By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Zelenskyy has stated that proposals for Ukraine to withdraw from Donetsk Oblast without a fight are dangerous, believing Russia’s ambitions extend beyond this region. He argues that Russia is attempting to persuade the United States that a Ukrainian withdrawal from Donbas would lead to immediate peace. Zelenskyy emphasized that Ukraine cannot abandon its territory, as Russia’s primary goal remains the occupation of Ukraine, and yielding to this demand could embolden further aggression.
Read the original article here
It seems the core of the matter, as President Zelenskyy might articulate it, is that Russia’s ultimate objective in the Donbas isn’t about grand territorial gains, but rather about securing a victory they can present to their own people, however small. The sheer scale of what it would take to fully occupy the Donbas – estimated at another 18 to 24 months and a staggering half-million casualties, with a total of 1.5 million casualties – highlights just how disproportionate the effort would be for any truly significant territorial acquisition. This suggests that the current military focus is less about comprehensive conquest and more about achieving a defined, albeit minimal, objective.
There’s a persistent hope within some circles, it appears, that influential figures might pressure Ukraine into ceding its most fortified defensive lines. This idea is met with incredulity, and rightly so, given that such a move would be tantamount to suicide for Ukraine. They’ve already made significant concessions in the past, notably relinquishing their nuclear arsenal under external pressure. The argument here is that any such pressure should be directed squarely at Moscow, and not just diplomatically, but through tangible, kinetic means. The conviction is that Russia must be made to lose, unequivocally, because any perception of victory, no matter how minor, would only embolden them to initiate further conflicts.
Looking at Russia’s historical trajectory of aggression, one can see a pattern of increasingly localized ambitions. From the grand pronouncements of conquering the world in two years, then Europe, then Ukraine, the current focus has narrowed to occupying individual Ukrainian towns. This gradual reduction in scope, over decades, speaks volumes about their diminishing capacity and the increasing difficulty they face in achieving their aims. The fact that they haven’t been able to fully occupy the Donbas since 2014 is, frankly, an embarrassment to a nation with such aspirations.
The question then arises: what is truly driving this relentless pursuit of a marginal gain in Donbas? It’s hard to imagine that Vladimir Putin sacrificed so much – the lives of potentially a million people, severed relations with the West, crippled his own economy, made Russia dependent on China, turned Ukrainians into lifelong enemies, and jeopardized Russia’s strategic future – solely to expand his country’s territory by a mere 0.3%. The narrative that they would achieve this limited objective and then simply “calm down” seems incredibly naive. The war has already exacted an immense cost on Russia, incalculable in its human and economic toll.
So, if this is merely a “minimum goal,” it highlights a deeply concerning lack of ambition relative to the sacrifices made. Millions of lives lost for what are essentially iron mines – it’s a pathetic and tragic waste. The prevailing sentiment is that Russia should be allowed to continue its own self-destruction, leading to its eventual collapse. The current situation is so dire for Russia that any victory they might claim in the Donbas would be a hollow one, achieved at an almost unimaginable price.
The notion that Russia has, in some way, already occupied and therefore “won” the Donbas is a flawed perspective. They have not fully occupied it, and the ongoing demand for Ukraine to surrender key cities without a fight underscores this. The question then becomes whether Ukraine can realistically sustain the defense of these territories, or if it’s merely a matter of time and resources favoring the Russian side. If, in a few years, the region is irrevocably lost, Ukraine must weigh the cost in lives and mounting debt against the potential for even greater Russian losses and a further crippled Russian economy.
Given Ukraine’s population size and its existing demographic challenges, coupled with the understanding that Russia’s territorial ambitions are unlikely to stop at the Donbas, the situation is precarious. The point of no return for a peaceful resolution or territorial concession was likely in 2014, and certainly passed by in 2022 when initial predictions of swift Russian victory failed to materialize. Russia will undoubtedly claim victory, even if they lose all the land they’ve stolen, perhaps by clinging to the hollow justification of “de-Nazification.”
There’s a perception that Western politicians are deliberately providing just enough aid to Ukraine to prevent a decisive Russian victory, but not enough to ensure a Ukrainian one. This creates a slow, grinding war of attrition, where Ukraine gradually loses ground. The same critique can be leveled at the US, suggesting a desire for a major Russian defeat, perhaps involving the sinking of their aircraft carriers, to curb their perceived global bullying.
However, some analyses suggest Russia is actually winning the war, albeit at an enormous strategic cost. They have a considerable number of Ukrainian civilians under their occupation, and while their pre-war population was already declining, the war’s impact, combined with those fleeing, has created a complex demographic picture. Despite sanctions, Russia maintains low unemployment and a manageable deficit, allowing for substantial rearmament potential after the conflict.
This is precisely why the war drags on. Ukraine and its allies understand that a premature end, without robust security guarantees, would leave Ukraine in a strategically weaker position in the future, especially if Western support wanes. Ceding any occupied territory to Russia is a significant risk, as it emboldens their future aggressions. Russia has, in many respects, achieved very little relative to its immense expenditure, but they are making territorial gains. The chilling prospect is that, even after this devastating conflict, they can still rebuild their military and potentially pose a threat again in a couple of decades.
The fundamental issue is trust, or the complete lack thereof. Russia has demonstrated time and again that its word holds no value. Any perceived victory, no matter how minimal, will be seen as a green light for future aggressions. This isn’t a hypothetical scenario; it’s their established modus operandi. There can be no meaningful peace deal without complete Russian demilitarization. Any other arrangement would be a temporary pause, allowing them to rearm and attack again. The war in Europe is a stark reality, and it will only end with the decisive defeat of the entire Russian military. The question is simply what is required to achieve that outcome.