By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelensky has cautioned against territorial concessions to Russia, asserting that ceding Ukrainian land would only embolden Vladimir Putin and provide a base for future attacks on Europe. He emphasized that giving up the Donbas region would leave other major cities vulnerable and could open new opportunities for Russia. Zelensky warned that Ukraine’s ability to hold its ground would determine the eastern border of Europe and that Russia shows no sign of seeking a peace deal. Meanwhile, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated Moscow’s demand for international recognition of its territorial claims, while Putin stated he would continue the war if a peace deal cannot be reached.
Read the original article here
Putin’s seizure of Crimea, according to Zelensky’s perspective, was not just an isolated land grab but a strategic move to establish a forward operating base. This wasn’t simply about territorial expansion; it was about positioning themselves for further aggression. It’s easy to see the logic in this thinking, as Crimea’s location provides a crucial springboard into the Black Sea and, more importantly, allows easy access to the Sea of Azov. The initial capture was a calculated step toward dominating the area, a launching pad for future military endeavors and controlling vital sea lanes.
The core issue, as presented, is that making concessions to Russia, especially concerning Crimea, is a dangerous gamble. It would not lead to peace; instead, it would embolden Putin and fuel further aggression. This is the heart of Zelensky’s warning: appeasement would only incentivize Russia to press its advantage, leading to more war and more suffering. The reasoning is straightforward. If Russia sees that aggression is rewarded, they will continue to take what they want.
The comments make it clear that any faith in Russian promises is misplaced. The history of broken agreements and blatant violations of international law paints a clear picture. The Budapest Memorandum, a key agreement guaranteeing Ukraine’s security in exchange for relinquishing its nuclear weapons, was utterly disregarded. This highlights a critical point: Russia’s word simply cannot be trusted.
The narrative emphasizes the futility of negotiating in good faith with a nation that consistently breaks its promises. It’s a point driven home by the argument that there will never be an agreement that Russia would honor. The only viable course of action, according to this viewpoint, is to push Russia back to the pre-2014 borders, the point at which Crimea was illegally annexed. Restoring trust is not seen as possible. The damage is too deep, the violations too numerous.
The historical context provided, regarding the transfer of Crimea by Khrushchev, is quickly dismissed as irrelevant. The discussion stresses that the question of who gave what to whom as a gift or because of kinship is no longer important. The internationally recognized borders are the only framework that matters. Any attempts to revisit this history are dismissed as attempts to reshape reality for their own interests. It’s about international law and respecting the sovereignty of nations.
Drawing an interesting parallel with the Baltic states, it’s argued that historical claims of past ownership are not grounds for present-day aggression. These nations, formerly part of the Russian Empire, have established their sovereignty, and their territorial integrity is respected. The core issue revolves around the present-day reality of international agreements and the will of independent nations.
The comments convey a sense of deep resentment towards Russia, fueled by its actions and the perception of its character. There is a visceral feeling of anger and distrust towards the Russian government, stemming from its policies, actions, and motivations. The only language Russia understands is the language of force, this line of thinking proposes, the only way to deter them is to meet them with strength.
The conclusion underscores the need for a firm stance. Giving up ground, compromising on principles, or attempting to negotiate in good faith are all seen as dangerous strategies. Only by standing firm, by pushing back against Russian aggression, and by ensuring that its expansionist ambitions are thwarted, can security be achieved. It’s a call to arms, not just militarily but also in terms of resolve. The only way to deal with Russia, according to this view, is to make it unequivocally clear that aggression will not be tolerated.