Thucydides’ famous Melian Dialogue came to mind when reading about President Trump’s demand that Ukraine surrender control over its natural resources and accept Russian control of additional territories. As described by Thucydides in the Melian Dialogue (416 BCE), Athens demands the submission of Melos, a weaker island state, offering it a stark choice: subjugation or destruction. Melos refuses to yield—and is annihilated. The harsh choice the U.S. has presented to Ukraine bears striking similarities to this ancient ultimatum. Therefore, I chose to construct an imaginary dialogue, heavily drawing on Thucydides’ original, imagining a conversation occurring in February 2025 in Kyiv between U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (who presented President Trump’s proposal) and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. My argument: even if powerless to restrain those strong enough to disregard it, international law at least persists in declaring and condemning raw assertions of power as illegal. Thus, the project of international law has not been in vain. Indeed, the prohibition on forcible annexations remains absolute, constituting a jus cogens norm from which no derogation is permitted.
“Bessent:” Since our discussion is not being conducted in a public forum, let us speak plainly, without the distractions of sovereign equality rhetoric or human rights jargon. I could talk endlessly about “economic partnership with shared benefits to both nations [and] turbocharging the country’s economic growth.” I could repeat the language of the Marshall Plan. But let’s agree to speak directly: our objective is to secure our interests while ensuring you remain viable. Shall we proceed in this manner?
“Zelenskyy:” There is nothing objectionable about privately instructing each other as you propose. But you have already made up your mind that your support is conditional upon having “economic and governance rights” over our natural resources, without guaranteeing continued military support against further invasions. So you are judge in your own cause, and you are gaslighting me by placing the burden of decision upon us—leaving us with a stark choice between military and economic submission. As much as I will not capitulate before Putin, “I will not sign what ten generations of Ukrainians will have to pay back.” And most importantly, we must not – cannot – desert our fellow citizens left to the mercy of the Russians.
“Bessent:” Yes, our minds are set—because unfortunately, we have no other choice. Let me explain. We must set aside justice, international law, and historical friendship. Power governs relations, as it always has. Regardless of rhetoric, we provide aid not out of charity but because it aligns with our strategic interests. With a huge trade imbalance and a rising rival in the Far East, we can no longer offer our support for free, especially not to ungrateful partners. Frankly, we are disillusioned with being Uncle Sam, underwriting the entire world order. We have tried that approach—JFK’s talk of “lifting all boats” and all that. But human greed cannot be cured, and “the end of history” never materialized. Our rivals exploited our naïve optimism, using the very multilateral institutions we invited them into to overpower us. We thought that prosperity would usher in democracy worldwide, but instead, globalization undermined established democracies. Free-riding must stop and beneficiaries must pay for their protection.
“Zelenskyy:” Is it not in your interest to allow us to remain independent and unburdened, committed to protecting our territorial integrity? Is it not your interest to have us protect Europe and you yourselves against tyranny? “You have a nice ocean protecting you, so perhaps you don’t feel [it] now, but you will in the future.” Permanent sovereignty is essential for global security and prosperity, just as it is essential for a system based on human dignity and peace.
“Bessent:” We can tolerate losing you, but you can’t survive without our assistance. What the French said when ceding Alsace and Lorraine to Germany is now true for you: “sometimes it is necessary to amputate a limb to save the body of the nation” (at p. 146). For us, your sovereign rights are of no use. Frankly, we do not understand your glorification of sovereignty in a shrinking world. Where you see sovereignty, we see business opportunities—and a so-called sovereign we may need to cajole or threaten. We see prospects for exploiting your rare earth minerals while leaving you to handle the severe environmental consequences of extraction and processing. Expanding these opportunities is essential for addressing our trade deficit and reducing dependency on our rivals.
“Zelenskyy:” And what about sovereign equality under international law? As the International Court of Justice recently noted, territorial integrity is inviolable. Prohibitions on aggression and annexation rule out agreements to the contrary. Equal sovereignty derives from the fundamental principle that all humans are created equal, entitled to exercise their self-determination.
Historically, this was the contribution of your Declaration of Independence to international law. It was the Declaration that recognized all peoples – “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights” – as entitled “to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them.” Well – this is our station!
“Bessent:” “International law” is a misnomer. As we understand it, true law must rest on popular sovereignty and be exercised through democratically elected governments. International law is only as strong as the will of those who enforce it. It cannot bind the powerful, who are always able to generate new expectations about what is and is not law. Ultimately, as the Athenians noted long ago: “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” International law might exist, but only among equals in power. Specifically, it is now time to recognize—in legal doctrine as well—that our Monroe Doctrine supersedes the principle of sovereign equality, and that the Stimson Doctrine is meaningless vis-à-vis the powerful. We, the strong, must have our respective Grossraums, and you must adapt your expectations about international law. Your people must accept that their right to self-determination must yield to the needs of your powerful neighbor. We hope that the Canadians will understand that too.
“Zelenskyy:” Well, my lawyers tell me that the system of international law and institutions that you further promoted since 1945 was designed to withstand even the most fundamental shock. I believe there are norms that are peremptory and they do not bend so easily. And you would not dispute that power is ultimately constrained by law—that torture, for example, is prohibited no matter what, and so is causing excessive harm to civilians during war. Since the Melian Dialogue 2,400 years ago, and particularly since the mid nineteenth century, humanity has accepted new rules that limit power.
