Zelenskyy’s dilemma: territory or peace? Experts weigh Ukraine’s tough choices

Ukraine may agree to the harshest concession to Russia’s demands to end the war — giving up territory in the Donetsk region, The Atlantic reports, citing two advisers to President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. To give the compromise a legitimate status, Kyiv is reportedly considering holding a referendum in the spring, in which Ukrainians could vote for or against a peace plan that includes territorial concessions, the publication writes.

According to The Atlantic sources, head of the Presidential Office Kyrylo Budanov is consulting with advisers on the legal and practical aspects of a possible troop withdrawal from Donbas. They are seeking ways to prevent Russian forces from entering the vacated areas and to persuade the public to accept such a deal, one source said.

Zelenskyy himself confirmed in an interview with The Atlantic that the referendum could take place alongside the presidential elections. But he stressed that it must be a good deal.

The key step toward peace, Zelenskyy emphasises, is security guarantees from the U.S. and Europe that would protect Ukraine from potential future attacks by Russia. Without such guarantees, any ceasefire would be meaningless in the eyes of many Ukrainians, because it would only give Russia the chance to prepare for a new invasion, he explains.

The latest round of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations in Abu Dhabi ended without progress on the territorial issue. Moscow has also shown no public willingness to accept the deployment of European troops on Ukrainian soil. Yet Ukrainians feel that time is running out, The Atlantic writes.

So, how credible is the information that Ukraine may agree to give up territory in the Donetsk region to end the war? Under what conditions could this become a reality? And are there any guarantees that even if Kyiv takes such a step, Russia will not resume its war against Ukraine in the near future?

Renowned foreign political analysts shared their assessments of these questions with Caliber.Az.

Russian political scientist, sociologist, and Doctor of Economics, co-founder and leading expert at the Center for Analysis and Strategies in Europe (Nicosia, Cyprus), Vladislav Inozemtsev, noted that it is difficult to judge how accurate the information is that Kyiv is ready to accept such terms. However, in his view, it would be a reasonable course of action.

“I have been saying since 2014, in Russia, Ukraine, and the West, that it is far better to give up a certain part of the territory while obtaining strong guarantees from Western countries regarding the territorial integrity of a new Ukraine. This includes steps related to joining the European Union, NATO, or similar arrangements, which is preferable to continuing an anti-terrorist operation or war. I have always believed that exchanging territory for peace and integration into Western structures is the right approach. After all, the constitution can always be rewritten in the manner of Germany, where the GDR was considered a temporarily separated territory, while the right of the eastern lands to return to a united Germany was acknowledged,” the analyst explained.

If this is done, it would undoubtedly be a positive development, he believes.

“The main question is to what extent Ukraine’s Western allies can provide security guarantees — this is the core of the current discussion around a peace treaty. The guarantees must be truly serious and binding.

As for whether Russia could start the war again, I am convinced that it will always want to, since Putin’s objective is to capture all of Ukraine and destroy it as a subject of international law. The key question is whether Russia could afford to do so: the cost of renewed aggression must be so high that it deters them from starting the war.

Such conditions are, in principle, possible because even the 2022 decision to launch a full-scale invasion was made in the Kremlin without anticipating subsequent events. No one expected the war to be so long, that Ukraine would endure with Western support, or that such broad sanctions would be imposed. Therefore, if the war ends under certain conditions, restarting it would be practically impossible,” Inozemtsev believes.

The head of the Ukrainian Policy Institute, analyst, and historian Konstantin Bondarenko sees the complexity of the situation in that Zelenskyy today finds himself caught between two fires.

“The U.S. is demanding that he agree to Russia’s terms (including territorial concessions in the Donetsk region). Europe is demanding the continuation of combat operations — recently, European politicians have made it clear: if Ukraine exits the war, Europeans will face the threat of war with Russia. Zelenskyy’s inner circle is divided in opinion. Zelenskyy himself leans more toward Europe’s position.

It is clear that under such circumstances, we cannot speak of Kyiv being ready to hand over the remaining part of Donbas to Russian control or withdraw Ukrainian troops from there. Yet Zelenskyy cannot give a firm ‘no’ to Trump: the U.S., while not providing direct financial aid, supplies highly valuable intelligence and components for air defence systems. Moreover, Zelenskyy’s defiance could push the U.S. into fully supporting Russia,” the historian explained.

For this reason, he says, Zelenskyy continues to manoeuvre: he proposes holding a referendum on the territorial issue (even though, according to Ukrainian law, a referendum concerning territorial integrity is prohibited), talks about security guarantees, a precise date for EU accession, a “free economic zone,” and so on — but not about withdrawing troops from Donbas.

“Zelenskyy’s latest statement concerns the fact that ‘200,000 Ukrainian citizens live in this territory, and we will not leave.’ The truth is, Zelenskyy forgets to mention how many Ukrainian lives it would cost to try to hold onto this territory.

At present, all of Zelenskyy’s proposals (including those regarding the introduction of a foreign contingent) point only to a readiness to continue the war, not a readiness to negotiate peace.

Regarding guarantees against the recurrence of armed conflict: in today’s world, there is only one real guarantee — good neighbourly relations with the relevant state. All other guarantees are more than conditional,” Bondarenko believes.