Why Ukraine Resolves to Retain Its Lands

The importance of Ukraine's territorial integrity transcends mere transactional considerations.

Ukrainian forces maintain control over 2,550 square miles of the eastern region called Donbas, a land mass comparable to Delaware. This may seem inconsequential to many, including President Donald Trump, who recently convened with Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House. They might view this as a trivial cost for concluding a conflict spanning over three years, which has claimed numerous Ukrainian lives.

Following discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska, Trump seemed to modify his stance on resolving the war. He rescinded his demand for an immediate ceasefire and conveyed to European leaders his preference for a resolution in which Ukraine relinquishes territories yet unconquered by Russia. Publicly, he has advocated for 'land swapping,' even though reports suggest Russia is amenable only to exchanging minimal territories elsewhere.

Details remain ambiguous, but Putin's position during the Alaska meeting reportedly involved ceding the entire Donbas region—comprising Donetsk and Luhansk—resulting in Ukrainian withdrawal from current front lines. Territories in other contested regions—Zaporizhzhia and Kherson—would remain static.

The extent to which Trump pressured Zelensky during their White House meeting to accept these terms remains uncertain. Zelensky noted that discussions about territorial concessions would occur in a future summit involving Putin, and cryptically thanked Trump 'for the map,' hinting at detailed talks. When pressed by a Fox News journalist on potentially 'redrawing the map,' Zelensky sidestepped the inquiry. Reports likened conceding Donetsk to Trump relinquishing eastern Florida, drawing a notable reaction from the U.S. President.

The concessions proposed in recent Russian discussions could gravely impact Ukraine's security and set a perilous global precedent, potentially endorsing military land appropriations by force.

Donbas: A Region Ukraine Won't Relinquish

Since 2014, segments of Donetsk and Luhansk have been under Russian force or proxy control, with formal annexation by Russia occurring in 2022, despite incomplete dominance. Russia currently possesses nearly all of Luhansk and a substantial portion of Donetsk. This may prompt even pro-Ukraine observers to question the worth of continued sacrifice.

Ukraine’s official stance throughout the conflict was unwavering: liberate every inch of occupied territory, including lands seized by Russia since 2014. This stance, which Ukrainian activist Olena Halushka among others finds crucial, implies severe personal and national cost.

As Trump's presidency progressed, Ukrainian authorities' statements suggested a softened stance, indicating a full reclamation might not be feasible shortly. In various polls, many Ukrainians expressed openness to some territorial concessions if it would end the war.

However, the discrepancy between halting current hostilities and ceding as-yet-unconquered land is substantial.

The critical distinction involves future military strategy for Ukraine. Despite controlling only portions of Donbas, these areas form a 'fortress belt' crucial for defense. This fortified corridor, developed over more than a decade, provides strategic advantage and would take Russia years to conquer at the current pace. Ceding these defenses would compel relocations to less advantageous open terrain.

"Defense in the region centers on towns like Kramatorsk and Sloviansk," explains Franz-Stefan Gady, an expert who frequently assesses the local frontlines.

Despite international norms taking a hit, the convention against seizing foreign territories remains largely respected.

Recent Russian advancements in Donbas notwithstanding, Gady believes Russia lacks the manpower for sustained urban warfare. An attempt to capture key cities would be arduous and costly for Russian forces.

Trump might accept reassurances from Russia regarding territorial ambitions at apparent face value, with promises of legal codification in Russia upon a peace deal. Yet, Ukraine's trust in such promises is predictably low, especially given the emphasis Ukrainian and European officials place on security assurances post-conflict.

Political ramifications present another deterrent. Even if military recapture of all territories seems unlikely, Zelensky maintains that constitutionally, he lacks the authority to barter or surrender land.

While seemingly antagonistic, these views aren’t irreconcilable. There’s historical precedence for a stalemate without ceding legitimacy to territorial claims. The Korean Armistice halted combat without resolution. Persisting occupation by Russians might be unenforced but remains officially unrecognized.

Countries globally reject Russia's claim over Crimea, maintaining it is part of Ukraine, despite Trump intimating possible formal U.S. recognition of Russian sovereignty in a peace framework.

Ultimately, differentiating between acknowledging military realities and formally conceding land requires navigating sensitive political waters. Although Zelensky's ratings aren't as strong, he might still persuade Ukrainians to freeze current positions, enabling eventual reunification hopes akin to the Baltic states post-Soviet era.

"Battles at Bakhmut and Avdiyivka showcase fierce resistance," Halushka noted, underlining past sacrifices amid Russia's campaigns aimed not at military victory but morale shock.

Any legal acknowledgment of territorial loss could reverberate globally. The UN Charter starkly prohibits force as a means to slice sovereign borders.

Past attempts to vanquish this norm, like Iraq’s Kuwaiti annexation or Argentina's Falklands conflict, largely ended in retreat.

Russia has tested these limits with Crimea’s annexation and backing separatist regions in Georgia. Nevertheless, global consensus largely considers these breaches illegitimate. Handing Donbas to Russia would be unprecedented in bestowing political legitimacy on brute conquest.

"The gap between de jure and de facto recognition is critical," says University of Minnesota’s Tanisha Fazal. De jure, in this case, would flagrantly infringe the law, whereas de facto would at least preserve some legal status.

Other states, like Venezuela with Guyana or China's strife over Taiwan, could see such acknowledgment as precedent-setting. Venezuela might interpret it as encouragement for its territorial ambitions, while China might welcome an American perspective that embraces a more transactional territorial outlook.

For Trump, Land is a Commodity

Former real estate magnate Trump exhibits a fluid perception of international borders, contemplating acquisitions like Canada and Greenland or reminiscing 19th-century practices when Alaska’s former Russian ties were highlighted with last week’s summit locale.

Frequent territorial adjustments have become rare, partly due to America’s consistent stance opposing border redraws by force—a standpoint upheld by virtually every recent U.S. leadership until now.

"He doesn’t grasp the nationalist sentiment tied to land," notes Monica Duffy-Toft from Tufts University, critiquing Trump's reduction of geopolitical matters to a real estate framework.

Admiration for past imperial policies may underlie Trump’s vision, which some speculate aims to resurrect a bygone era of global powers negotiating smaller states’ futures. Yet, imagining such dynamics today—where challenges include advanced weaponry—is incredibly complex.