“Bessent:” I beg to differ. International obligations are social constructs that reflect the laws of nature, where power prevails wherever it can. Agreements are made to be broken or “interpreted” when necessity demands. Recall your own earlier folly, when you placed your faith in an international agreement in return for giving up your nuclear arsenal which was the world’s third largest. Customary international law reflects state practice that is perceived as legal, and so it is inherently subjected to the whims of powerful actors who create new expectations of legality. The role of international lawyers is to observe events with rigorous impartiality, even clinical detachment, and draw reasoned conclusions, avoiding the temptation to moralize like priests of an outdated doctrine.
You see, humanity cannot overcome the law of nature. As the Athenians observed, “It is not as if we are the first to make this law or to act upon it when made: we found it existing before us, and shall leave it to exist forever after us. All we do is make use of it, knowing that you and everybody else, having the same power as we have, would do the same as we do.” You mentioned our Declaration of Independence, but that was a lofty text. Our own Constitution, however, reflects hard calculation. It was framed according to this law of nature, the law of ambition. It is grounded not on abstract rights but on institutional competition, carefully designed checks and balances in which “ambition counteracts ambition.”
“Zelenskyy:” But why discard international law, which grants you so much power and discretion, allowing you to create new institutions whenever your preferences shift? The “Gentle Civiliser” has always been a tool for the powerful to secure their interests abroad but also at home. Even the laws of war were codified by the powerful to enhance and legitimize their military gains. It is a handy tool for a president facing stubborn domestic opposition!
“Bessent:” We are tired of the uncontrollable, entrenched bureaucracies within those institutions, which incessantly work against us, and we are tired of the increasing resistance to our policies from our rivals and other smaller members. We are particularly disillusioned by international judges who invent new law out of thin air, who rename the laws of war “international humanitarian law” in a vain attempt to impose limits on our power, or who refuse to recognize that we, as global hegemons, are responsible for the survival of the system we underwrite, and hence must have the discretion to deviate from its rules when the need arises. It was under the democratic presidency of Barack Obama that we decided to dry up the WTO Appellate Body when it became clear that it was becoming a menace to our interests. Stability created by the rule of law is beneficial first and foremost to the weaker, while we thrive on the volatility we create.
“Zelenskyy:” Would your demand not set a dangerous precedent, showing your allies to be mere vassals, forced to tear a nation up and abandon fellow citizens? Colonized once more in the pursuit of rare metals and minerals? Other nations may hesitate to align with you. This would also embolden our common enemies and create new ones. Those with the ability to do so will seek nuclear capabilities. What about the benefits of soft power?
“Bessent:” Soft power is situational and costly. Other empires do not even propose submission to their dependents; they act with wanton disregard. Has Putin spoken to you before invading? We have tried soft power—couching our interests in legal rhetoric—only to be met with free riders who hypocritically condemn our interventions while benefiting from them. Today, we must demonstrate our resolve to send a message. Allies must accept reality. Ukraine’s relative weakness only makes it more imperative that you submit now. If you resist, others may believe they too can invoke their rights and act independently, which we cannot allow. Let me be clear: we offer you a win-win outcome. If you accept our terms, you ensure our continued support. If not, you risk losing it. This is the essence of protection.
“Zelenskyy:” There remains significant support for the international order, particularly among our European neighbors.
“Bessent:” You may place your future in the hands of your European neighbors. As the Athenians said to the Melians, “we bless your simplicity but do not envy your folly.” Because, as they noted about the Spartans, “[d]anger [they] generally court as little as possible.” Were the Minsk Agreements, backed by France and Germany, any different from our present proposal to carve up your country? Were they sufficient to deter the Russians from subsequently pursuing their quest to eliminate you? Why do you think that now they will come to your aid, despite their economic problems and rising internal opposition to European unity?
“Zelenskyy”: That was then, but your government has been quite successful in jolting Europe into action. For Europeans, the sovereign state is the guarantor of freedom, not its enemy, and hence, they believe, power must be contained through law; for them, collective action is lived experience, not an abstract theory.
“Bessent:” All right, I believe I have made my point clear. The choice is yours, but remember, your decision is not about justice or law, your choice is not between honour and shame, but about self-preservation by not resisting those who are far stronger than you are. You have not more than one country, and upon this single deliberation depends its prosperity or ruin. You invoke the Melian Dialogue and the legacy of speaking law and morality to power, but recall how that ancient stand ended: Melos appealed to principle and was utterly destroyed.
“Zelenskyy:” We remember Melos, but we also remember that the world eventually learned from that cruelty. The Melian Dialogue helped awaken humanity to the need for justice and inspired international lawyers to advocate for laws that stand above brute force. It informed the now-prevailing view that no state can disengage from international law or peremptory norms—norms capable of withstanding even the harshest shocks unless altered by a very large and representative majority of states.
Our people have already endured great sacrifice in this war to protect our sovereignty. We cannot—and will not—declare their sacrifice meaningless. International law will stand by our rights, even if it remains dormant for a while. Just as the Baltic states survived fifty years of illegal Soviet annexation, so too will Ukraine endure.
We also know that might is not infinite, and that right endures as long as those who believe in it refuse to yield. The Melian Dialogue and its aftermath also carry a lesson for those tempted to rely solely on their power. Fortunately, this lesson remains fresh in the memory of the Europeans, who are our consolation and our hope in this darkening moment.
