By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelenskyy has indicated he will address the “territorial issue” with Russian President Putin. Following a White House meeting, he stated he discussed the occupation of Ukrainian territories, including the east and Crimea, with U.S. officials. Zelenskyy declined to comment on the U.S. stance on territorial concessions, emphasizing the topic would be discussed directly with Putin. This decision aligns with Ukraine’s stance, as reported by Western media, which rejects territorial concessions and insists on a ceasefire during any potential talks with Russia.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy: We will leave the issue of territories between me and Putin. It seems the weight of the conflict, the ultimate resolution of the territorial disputes, rests squarely on the shoulders of the two leaders involved: Zelenskyy and Putin. The implication is that any final agreement on the fate of occupied lands will be something they must negotiate directly. This approach, while seemingly straightforward, is fraught with complexities.
The immediate problem, as many understand, is that any agreement, any concession, is likely to be met with resistance from Russia. The history of the conflict, the very nature of Putin’s leadership, suggests that he may not abide by the terms laid out. Appeasing Putin, giving him even a small piece of Ukrainian territory, could very well lead to further aggression, further suffering. The consequences of such a strategy would be devastating. The potential for more destruction and loss of life is a real and terrifying prospect.
In these potential negotiations, the matter of reparations, damages, and accountability looms large. The devastation wrought by this war demands acknowledgment and redress. Who will pay for the destruction? Who will be held responsible for the war crimes? These questions must be answered if there is to be any lasting peace. It’s a complex web, considering that one potential outcome might be Russia getting away without prosecution while both the US and Russia share the costs of the war’s damages.
When assessing the outcome, the issue of territory itself becomes the ultimate arbiter. If Putin retains a portion of Ukrainian land, he’s achieved a victory, however small. If he gains the vast majority of his objectives, the victory is more significant. If he is forced to withdraw entirely, then he has lost. The world can hardly claim a draw while one nation has seized parts of another, after all.
It’s also important to recognize Putin’s intention to maintain control over the territories he’s already seized. He may be willing to stop the current offensive, to pause the “special military operation,” but only if he can hold onto the land he’s taken. It appears to be a calculated strategy of consolidation, a way to secure gains made and then negotiate from a position of strength.
One thing that often arises is the role of outside actors. Trump, for example, often frames the conflict in terms of “chips to play,” suggesting that territory is a bargaining tool. This approach can be problematic, and some consider his constant mention in these scenarios as self-serving. His past actions have not always fostered peace, so to be involved in negotiations is questionable. It’s important to remember that outside influence can complicate matters.
The potential for a cease-fire, while tempting, is not a guarantee of peace. One side may violate such an agreement multiple times. We have seen this many times. It is important to consider any cease-fire with healthy scepticism.
Further, the idea of “appeasement” is often brought up. The historical precedent of the Munich Agreement casts a long shadow. Autocrats, as history has shown, are rarely satisfied. They tend to demand more and more, so giving them what they want early on may not be sufficient.
Finally, it is worth noting the need for strong international security guarantees, most likely from the United States. These guarantees are essential for any land-for-peace agreement to have any lasting validity. Without them, Russia could use any pause in the fighting to re-arm and prepare for a further assault, prolonging the conflict rather than solving it.