By John Q. Hosedrinker 
As U.S. pressure on Ukraine grows, Ukrainians are largely opposed to Russian demands, particularly regarding territorial concessions. President Zelensky has stated that any decisions on territorial concessions should be decided by Ukrainians, potentially through a referendum, though this is complicated by martial law. Many Ukrainians view holding a vote during the war as unrealistic due to security concerns and logistical challenges. A recent survey showed that a significant majority of Ukrainians oppose plans that involve troop withdrawal from Donetsk Oblast, with many citizens emphasizing that they would not concede these territories to Russia.
Read the original article here
‘No need to hold referendums’ — Amid U.S. pressure, Ukrainians reject territorial concessions. It seems like the core sentiment, echoing strongly, is a firm “no” to giving up any Ukrainian territory. The prevailing attitude is that Ukraine has the upper hand, or at least a fighting chance, and shouldn’t even consider making concessions to Russia. This perspective is fueled by a belief that Russia is losing, suffering significant losses in both resources and morale, and that any negotiated peace at this point would be a victory for Russia, allowing them to regroup and potentially invade again later.
The idea of holding referendums, which might be perceived as legitimizing Russian control over occupied territories, is completely rejected. The feeling is that the Ukrainian people, who are bearing the brunt of the war, wouldn’t vote in favor of giving up their land. Their resilience and sacrifices should be honored, and their territorial integrity preserved. This viewpoint is reinforced by the belief that Russia should pay reparations for the devastation it has caused.
The discussion pivots around how the war is playing out on the ground. Russia’s military is perceived to be struggling, with dwindling resources, outdated equipment, and a declining economy. There are indications that their war machine is running out of steam and that they will require a long time to achieve their objectives at the current rate of advancement. It seems like Russian production can’t keep up with the losses on the battlefield. This is a crucial point, suggesting that Ukraine’s resistance is effective and wearing down the enemy.
The underlying frustration is evident. Some people are angry at the lack of more decisive actions by Western powers. They feel that the West should be fully committed to supporting Ukraine in regaining its territory. There is a sense of betrayal that the West is reluctant to commit to “boots on the ground”.
However, there is also the understanding that it is a complex situation. The role of the U.S. and its involvement is a point of contention. It’s suggested that powerful interests could be influencing decision-making, which can have an impact on the ability to aid Ukraine fully. The narrative is that the wealthy are in charge. The situation also includes discussions about the economy and the challenges in Russia.
Focus is given on the possibility of how Russia might recover quickly if sanctions were lifted and if it did not have to pay reparations. Some seem to dismiss any claim of Russia’s struggle. Although, there is an understanding that Russia is still launching missile attacks and is capable of causing damage. Some of the equipment lost is not relevant.
The discussion does acknowledge potential pressure from the U.S. to negotiate and perhaps even concede territory. But, the resistance to this pressure is palpable. The unwavering position is that Ukraine should not give up any land and should keep fighting until all its territories are reclaimed. The underlying theme is of Ukrainian strength and determination.
The support Ukraine receives from Europe is considered vital. While a few point out that the war is stalemated, it’s also argued that the defender, in a stalemate, usually comes out on top. This sentiment reinforces the conviction that Ukraine can prevail with continued support.