Can a peace agreement be reached in Ukraine without ceding territory to Russia?
theglobeandmail.com -- Sunday, August 17, 2025, 8:22:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Categories: U.S.–Russia Relations, U.S.–NATO Relations, Social Media & Public Statements
When Donald Trump hosts Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House on Monday, the U.S. President is set to turn up the pressure on his Ukrainian counterpart to agree to a peace deal with Vladimir Putin after Mr. Trump backed down from pressing the Russian leader for a ceasefire.
Mr. Zelensky, for his part, plans to bring a troop of fellow European leaders with him to the sit-down, hastily scheduled after Mr. Trump and Mr. Putin's Friday meeting in Alaska. They are expected to fight back against Russia's demand that Kyiv surrender swaths of territory to Moscow.
Mr. Trump, who once promised to broker an end to Mr. Putin's invasion of Ukraine within a day of taking office, has signalled that he wants an agreement in short order. But whether a conclusion is possible in the face of Mr. Putin's conditions and Mr. Trump's frequently changing position on the war remains unclear.
At stake is the outcome of Europe's deadliest fighting in 80 years. And at play is the once-unthinkable possibility that the U.S. might push to recognize Russian sovereignty over land that Moscow seized in an invasion.
The U.S. President sought to project optimism Sunday. "BIG PROGRESS ON RUSSIA. STAY TUNED!" he posted on Truth Social.
Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump's special envoy for peace missions, said the U.S. and European countries might offer Ukraine similar protection that NATO countries have under Article 5 of their collective defence pact as part of a peace agreement. Under such a scenario, the U.S. and other countries would promise to defend Ukraine if it were invaded again.
"The United States is potentially prepared to be able to give Article 5 security guarantees - but not from NATO - directly from the United States and other European countries," Mr. Witkoff said on Fox News on Sunday.
It remains to be seen whether Ukraine would trust such a guarantee. In 1994, the country gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees from the U.S., Britain and Russia, only for Russia to later invade and occupy swaths of its territory, starting with Crimea in 2014.
Mr. Witkoff said he was optimistic the Monday meeting would lead to a later trilateral gathering between Mr. Trump, Mr. Putin and Mr. Zelensky. He indicated that territorial concessions were on the table. "It is for the Ukrainians to decide how they might land swap, how they might make a deal with the Russians on different territories there."
Mr. Zelensky's squad at the meeting is expected to include British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and Finnish President Alexander Stubb.
Analysis: Truth will likely be the last casualty of war in Ukraine
Speaking to reporters in Brussels, Mr. Zelensky reiterated that "the constitution of Ukraine makes it impossible" for him "to give up territory or trade land."
And he poured cold water on Mr. Putin's reported demand that Kyiv cede land to Moscow that Russian troops don't even occupy, including the whole of Ukraine's Donbas industrial region. "We need real negotiations, which means they can start where the front line is now. The contact line is the best line for talking."
Prime Minister Mark Carney, who took part in a virtual meeting with Mr. Zelensky and the European leaders on Sunday, warned in a statement that "President Putin cannot be trusted" and any peace deal would therefore have to include "robust and credible security guarantees" for Ukraine, along with a strong Ukrainian military.
"Current diplomatic engagement must be reinforced by continued military and economic pressure on Russia to end its aggression," Mr. Carney said.
Before his Friday meeting with Mr. Putin, Mr. Trump repeatedly threatened to increase sanctions on Russia and said he was "not going to be happy" if the Russian leader didn't agree to a ceasefire.
After the tête-à-tête, however, Mr. Trump changed his mind. He expressed agreement with Mr. Putin, saying it was on Mr. Zelensky to "make a deal" with Russia, without Russia having to pause fighting.
In an interview with Fox News, Mr. Trump said "it's really up to Zelensky to get it done" because "Russia is a very big power, and they're not." The U.S. President said his conversation with Mr. Putin was "very warm" and that Mr. Putin had backed Mr. Trump's false claim that the 2020 election was rigged against him.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday said sanctions might still be on the table if there is no peace agreement. "If this whole effort doesn't work out, then there is going to have to be additional consequences to Russia," he said on ABC.
He defended Mr. Trump's decision not to follow through on his previous sanction threats. "The minute you levy additional sanctions, strong additional sanctions, the talking stops," he said.
Sign Our PetitionThe ongoing conflict in Ukraine, now deepened by the complexities of international diplomacy, presents a stark reminder of historical struggles for sovereignty and self-determination. The recent news regarding President Donald Trump's meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky underscores the precarious nature of peace negotiations, especially when they involve the ceding of territory—a deeply contentious issue that echoes past injustices faced by nations in similar situations. The notion that peace might be brokered through territorial concessions is not only fraught with ethical dilemmas but also risks undermining the hard-fought autonomy of Ukraine in the face of aggression from Russia.
