the world, which accounts for around 1.31% of the global economy. For some perspective, Russia's economy is eclipsed by that of the state of California, which has a nominal GDP twice as large as that of Russia, at approximately $3.1 trillion. California is ranked as having the 5th largest economy in the world, even surpassing those of entire countries. Russia's economy has faced stagnation and challenges in great part due to sanctions and geopolitical tensions.
The above points suggest that Russia may lack the economic capacity on a global scale to truly have the hegemonic capacity that is typically expected of a global superpower, such as the U.S. The U.S., by contrast, has a nominal GDP of approximately $26.9 trillion, making its economy the largest, globally.
On the other hand, despite the U.S. currently having the largest economy, globally, its hegemonic presence is increasingly minimized by the fact that the BRICS countries collectively have a GDP that when measured by purchasing power parity (PPP), significantly exceeds that of the U.S. For context, the BRICS and G7 are two groups of countries that are highly relevant on an international scale because they play key roles in global economic and political dynamics. This group was originally formed as BRIC in 2009 and became BRICS when South Africa joined in 2010, with many other affiliates and potential members adding to the mix in the past few years.
BRICS was established to provide a cooperative platform for said economies and to challenge Western domination in global governance and economic systems. BRICS aims to reform international financial institutions and promote a multipolar world order.
Moreover, the BRICS GDP is estimated to be approximately $42.4 trillion, as of 2025. China and India are prominent nations as for growth rates here because China alone accounts for around 19.05% of global GDP and India contributes around 8.23%. All of this is coupled in with the fact that the BRICS countries have a combined population of approximately 3.3 billion, which consists of over 40% of the global population and contributes to the significant economic output of BRICS.
As of 2023, the per capita income currently remains lower for BRICS at $12,800, compared to the U.S. average of about $76,000; however, the aggregate GDP is higher for BRICS in PPP terms. Additionally, the BRICS countries have experienced higher average growth rates compared to those of the U.S. because from 1990 to 2022, the average annual growth rate of per capita GDP in BRICS was 4.5%. By contrast, the average annual growth rate of per capita GDP in the G7, including the U.S., was around 1.5%.
CONCLUSION: WHAT POTENTIALLY LIES AHEAD
Ultimately, what lies ahead heavily depends on whether a Ukraine peace plan and ceasefire are reached in accordance with what is discussed above. It will also significantly rely on how NATO and the West will grapple with the inevitable expansion of BRICS, the current lack of Russian unipolar economic hegemony, other related factors as they arise, and how all of this will shape relations between the U.S. and West, and Russia. Time will tell how these events in the international arena will unravel and shape the future geopolitical landscape.
about the author
Valerie Reynoso is a political analyst, artist, the UN Permanent Representative and Ambassador for an NGO with special consultative status with the United Nations, and a Juris Doctor law school candidate based in New York. She graduated from Columbia SIPA in 2023, while she simultaneously taught international affairs and political theory to undergraduate students at Barnard College and Columbia SPS. This article is based on her research and cited sources and is not representative of any entities, organizations or persons affiliated with her.
WORKS CITED
[Trump says he would encourage Russia to ‘do whatever the hell they want’ to any NATO country that doesn’t pay enough | CNN Politics](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/10/politics/trump-russia-nato/index.html)
[The Latest: Trump questions value of NATO, slams Germany | AP News](https://apnews.com/united-states-government-5d9af207650e42cd9fbf96ce7d8c59d1)
[A closer look at Trump's years of criticizing NATO, particularly on defense spending - ABC News](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/closer-trumps-years-criticizing-nato-defense-spending/story?id=107201586)
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-considering-major-nato-policy-shift-rcna195089
[Russia Could Be Ready to Strike NATO in Two Years, New Report Says - Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/russia-strike-nato-two-years-us-europe-ceasefire-agreement-2069537)
[US proposes reviving NATO-Russia Council, Bloomberg reports](https://kyivindependent.com/us-proposes-reviving-nato-russia-council/)
[Trump considering major NATO policy shift](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/trump-considering-major-nato-policy-shift-rcna195089)
[Ukraine ramps up calls for ‘pressure’ on Russia as talks end with no ceasefire | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/16/europe/ukraine-russia-turkey-talks-ceasefire-hopes-dim-latam-intl)
