Cruelties of false hopes that ASEAN must keep in mind over the Ukrainian peace conference

The Perpetual Mirage of Alliances

In the annals of global politics, alliances have oscillated between being indispensable instruments of security and precarious entanglements that often lead to unintended consequences.

The recent Ukrainian peace conference in Saudi Arabia serves as a poignant reminder that diplomatic endeavors, regardless of their scale, seldom precipitate immediate transformations in the global order.

For the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), this scenario underscores the imperative to distill lessons from such negotiations and past attempts to resolve protracted conflicts.

Without this introspection, there lies a perilous assumption that great power diplomacy is inherently transformative—a notion that history frequently contradicts.

The False Promise of Alliances

Alliance politics have historically been dictated by strategic self-interest rather than moral obligation. Recent events have further illuminated this reality. For instance, the U.S. administration’s recent decision to cut military aid to Ukraine unless it agrees to a peace plan favoring Russia highlights the transactional nature of alliances (Higgins, 2025).

This shift underscores that alliances do not necessarily ensure protection but serve as instruments of convenience for great powers.

The Reality of Abandonment

One of the greatest ironies of alliance politics is that states often enter such pacts seeking greater security, only to find themselves more vulnerable when their patrons disengage. The recent “seismic” shift in UK-US relations exemplifies this dilemma. Former British ambassadors have warned that the UK-US special relationship is undergoing a fundamental change, with divergences in values and policies leading to a lack of trust and shared objectives (Wintour, 2025).

This shift may impact key areas such as intelligence sharing and nuclear cooperation.

For ASEAN, these examples highlight a fundamental lesson: relying on external security guarantees—whether from the U.S. or China—can breed vulnerability. The only sustainable path is deeper regional integration and institutionalized security frameworks independent of external actors.

Frozen Conflicts and the Legacy of Betrayal

The global landscape is littered with conflicts where ceasefires, armistices, or peace negotiations have merely frozen disputes rather than resolving them. The recent Ukrainian peace conference in Saudi Arabia serves as a poignant reminder that diplomatic endeavors, regardless of their scale, seldom precipitate immediate transformations in the global order.

For ASEAN, these historical precedents serve as cautionary tales: great powers may not uphold alliances beyond their utility.

Recognizing the transient nature of such partnerships is crucial for ASEAN’s strategic calculus.

The Mirage of a “Rules-Based Order”

The notion of a “rules-based order,” frequently touted by the United States and its allies, is undermined by their own inconsistent alliance behavior. Middle powers like Australia, which rely on a rules-based international order, face uncertainty due to shifting US policies.

The US has moved from globalism to transactional mercantilism, emphasizing spheres of influence. Australia’s reliance on its US alliance necessitates engaging more fully with the region and re-evaluating its foreign and defense strategies (White, 2025).

For ASEAN, the takeaway is clear: a “rules-based order” is not an objective framework—it is an instrument wielded by those who set the rules.

If ASEAN aspires to be an autonomous geopolitical actor, it must define its own regional norms based on real security interests rather than passively adhering to external dictates.

Toward a New Understanding of Alliances

If alliances are to transcend their transactional nature, they must evolve beyond the ephemeral strategic calculations of great powers.

ASEAN’s pursuit of strategic autonomy is increasingly challenged by the intensifying US-China competition.

However, through a combination of institutional strengthening, economic diversification, and careful balancing, ASEAN countries are seeking to navigate this complex environment and maintain their independence in the face of great power rivalries (ASEAN Institute, 2025).

As the Saudi-led peace talks unfold, one must remember: great powers do not pursue peace for its intrinsic value; they seek it only when it aligns with their interests.

Any agreement reached will likely be provisional, ensuring that abandonment and betrayal remain central to international politics.

References

ASEAN Institute. (2025). ASEAN’s strategic autonomy amidst US-China competition. ASEAN Institute.

Higgins, A. (2025, March 11). What’s next for Ukraine? The New Yorker.

White, H. (2025, February 26). Australia, China, and the shifting US alliance. The Guardian.

Wintour, P. (2025, March 5). ‘Seismic shift’ in UK-US relations is not a blip, warns ex-ambassador. The Guardian.