Historically, the Ukrainian struggle for sovereignty can be traced back to its complex relationship with Russia, characterized by periods of both autonomy and subjugation. After gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine has had to navigate a tumultuous geopolitical landscape, marked by Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea and the subsequent conflict in Eastern Ukraine. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, where Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from the U.S., U.K., and Russia, serves as a poignant reminder of the fragility of such promises. The failure of these guarantees in the face of Russian aggression raises serious questions about the reliability of any new agreements that might emerge from Trump's negotiations.
The proposed peace agreement that may involve territorial concessions highlights a recurring theme in international relations: the tendency of powerful nations to prioritize strategic interests over the rights and desires of smaller nations. Trump's emphasis on a rapid resolution to the conflict, while seemingly pragmatic, could easily be interpreted as a disregard for the complexities of Ukrainian identity and territorial integrity. This pattern of sacrificing the autonomy of vulnerable states for the sake of expediency has historical precedents, from the Munich Agreement of 1938 to various colonial land deals, and it often results in long-term instability and resentment among the affected populations.
Moreover, the inclusion of key European leaders in the negotiations, while promising a semblance of unity, raises critical questions about the efficacy of these discussions in genuinely representing Ukrainian interests. The presence of leaders like Macron and Starmer may offer a platform for collective European security, yet it remains to be seen whether their contributions will counterbalance the pressure from Trump's administration, which has historically shown a tendency to favor expedient diplomatic solutions over principled stances on sovereignty and human rights. As Zelensky and his allies navigate this landscape, it is essential to recognize the historical precedents that inform their decisions, particularly the implications of any concessions made under duress.
The potential for a U.S.-led agreement to provide "Article 5-like" security guarantees to Ukraine is fraught with ambiguity. While such assurances may sound promising on the surface, they recall a pattern in which the West has made commitments that fall short of effective deterrence when faced with aggressive state actors. The experience of other nations in similar circumstances—such as the Baltic states during the early 2000s—demonstrates the limitations of security guarantees when the geopolitical calculus shifts, as it often does under the pressures of realpolitik. Trust, once broken, is difficult to rebuild, and Ukraine's historical experiences of betrayal should not be overlooked in these deliberations.
In conclusion, as discussions unfold in Washington, the implications extend far beyond the immediate context of the Ukraine conflict. The negotiations encapsulate a broader struggle over national sovereignty and the ethical responsibilities of powerful nations. Advocating for a peace process that respects territorial integrity and national autonomy aligns not only with historical lessons but also with the ongoing global movement toward justice and self-determination. It is incumbent upon all who engage in this discourse to remember that true peace cannot be achieved at the expense of the fundamental rights of nations, and any resolution must prioritize the voices and aspirations of the Ukrainian people themselves.
The ongoing conflict in Ukraine presents a complex interplay of geopolitics, historical grievances, and the ongoing struggle for national sovereignty. As President Trump prepares to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, the stakes are elevated, as the potential for territorial concessions to Russia looms large over the meeting. This situation is a vivid reminder of the historical context in which Ukraine has navigated its independence since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which saw Ukraine relinquish its nuclear arsenal in exchange for security assurances from the U.S., U.K., and Russia, exemplifies the fragility of such agreements. The current dialogue in which the U.S. considers recognizing Russian sovereignty over annexed territories raises profound questions about the integrity of international commitments and the rights of nations to self-determination.
Historically, Ukraine has been a contested space, often caught between larger powers, particularly Russia and the West. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 allowed Ukraine to assert its independence, but the legacy of Soviet dominance has continued to shape its political landscape. The 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia was not just an act of aggression but a manifestation of deep-seated historical claims and geopolitical strategy. The ongoing conflict has resulted in significant loss of life and displacement, making the resolution of this crisis not just a political necessity but a humanitarian imperative. As American citizens, it is crucial to acknowledge this historical context to fully grasp the stakes involved in the current negotiations.
A significant concern surrounding the potential peace agreement is the idea of territorial concessions, which could set a dangerous precedent not only for Ukraine but for international law and the principle of sovereignty globally. The suggestion that Ukraine should negotiate territorial swaps or concessions to appease Russian demands undermines the very foundations of national integrity and could embolden other aggressive territorial claims. This perspective is vital for discussions with those who may dismiss the implications of such negotiations. The principle of self-determination is a cornerstone of international relations, and any agreement that compromises this principle could have far-reaching consequences.