[Russia, Ukraine agree prisoner swap as talks end without major breakthrough | Russia-Ukraine war News | Al Jazeera](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/5/16/russia-ukraine-talks-end-in-less-than-two-hours-with-no-ceasefire-deal)
[Ukraine-Russia talks in Istanbul end, Moscow demands Kyiv withdraw from 4 regions, no ceasefire agreement](https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-russia-peace-talks-in-istanbul-reportedly-end-after-nearly-an-hour/)
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between
[Lessons of the Minsk Deal: Breaking the Cycle of Russia's War Against Ukraine | Institute for the Study of War](https://understandingwar.org/backgrounder/lessons-minsk-deal-breaking-cycle-russias-war-against-ukraine)
[Ukraine, Russia, and the Minsk agreements: A post-mortem | ECFR](https://ecfr.eu/article/ukraine-russia-and-the-minsk-agreements-a-post-mortem/)
[As Russian Federation’s Invasion of Ukraine Approaches One Year Mark, Speakers in Security Council Trade Accusations for Failure of Minsk Peace Accords | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases](https://press.un.org/en/2023/sc15202.doc.htm)
https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-updates-kuleba-tells-nato-there-is-no-stalemate/live-67580362
https://www.npr.org/2008/04/01/89284533/bush-urges-nato-membership-for-ukraine-georgia
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/27/us-nato-expansion-ukraine-russia-intervene/
"Kyiv's gas strategy: closer cooperation with Gazprom or a genuine diversification"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_gas_in_Ukraine#cite_note-UkNGOSW15713-9
[Russia's Minuscule Economy: The Mouse That Roars](https://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/russias-minuscule-economy-the-mouse-that-roars)
[California Remains the World’s 5th Largest Economy | Governor of California](https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/04/16/california-remains-the-worlds-5th-largest-economy/)
[Foolish Take: Russia's surprisingly small economy](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2017/05/31/a-foolish-take-russias-surprisingly-small-economy/102013334/)
(https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-resign-kuleba-bb5195cc2df40d32bac374ece6dbc0b8).
[Russia-Ukraine war: Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba resigns, official says | AP News](https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-resign-kuleba-bb5195cc2df40d32bac374ece6dbc0b8)
[Ukraine's foreign minister resigns as government reshuffle expected](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn02v5x5expo)
[The direct Ukraine-Russia talks in Istanbul have ended - with ‘ZERO RESULTS’, according to the Russian side - Axios reports The meeting ended after Russia demanded the full withdrawal of all Ukrainian forces from the 4 new regions Russia currently claims control over in Ukraine. - Who Watches the Watchers?](https://watchers.ie/2025/05/18/the-direct-ukraine-russia-talks-in-istanbul-have-ended-with-zero-results-according-to-the-russian-side-axios-reports-the-meeting-ended-after-russia-demanded-the-full-withdrawal-of-all/)
[Negotiations between Ukraine and Russia in Istanbul - what are the first results?](https://babel.ua/en/news/118031-negotiations-between-ukraine-and-russia-in-istanbul-what-are-the-first-results)
[Ukraine and Russia meet in Istanbul - Everything you need to know | RBC-Ukraine](https://newsukraine.rbc.ua/news/inside-the-ukraine-russia-talks-in-istanbul-1747381927.html)
[NATO - Topic: Enlargement and Article 10](https://nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm)
[Germany, 14 NATO allies agree to procure air defense systems - DW - 10/13/2022](https://www.dw.com/en/germany-14-nato-allies-agree-to-procure-air-defense-systems/a-63423028)
[NATO - NATO member countries](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/nato_countries.htm)
[2008 unrest in Kosovo - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_unrest_in_Kosovo)
[Kosovo War - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War)
[Kosovo conflict | Summary & Facts | Britannica](https://www.britannica.com/event/Kosovo-conflict)
https://balkaninsight.com/2008/03/03/shots-fired-at-north-kosovo-un-office/
https://x.com/thestudyofwar/status/1923921732332576927?s=46&t=0TQ2AoUIjWt5bcLLH0Lx1A
https://x.com/thestudyofwar/status/1923910157542752431?s=46&t=0TQ2AoUIjWt5bcLLH0Lx1A
[G7 versus the BRICS: taking stock in 12 figures](https://www.socialeurope.eu/g7-versus-the-brics-taking-stock-in-12-figures)
[Learn about BRICS](https://www.ipea.gov.br/forumbrics/en/learn-about-brics.html)
[BRICS: Here’s what to know about the international bloc | World Economic Forum](https://www.weforum.org/stories/2024/11/brics-summit-geopolitics-bloc-international/)
[BRICS Expansion, the G20, and the Future of World Order | Carnegie Endowment for International Peace](https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2024/10/brics-summit-emerging-middle-powers-g7-g20)
[BRICS Vs. the G7 - The Globalist](https://www.theglobalist.com/brics-brics-g7-economy-population-just-the-facts/)
[BRICS vs G7 GDP as a share of world total 2024| Statista](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1412425/gdp-ppp-share-world-gdp-g7-brics/)
https://www.npr.org/2022/01/29/1076193616/ukraine-russia-nato-explainer
