By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelenskyy recently proposed a “fair version” of a peace deal that would establish a ceasefire along the current line of contact. Under this proposal, Russian forces would remain in temporarily occupied territories within Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, with Ukraine aiming to regain these areas through diplomatic means. Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine cannot relinquish its territories based on constitutional constraints, particularly when discussing potential compromises with US partners. Furthermore, the President has stressed the necessity to avoid a failed peace process, despite the difficult outlook for negotiations.
Read the original article here
Zelenskyy on territories in “peace deal”: “Staying where we are” would be fair. The crux of the matter appears to revolve around the concept of a “peace deal” and the territorial status quo. The sentiment voiced suggests a pragmatic approach, emphasizing the realities of the situation on the ground rather than abstract notions of justice or fairness. The core idea is that Ukraine acknowledging the existing territorial lines, essentially staying where they are, could form the basis for a potential peace agreement. This suggests a recognition that militarily reclaiming all lost territories may be an insurmountable challenge and that a negotiated settlement, even a difficult one, might be the most viable path forward.
This position, however, is not presented as an ideal outcome. The comments highlight a deep-seated understanding of the inherent unfairness involved. Many contributions emphasize the loss of life, the devastation, and the profound trauma inflicted upon the Ukrainian people. There’s a clear acknowledgment that such a deal would be a hard compromise, a bitter pill to swallow. The emotional toll of accepting the loss of territory, especially after such significant sacrifices, is readily apparent. The very idea of negotiating with a party accused of egregious war crimes and aggression fuels a sense of deep frustration and anger.
The underlying rationale for considering this approach seems to stem from a sober assessment of the military and geopolitical realities. The notion that Ukraine, even with Western support, might not be able to reclaim all of its lost territories through force is a recurring theme. The comments suggest an understanding that Russia’s control over the occupied areas is entrenched, making military liberation incredibly difficult. This bleak assessment leads to the conclusion that holding onto what remains and accepting the current lines as a starting point for negotiation could be the most realistic approach, even if it falls far short of ideal.
Several comments acknowledge the challenging political landscape, particularly the role of external actors like the United States and the European Union. Concerns are raised about the lack of robust support, the potential for wavering commitment, and the influence of political personalities on the negotiations. This underscores the complexities involved in brokering a lasting peace deal, highlighting the need for strong international backing and security guarantees. The importance of the EU and NATO in providing funds and security is pointed out.
Moreover, the discourse touches upon the long-term consequences of such a deal. There’s concern that ceding territory could embolden Russia, paving the way for future aggression. The sentiment is that giving Putin anything will continue to embolden him. The historical parallels to other conflicts, such as the Treaty of Versailles, are evoked, highlighting the potential for unresolved issues to fester and lead to renewed conflict down the line. The potential for Russia to exploit this deal, rebuilding its military and resources, to further expand its reach at a later date is a definite fear.
Despite the inherent unfairness and potential for future problems, the comments still reveal a practical mindset. The focus shifts towards what can be achieved realistically. The emphasis is on securing a peace that preserves Ukrainian independence and allows for future development and integration with the West. It is clearly understood that a peace deal won’t be perfect. The goal is to obtain peace, secure security guarantees, and get a path to development, even in the midst of loss and uncertainty.
Some viewpoints suggest that the strategic focus should shift to rebuilding Ukraine within its existing borders, potentially joining the EU and NATO. This perspective prioritizes economic stability, future security, and integration with the West over the immediate recovery of lost territories. By moving forward, it is thought that showing the populations in the areas that will remain under Russian control what they are missing will serve as a greater benefit.
The entire issue is not about fairness. War is not about fairness or justice. This means the situation has to be viewed from a realistic standpoint. In effect, the comments acknowledge the imperfections of any peace deal and offer a measured assessment of the options available. The consensus appears to be a willingness to seek a compromise, recognizing the limits of military force and the need to prioritize long-term stability and security, even if it means accepting a less-than-ideal outcome in the short term. The need to balance political pragmatism with the profound emotional costs of the war is at the heart of this perspective.
Ultimately, the comments indicate a difficult but realistic assessment of the situation: a “staying where we are” approach might be seen as fair, given the circumstances.