Surrendering Territory to Russia Won’t Bring Peace

Share

Despite some calls for Ukraine to surrender territory to Russia in hopes of achieving peace, the historical and current actions of Moscow indicate that such concessions would likely only delay further aggression. Russia’s past and present rhetoric and strategic moves reveal a pattern of using temporary ceasefires and territorial gains to regroup and push for more ambitious goals. This is evident from its repeated violations of the Minsk agreements, its actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and statements made by Russian officials that signal long-term aspirations extending beyond Ukraine.

When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014 and began its occupation of eastern Ukraine, it claimed to be “liberating” these areas and protecting the interests of ethnic Russians. However, even after solidifying its control over Crimea and large portions of Donetsk and Luhansk, Russia pushed further into Ukrainian territory during its full-scale invasion in 2022. Moscow’s official rhetoric quickly shifted to demanding the “demilitarization” and “denazification” of all of Ukraine—a broad and ambiguous goal that signaled intentions far beyond securing the eastern regions. By 2023, Russian military efforts expanded deeper into areas like Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and the outskirts of Kyiv, revealing a goal to control most or all of Ukraine.

Statements by Russian officials further support that territorial concessions would not satisfy Moscow’s goals. Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly alluded to the idea that Ukraine does not have a right to independent statehood. In a 2021 essay, Putin claimed that Russians and Ukrainians are “one people,” implying that Ukraine’s independence is a historical anomaly rather than a legitimate statehood​.

Similarly, former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev referred to Ukraine as a “failed state” and warned that Russia would continue its efforts until its strategic objectives were achieved.

Furthermore, some Russian military and political figures have made explicit statements about objectives extending into NATO territories. For example, Russian state TV hosts have discussed scenarios in which Russian forces could strike European capitals such as Berlin and London, framing these discussions as part of a broader strategy to dismantle NATO’s influence. Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s Foreign Minister, suggested in 2022 that NATO’s continued support for Ukraine represented an existential threat to Russia that might necessitate military action beyond Ukraine’s borders. In another statement, Russian State Duma member Andrey Kartapolov implied that the “special military operation” could eventually involve reclaiming territories lost since the Soviet Union’s collapse.

This rhetoric, combined with Russia’s repeated pattern of violating agreements and pursuing further territorial gains, strongly indicates that surrendering land to Russia would not achieve lasting peace. Historical examples underscore this reality. The annexation of Crimea in 2014, initially framed as a defensive move, emboldened Russia to pursue further incursions into Donbas and beyond. This mirrors other situations, such as Nazi Germany’s expansion after the Munich Agreement, where initial concessions only fueled greater intentions.

Giving up territory would provide Russia with an opportunity to regroup and rebuild its military capabilities, paving the way for future offensives. The pattern of violating agreements like Minsk I and II, the ongoing rhetoric of Russian officials, and historical precedents all point to a grim reality: any concessions by Ukraine would likely be interpreted as a signal of weakness, encouraging Russia to press forward upon replenishing its military. To achieve lasting peace, the international community must continue to support Ukraine’s sovereignty and enforce consequences for Russia’s expansionist aggression.

warmonitor.net is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program.

Back To Top