By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Ukraine’s right to its territories, including those illegally annexed by Russia (Crimea and parts of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia), is affirmed under international law. Russia’s proposed peace deal, encompassing five Ukrainian territories, is viewed as an attempt to dictate terms following its unprovoked aggression. This proposal disregards Ukraine’s sovereignty and seeks to legitimize Russia’s illegal occupation. While military recovery is currently unfeasible, Ukraine seeks diplomatic solutions and international support to reclaim its land.
Read the original article here
Ukrainians are expressing profound skepticism and outright rejection of any proposals involving territorial concessions, particularly those seemingly orchestrated by individuals like real estate mogul Witkoff. The notion of Witkoff, a figure seemingly more at home negotiating commercial leases than geopolitical compromises, acting as a mediator between Putin and Ukraine is viewed with incredulity and contempt. The perception is that he’s operating outside his area of expertise and potentially undermining Ukrainian interests.
The suggestion of territorial compromises, even hypothetically involving land swaps, is met with fierce resistance. The idea that Ukraine should cede territory in exchange for anything is considered unacceptable, mirroring the sentiments of those who believe that any negotiation from a position of weakness only emboldens the aggressor. There’s a deep-seated belief that any such agreement would effectively reward Russia’s aggression and set a dangerous precedent.
The involvement of Witkoff is seen as particularly galling, with accusations that he’s acting as a pawn in a larger game, possibly at the behest of individuals sympathetic to Russia. The repeated mention of Trump further fuels this perception, highlighting concerns about potential influence peddling and undermining of Western alliances. The accusation of loyalty over competence is repeatedly levied, reflecting a broader disillusionment with certain political figures and processes.
The recurring theme of betrayal underscores the prevailing sentiment. Ukrainians feel betrayed by the actions of certain Western figures, believing their interests have been sacrificed in favor of political maneuvering or personal gain. This perceived betrayal extends to the perceived inadequacy of support from certain Western nations, prompting calls for stronger leadership and a more decisive stance against Russian aggression.
The sheer audacity of even suggesting territorial swaps is infuriating to many. The parallel drawn to a robbery victim being forced to negotiate with the thief over the return of their stolen possessions encapsulates the feeling of injustice and powerlessness. The situation is seen as straightforward: Russia initiated an unprovoked war, committed countless atrocities, and must be held accountable.
The suggestion of any land swap, even in a hypothetical scenario involving regions like Texas or Florida, is unequivocally rejected. The idea is considered absurd, offensive, and deeply insulting. The sentiment is clear: Ukraine will not be party to any negotiation that requires it to forfeit its own territory. The possibility of joining Mexico is even raised sarcastically, highlighting the absurdity of such proposals. The focus remains on reclaiming all occupied territories, including Crimea, and securing war reparations from Russia.
The discussion often circles back to the perceived weakness and misguided priorities of certain Western leaders, along with accusations of prioritizing personal gain or political expediency over principled action. This perceived weakness fuels frustration and a growing sense of mistrust.
Underlying the anger and frustration is a determination to resist any form of coercion or pressure to make concessions. The unwavering belief in Ukraine’s right to self-determination and territorial integrity fuels the rejection of any compromises that would necessitate the surrender of Ukrainian land. This strong resolve underscores a broader sentiment of defiance in the face of Russian aggression and perceived failures of the international community.
The skepticism extends to any individual or group perceived as having ties to Russia or those who might be acting against Ukraine’s interests. The names mentioned, Witkoff in particular, become symbols of distrust and resentment, representing perceived attempts to undermine Ukrainian sovereignty and the struggle for freedom. The sentiment remains consistently strong: Ukraine will not surrender its land.