By John Q. Hosedrinker 
General Oleksandr Syrskyi, Ukraine’s top commander, stated that surrendering territory in any peace agreement with Russia would be unacceptable, as Moscow uses diplomatic talks as a cover for continued offensives. Syrskyi highlighted the intense fighting along the front lines, with both sides utilizing a high volume of drones and Russia deploying over 710,000 troops, while also sustaining heavy losses. He emphasized the critical need for continued international military support to sustain the fight, and warned that without it, others in Europe would be forced to fight. Syrskyi also reaffirmed Ukraine’s commitment to striking Russian infrastructure to weaken the war effort.
Read the original article here
Ukraine will not accept any peace deal requiring territorial concessions, Syrskyi tells UK broadcaster, and this stance, frankly, isn’t a surprise. It’s a sentiment that resonates with a deep-seated understanding of what’s at stake. Giving an aggressor an inch, history and common sense tell us, only emboldens them to take a mile. The idea of trading away Ukrainian land, the very ground where people live and have their lives, to appease an invader, is something that sparks outrage, even a sense of disbelief. It’s a position rooted in national dignity and a refusal to reward aggression.
This firm stance leads to the obvious question: how does this war end? The brutal reality is that without concessions, the path forward appears fraught with challenges. Some might suggest a long, drawn-out conflict, a war of attrition where Ukraine must somehow outlast a larger, better-resourced adversary. The alternative, that the US, or other nations, should put “boots on the ground” is a dangerous notion, opening up a whole host of complexities. But it’s clear that without a willingness to negotiate, and that means being willing to give up something, the fighting is likely to continue. It’s a difficult position, knowing the inherent risks and drawbacks of giving up land, but also the difficulty in continuing to fight.
The historical precedents are grim. Appeasing a tyrant rarely works. You give them a piece, and they come back for more. In this case, the stakes are not merely territory; it’s about the very survival of the nation and the future of its people. To cede territory now, is to suggest they were right and your willingness to fight was weak, a sentiment that doesn’t sit well with the citizens. Even if a ceasefire is reached, the long-term implications are worrying.
And then there’s the question of Russia’s motivation. Why would they agree to a peace deal without achieving their original goals? The answer, as it always is in these situations, may be more money, and more influence, potentially setting up future conflicts. Ukraine is in a difficult position of deciding what is best for the people.
Perhaps the end game is a negotiated settlement. Maybe some territorial concessions, alongside a huge compensation package using seized Russian assets, coupled with the establishment of NATO bases and troops. This kind of arrangement would offer Ukraine guarantees of security and economic support, making the concessions somewhat palatable. It is perhaps a way to make giving up land seem less like a loss.
Realistically, however, this seems unlikely. Russia’s intentions have always been bigger than just a few parcels of land, and this suggests that a deal is not what they have in mind. While it might seem like a lose-lose situation, they need to play the long game and see what develops. They are in a situation where they have to decide if giving up some land to get a peace is worth it, or if they need to fight more to hopefully win back everything. This is what Ukraine is wrestling with. This is what makes a peace deal so hard to achieve.