Op-ed by Irwin Redlener in The Hill
As Russian and Ukrainian negotiators prepare to resume peace talks in Europe — temporarily on “situational” hold because of fighting in the Middle East — pressure is mounting for Kyiv to accept extraordinary territorial concessions of, from my estimate, roughly 22 percent of its sovereign land as the price of a ceasefire. That’s consistent with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s demands which, unfortunately, are reflected in the Trump administration’s 28-point peace plan floated in November 2025.
Four years into the bloodiest conflict in Europe since World War II, fatigue is understandable. The human toll has been staggering. But a settlement that rewards territorial conquest would not stabilize Europe. It would legitimize the use of force to redraw borders, weaken NATO’s deterrent credibility and invite renewed aggression — in Ukraine or elsewhere — once Moscow has regrouped and rearmed. No durable European security order can rest on the premise that exhaustion justifies the surrender of sovereign territory.
Putin is demanding that Ukraine cede the oblasts of Donetsk, Luhansk and Zaporizhzhia — including the site of one of Europe’s largest nuclear power plant complexes — in addition to Crimea, illegally annexed in 2014. Together, these regions comprise more than 51,000 square miles, approximately 22 percent of Ukraine’s territory. Formalizing their absorption into Russia would signal that sustained aggression and systematic brutality can produce permanent geopolitical gains.
There are compelling reasons Ukraine should not — and in many respects cannot — agree to sacrificing territory for peace, even if security guarantees could somehow be verifiably assured.