As engaged citizens, Americans can advocate for a more principled approach to the situation in Ukraine. It is imperative that we press our representatives to support Ukraine's sovereignty unequivocally, resisting any push towards territorial compromise. This can be achieved by bolstering diplomatic efforts that emphasize international law, providing humanitarian aid, and maintaining sanctions against Russia until there is a clear and just resolution that prioritizes Ukraine's rights. Engaging in public discourse, attending town hall meetings, and using social media platforms to raise awareness can amplify calls for a stronger stance against any negotiations that involve ceding territory.
Moreover, educating ourselves and others about the historical context and current dynamics of the Ukraine crisis is essential. Hosting community discussions, workshops, and informational sessions can foster a deeper understanding of the implications of the conflict. Collaborating with advocacy groups that focus on human rights and sovereignty can also amplify our voices. By promoting awareness and understanding, we can cultivate a more informed public discourse that challenges any narrative that suggests territorial concessions are acceptable. Ultimately, our collective action can contribute to a more just and equitable resolution in Ukraine, ensuring that its sovereignty is respected and upheld on the global stage.
Analyzing the situation regarding Ukraine and the ongoing negotiations for a peace agreement presents numerous avenues for personal action and advocacy. Here are several ideas, including specific actions, to engage in this critical issue:
### 1. **Educate Yourself and Others** - **Action:** Stay informed about the situation in Ukraine and the dynamics of international relations. Share this information with friends, family, and community members. - **Example:** Read reputable news sources, listen to podcasts, or watch documentaries covering the history of Ukraine-Russia relations.
### 2. **Support Ukrainian Organizations** - **Action:** Contribute to or volunteer with organizations providing assistance to Ukraine. - **Example:** Consider donating to organizations such as the Ukrainian Red Cross or Razom for Ukraine, which focus on humanitarian aid and support.
### 3. **Engage in Advocacy** - **Action:** Write to your elected officials urging them to take a strong stance against territorial concessions to Russia. - **Who to Write To:** - **Your Senators:** Find your senators at [senate.gov](https://www.senate.gov) and use the websites to locate their contact information. - **Your Representative:** Find your representative at [house.gov](https://www.house.gov) for contact details. - **What to Say:** Express your opposition to any peace agreement that involves ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia. Emphasize the importance of respecting Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
### 4. **Petition for Strong Policy Stances** - **Action:** Start or sign petitions that advocate for a strong U.S. position regarding Ukraine’s territorial rights. - **Example:** Use platforms like Change.org or MoveOn.org to find existing petitions or create one demanding that the U.S. government uphold Ukraine's sovereignty. - **Sample Petition Title:** “No Territorial Concessions: Stand by Ukraine’s Sovereignty!”
### 5. **Participate in Local or Virtual Events** - **Action:** Attend town halls, webinars, or community discussions focusing on Ukraine and international peace. - **Example:** Check local universities or community centers for events featuring experts in international relations or Ukrainian advocacy.
### 6. **Engage with Media** - **Action:** Write letters to the editor of local newspapers or respond to articles about Ukraine. - **Example:** Contact your local paper's editorial team via their website or email. Express your views on the need for a firm stance against territorial concessions. - **What to Say:** Highlight the potential dangers of appeasing aggressors and the moral obligation to support a sovereign nation fighting for its rights.
### 7. **Social Media Advocacy** - **Action:** Use social media platforms to raise awareness about the situation in Ukraine. - **Example:** Share articles, infographics, and personal views using hashtags like #StandWithUkraine or #SupportUkrainianSovereignty.
### 8. **Engage with Ukrainian Community Groups** - **Action:** Connect with local Ukrainian cultural organizations or community groups to show support. - **Example:** Attend cultural events, fundraisers, or discussions that these groups organize to support Ukraine.
### 9. **Contact International Human Rights Organizations** - **Action:** Reach out to organizations focused on human rights, urging them to monitor and report on any peace negotiations. - **Who to Contact:** - **Amnesty International:** [amnesty.org](https://www.amnesty.org) - **Human Rights Watch:** [hrw.org](https://www.hrw.org) - **What to Say:** Request that they pay attention to the implications of proposed territorial concessions on human rights and international law.
### 10. **Stay Engaged with Global Movements** - **Action:** Join or support global movements or coalitions advocating for peace and justice in conflict areas. - **Example:** Look for international demonstrations or digital campaigns that call for peace in Ukraine and fair negotiations.
By taking these actions, individuals can contribute meaningfully to the discourse surrounding Ukraine, emphasizing the importance of sovereignty and the need for ethical international relations. This can foster a broader movement toward peace that respects the rights and dignity of all nations involved.