By John Q. Hosedrinker 
High-level talks in London between the UK, US, France, Germany, and Ukraine regarding the war in Ukraine have been postponed. Senior officials will now meet instead, though the Ukrainian foreign minister will still attend a bilateral meeting. This shift follows increased pressure from the Trump administration for a ceasefire, including a US proposal that would recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea and freeze frontlines—a proposal rejected by Ukraine. While Putin reportedly offered to halt fighting along current lines, leaving 20% of Ukraine under Russian control, the US has threatened to withdraw from talks if a deal isn’t reached soon.
Read the original article here
Ukraine’s refusal to cede Crimea to Russia, even in exchange for a purported peace deal brokered by the US, has significantly downgraded the prospects for peace talks in London. The core issue revolves around the fundamental unwillingness to accept territorial concessions that would legitimize Russia’s annexation of the peninsula.
This refusal stems from a deep-seated understanding that appeasing Russia now would only embolden further aggression. Conceding Crimea without simultaneously securing Ukraine’s full NATO membership would merely invite future demands from Russia. This could involve pressures to recognize the Donbas region as Russian territory, setting off a chain reaction of territorial losses until Ukraine’s sovereignty is entirely compromised. History, particularly the lessons of World War II and Russia’s past actions, strongly cautions against such appeasement strategies.
The rejection highlights the deep-seated belief that Crimea is inherently Ukrainian territory and its seizure is a blatant violation of international law. There is a firm refusal to accept a situation where land rightfully belonging to Ukraine becomes Russian through any kind of negotiated settlement. Giving up this land would amount to a reward for Russia’s illegal actions, something that’s considered unacceptable.
The proposed US plan, perceived by many as leaning too heavily towards Russian interests, has fueled widespread anger and distrust. A sense that the US’s efforts may be inadvertently aiding Russia’s agenda and undermining Ukraine’s rightful claim to its territory is prevalent. The perception of former President Trump’s influence on this supposed peace plan only intensifies this distrust, leading to accusations that his policies have emboldened Putin and stalled genuine peace negotiations. The view is that Russia was already in a strategic stalemate before Trump’s concessions to Putin, and these actions have only complicated the path to peace.
Many argue that the war’s continuation is justified due to the belief that Russia’s military position is weakening. It’s predicted that Russia will struggle to sustain the conflict much longer. Therefore, Ukraine’s continued resistance is viewed as a strategy to ultimately achieve a complete victory and reclaim all its territories, including Crimea. In this perspective, maintaining the fight, even without full US support, is the best chance for a favorable outcome. The destruction of a significant Russian ammunition dump is seen as further evidence supporting this view of a dwindling Russian capacity for prolonged warfare.
Yet, there are counterarguments acknowledging the immense cost of sustained warfare. The fear that the war might escalate into a larger conflict involving NATO directly is a significant concern. There is growing sentiment that the EU’s role has been insufficient, leading to a feeling of abandonment and the need for decisive action. The potential for more substantial EU involvement, including military aid or deployment of peacekeeping forces, is seen as crucial for a resolution that would ensure Ukraine’s security and territorial integrity.
Ultimately, the legal framework underlying this conflict reinforces Ukraine’s position. The Ukrainian constitution explicitly declares Crimea as an integral part of the country. Any territorial cession would require unconstitutional actions, making the very concept of a compromise that gives up Crimea legally untenable within Ukraine.
The question of Crimea’s historical ownership is raised. While Crimea was part of Russia before becoming part of Ukraine during the Soviet era, this is not considered a sufficient basis to justify its annexation by Russia. The focus remains on the current violation of international law and Ukraine’s inherent right to its own territory. The lack of meaningful tangible gains from previous negotiations with Russia, where assurances given by Russia have proven valueless, further cements this resistance to any such proposals. This underscores that any deal would need to deliver absolute security guarantees in addition to territorial considerations.
The lack of a clear plan from the EU causes a crisis of faith in the diplomatic process, and the focus shifts to the need for the EU to develop a stronger, more independent strategy for supporting Ukraine. The US’s approach is viewed with deep suspicion, and there is little optimism in the ability of current US diplomacy to produce positive results for Ukraine. The need for a more unified and decisive response from the international community to deter future Russian aggression is apparent. The belief that Russia should be held accountable for its actions, and that any peace deal cannot be at the expense of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, remains central to the ongoing stalemate.