Gustavo Petro’s Misguided View on Ukraine: A Lesson in Self-Determination

On March 2 at 9:51 PM, Colombian President Gustavo Petro posted the following on Twitter:

“Zelenski fue traicionado. Creyó en la OTAN y en los gobiernos occidentales y ahora su pueblo y su juventud mueren en la guerra. Debió buscar un acuerdo de paz con Putin y un gran acuerdo político y económico eslavo abierto al mundo.”

"Zelenskyy was betrayed. He believed in NATO and Western governments, and now his people and his youth are dying in the war. He should have sought a peace agreement with Putin and a grand Slavic political and economic agreement open to the world."

This statement is not only contrafactual but also fundamentally misrepresents the nature of the war. It implies that Ukraine had a viable option to negotiate with Putin when, in reality, Russia’s objective has always been Ukraine’s subjugation. The war did not begin because of NATO or Western interference; it began because Russia invaded a sovereign country in blatant violation of international law.

Ukraine did not start this war—Russia did. Since 2014, and especially after the full-scale invasion in 2022, Ukraine has fought to preserve its independence against Russian aggression and puppet governments controlled by Vladimir Putin. This struggle is entirely in line with the principle of self-determination, a concept Petro should understand well given Colombia’s own history.

Contrary to Petro’s assertion, Ukraine is not pursuing a grand Slavic unity project, nor does Putin have any interest in a diplomatic settlement that does not lead to Ukraine’s absorption into Russia. His expansionist vision aligns with Russian ultranationalists like Aleksandr Dugin, who has openly dismissed Ukraine’s legitimacy, stating it has "no geopolitical meaning, no particular cultural import or universal significance, no geographic uniqueness, no ethnic exclusiveness.” Dugin and other Russian imperialists advocate for an empire stretching from Dublin to Vladivostok—a direct threat to European sovereignty and security.

European leaders have repeatedly emphasized that Ukraine is a European nation with aspirations to join the EU. It deserves security guarantees to protect its sovereignty from an increasingly aggressive Russia. The Biden administration rightly supported Ukraine’s self-determination and defense. To abandon Ukraine would not only betray a democratic nation under siege but would also undermine Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

Petro’s position is particularly perplexing given his vocal opposition to Israel’s war in Gaza. If he claims to stand for self-determination and against aggression, then his stance on Ukraine should be consistent. Yet, instead of condemning Russian imperialism, he suggests Ukraine should have capitulated to Putin’s demands under the guise of regional unity.

The reality is that Ukraine’s survival hinges on sustained Western support. Europe alone cannot shoulder the burden of defending Ukraine without U.S. assistance. President Zelenskyy understands this, which is why he has worked tirelessly to secure military and economic aid from Washington. However, with Donald Trump’s returning to power, Ukraine’s future remains uncertain. Unlike Biden, Trump does not center U.S. foreign policy on democracy, sovereign independence, or international law. This presents a major challenge for Zelenskyy, who must engage with Trump if he hopes to secure continued American backing.

Should the U.S. retreat from its commitments for good (today Trump announced the suspension of all U.S. military aid to Ukraine), Europe’s response may not be enough to deter Russian aggression. The stakes are far greater than Ukraine alone—this war is a test of whether international law, sovereignty, and self-determination still hold weight in the global order. Petro’s misreading of the situation reflects a broader issue: when leaders fail to recognize these fundamental principles, they risk legitimizing expansionism and undermining the very foundations of global stability.