EAST AND WEST

Ukraine’s Dilemma Between Territorial Integrity and the Quest to End The War

The idea of a “land for peace” agreement in Ukraine has moved from an unthinkable scenario to a subject of intense international debate. Negotiations in Abu Dhabi involving Ukrainian, Russian, and U.S. envoys, has revived discussions about potential compromises, even as Ukrainian officials continue to publicly reject permanent territorial concessions. The tension between Ukraine’s constitutional commitments, battlefield realities, and the strategic calculations of international allies has created a complex and evolving landscape in which the possibility of trading land for peace is simultaneously denied, explored, and politically fraught.
These negotiations come amid a volatile military environment, including massive Russian missile and drone strikes on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure during an intense winter cold snap, events that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has described as evidence that Moscow is seeking leverage at the negotiating table while continuing the war.
The renewed diplomatic effort has inevitably revived discussions about the potential framework of a peace settlement. Although Ukraine has energetically rejected territorial concessions in the past, Ukrainian leaders have hinted at nuanced positions. In earlier remarks, Zelensky suggested that a ceasefire might be possible if NATO extended protection to areas currently controlled by Kiev, allowing Ukraine to pursue the eventual return of occupied territories through diplomatic means rather than immediate military reconquest. Such statements have fueled speculation that Ukraine might be willing to accept a temporary status quo in which certain territories remain under Russian control without formal recognition. But it is difficult to imagine how Russia could realistically accept a settlement of this kind? Are these proposals just a posture then?
Ukrainian officials continue to publicly emphasize that permanent territorial concessions remain unacceptable. Zelensky and his government have repeatedly insisted that Ukraine’s constitution and national law prohibit the surrender of sovereign land without the consent of its citizens. Ukrainian political discourse consistently frames territorial integrity as a core principle of statehood and national survival.
The contradiction between public refusal and private negotiation has become one of the defining features of the current diplomatic moment. Ukrainian media outlets and analysts have increasingly described the concept of “land for peace” not as a straightforward concession but as a complex strategic debate about temporary ceasefires, demilitarized zones, and phased diplomatic solutions. According to Ukrainian sources, Kiev’s negotiating strategy focuses on securing security guarantees from Western partners before considering any compromise on the battlefield reality. In this sense, the issue is less about giving up land permanently and more about determining how to end active combat while preserving Ukraine’s long-term claim to occupied territories.
International pressure has played a significant role in bringing the “land for peace” question to the forefront. U.S.-drafted frameworks included proposals for Ukraine to relinquish parts of the Donbas or reduce its military capabilities as part of a settlement. Although Kiev amended or resisted elements of these plans, the fact that such proposals have circulated underscores the growing impatience among some Western policymakers seeking a negotiated end to the conflict. Ukrainian officials have responded by emphasizing that no agreement can be imposed without Ukrainian participation or consent, highlighting concerns about external pressure shaping the negotiation agenda.
On the battlefield, developments have further complicated the debate. Ukrainian officials believe Russia may be using ongoing offensives and intensified attacks to strengthen its negotiating position. Ukrainian reporting has suggested that Moscow has sometimes prolonged negotiations to seize additional territory, thereby increasing its leverage during diplomatic discussions. The recent surge in attacks on Ukrainian energy infrastructure during winter, which left thousands of buildings without heating, has reinforced Ukraine’s skepticism toward Russian intentions and its concern that concessions might embolden Russia in the future.
Despite these challenges, Ukrainian leadership continues to signal cautious openness to diplomacy. Zelensky has indicated that a ceasefire may become possible as military dynamics evolve, suggesting that current Russian offensives could represent the last major ground operations before meaningful negotiations. The government has also accepted new security arrangements with Western allies designed to deter future violations of ceasefires, demonstrating a willingness to explore political solutions under the right conditions.
Public opinion within Ukraine remains a decisive factor. Polling and media commentary consistently show widespread resistance to any agreement that permanently cedes territory to Russia. Ukrainian political leaders are acutely aware that domestic backlash could undermine the legitimacy of any settlement perceived as surrender. At the same time, war fatigue, economic hardship, and the ongoing humanitarian crisis have created growing pressure to find a path toward peace. The result is a political environment in which leaders must balance competing demands: maintaining national unity and sovereignty while seeking an end to relentless military and civilian suffering.
The international context further complicates the issue. NATO’s long-term support for Ukraine, combined with Western concerns about escalation and global security risks, has created incentives for compromise while also reinforcing Ukraine’s confidence in continuing resistance. The expiration of key arms control agreements between major powers has added urgency to negotiations, raising fears of a broader security crisis if the war continues indefinitely. For some Western policymakers, a “land for peace” deal may appear as a pragmatic solution to stabilize the region, but Ukrainian leaders too, exactly like their Russian counterparts, remain wary of arrangements that might freeze the conflict without resolving its underlying causes.
Critics argue that concession would reward aggression and set a dangerous precedent. But a stark binary choice — total victory or capitulation — has until now hardly been a successful strategy, neither for Ukraine and the West, nor for Russia.

You can find more articles like this in the latest issue of East and West 3 – 26 7 – 20 February 2026