By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelensky firmly rejected Russia’s territorial demands, stating Ukraine will not withdraw troops from its own land. These demands, reiterated in Istanbul negotiations, included ceding Crimea and four eastern oblasts, even though Russia doesn’t fully control them. Russia’s maximalist position, including eliminating the “root causes” of the war, remains unchanged, while Ukraine continues to push for a full, unconditional ceasefire, a position supported by President Trump but causing friction with European allies. Despite this, no new U.S. sanctions against Russia have been enacted.
Read the original article here
Zelensky’s unwavering rejection of Putin’s demand for Ukrainian troop withdrawals from four occupied regions underscores the deep chasm separating the two sides. The very notion that Ukraine should cede its own territory, even areas not fully under Russian control, while Russia faces no reciprocal obligation to withdraw its forces is utterly preposterous. The claim that these are not “Russian troops” but rather those of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic is a blatant attempt to obfuscate Russia’s direct military involvement and responsibility. This demand, if pressed further, would set a dangerous precedent, rewarding aggression and emboldening future land grabs.
The idea that conceding land would bring about peace is fundamentally flawed. History shows that appeasement only encourages further aggression. Putin’s past actions in Georgia and Crimea demonstrate his willingness to exploit any perceived weakness. Any territorial concessions would merely provide a springboard for future offensives, restarting the cycle of violence in a few years from the newly surrendered territories. This is not a path to lasting peace; it is a recipe for perpetual conflict.
Furthermore, the demand is insulting and demonstrates a fundamental lack of respect for Ukraine’s sovereignty. Russia’s supposed desire for peace rings hollow given its unwavering refusal to withdraw its troops from occupied Ukrainian territories. If Russia genuinely sought peace, it could unilaterally withdraw its forces at any time, rendering any demands for Ukrainian withdrawals moot. The focus should be on Russia’s withdrawal from all occupied territories, not on Ukraine making concessions.
The notion that Ukraine should negotiate away its own land is also demonstrably absurd, even more so given the questionable legitimacy of Russia’s claim to these territories. The sham referendums conducted in regions like Kherson, followed by devastating counter-offensives that forced a hasty Russian retreat, exposed the weakness of Russia’s claims and the hollowness of their demands. The scenes of jubilant Ukrainians celebrating in liberated Kherson—watermelons in hand—stand in stark contrast to Russia’s delusional expectation of a peaceful return.
Moreover, the demands extend far beyond territorial concessions. Russia’s insistence on Ukraine’s commitment to not joining NATO and to demilitarize leaves the nation utterly defenseless against future invasions. This is not a peace proposal; it is a surrender ultimatum designed to cripple Ukraine and leave it at Russia’s mercy. It’s a demand for complete subjugation disguised as peace negotiations. This demonstrates Russia’s true intentions: not peace, but the outright conquest and subjugation of Ukraine. This is underscored by the constantly shifting justifications for the war, ranging from protecting Russian speakers to combating NATO to fighting imaginary biolabs and fascist threats.
The claim that diplomacy can resolve this conflict is a naïve assumption given Russia’s expansionist nature. Ukraine’s attempt at diplomacy following the 2014 annexation of Crimea, culminating in the Minsk agreements, only resulted in further Russian aggression, proving that appeasement does not work against a predatory power like Russia. Any compromise on Ukraine’s territorial integrity would only invite further invasions and conflicts.
The only sensible response to Russia’s demands is categorical rejection. Any compromise would be a dangerous precedent, undermining international law and encouraging further aggression by revisionist powers. Continued support for Ukraine, including the provision of necessary weaponry and sanctions against Russia, is crucial to ensuring Ukraine’s survival and deterring future aggression. The alternative is a world where territorial ambitions are rewarded, and the principles of sovereignty and self-determination are rendered meaningless. The path to lasting peace isn’t through appeasement, but through a firm stance against Russian aggression.