By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In a recent interview, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy asserted that any territorial concessions to Russia would only embolden Vladimir Putin and serve as a launching pad for further aggression against Europe. He argued that Putin’s past actions demonstrate his strategic use of seized territories as springboards for expansion, potentially targeting cities like Kharkiv and Dnipro if Ukraine were to cede the Donbas region. Zelenskyy emphasized that Europe’s strength will ultimately determine whether Russia continues its aggression, highlighting the potential for advanced weaponry to bring the conflict closer to the continent’s heart. He underscored that Ukraine’s resilience is crucial, as its fate will directly shape the eastern border of Europe.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy in Paris explains why territorial concessions to Putin are unacceptable because, quite frankly, it shouldn’t even need to be explained. The situation is straightforward: Russia initiated a war, acting as if they were the victim. Any historical justifications for their actions, especially those based on outdated territorial claims, are irrelevant. It’s about the present, the lives at stake today, and the future of Ukraine. The idea of rewarding aggression with territorial gains is a dangerous precedent, like giving a bully what they want, only to encourage more bullying.
The very core of the issue is that territorial concessions to an aggressor are not a path to peace. History is filled with examples where such actions only emboldened the aggressor, setting the stage for further conflict. If you reward an attack with land, you’re essentially incentivizing future attacks. It’s a simple cause-and-effect scenario. Ukraine has experienced this firsthand, having already conceded territory in the past, only to see Russia interpret it as a sign of weakness and a green light for further aggression. Now, facing an existential threat, Ukraine has no choice but to fight for its survival. To even consider giving up land is to betray the sacrifices made, and to potentially condemn the country to eventual demise.
Offering any form of concession sends a terrible message to the world. It suggests that aggression is a viable strategy, that a bully can be appeased by taking what they want. This would not only embolden Putin to continue his expansionist aims, potentially into other territories he deems to be historically or culturally Russian, but it would also give other aspiring aggressors around the globe the impression that their tactics will also result in the same prize. The consequences are dire. It opens the door for a global escalation of conflict and instability.
Furthermore, the idea of trading land for a promise of peace or even NATO membership is a gamble that could easily backfire. Giving up land without any ironclad security guarantees would only postpone the war, allowing Russia to regroup and rearm, potentially leading to a more devastating conflict in the future. He must discuss reparations, not concessions.
The arguments for concessions often rely on the belief that Ukraine cannot win and that negotiations are the only way to end the conflict. However, this perspective often overlooks the fundamental injustice of the situation. If you were attacked and your home invaded, would you simply hand over your property to the aggressor? Would you trust that they would leave it at that? The answer, of course, is no. The same principle applies here. Surrendering land to Russia is not a solution; it is a capitulation to tyranny.
There is also the issue of long-term consequences. What message would such an agreement send? To the rest of the world, it would effectively validate Putin’s actions. It would suggest that international law and the sovereignty of nations are meaningless when faced with a determined aggressor. It would encourage more governments to persecute their own people and send their own citizens to die for territory.
The question of how the war will end is a complex one. A just peace would be based on Ukraine’s terms, reflecting the sacrifices made and the right to determine their own future. Realistically, fully expelling Russia may not be possible, but that doesn’t mean Ukraine should be forced into a deal that rewards the aggressor.
Ultimately, Ukraine’s decision on peace is their own. The Ukrainian people are the ones paying the ultimate price of this war. Russia is not interested in peace. Russia is interested in victory. It’s not about winning a war; it’s about deciding your own fate. It is about who gets to live. Concessions would be seen as a sign of weakness, an invitation for further aggression. Without reparations, Russia would be able to return to their conquest and finish their original goals. Therefore, it must be rejected.
The pragmatic necessity of Ukraine retaining “fortress towns” in the Donbas, and the willingness or unwillingness of the global West to become directly involved, complicates the path forward. However, conceding land now would lead to another push by Russia later. To surrender to such demands is to surrender Ukraine’s sovereignty, to the very essence of their nationhood.