Despite several rounds of direct talks, Russia and Ukraine remain far apart when it comes to agreeing the terms of a ceasefire. The prospects of a permanent peace settlement are dimmer still. One of the biggest stumbling blocks is the question of land – namely, how much of Ukraine’s prewar territory should Russia be allowed to occupy?

In the past, Kyiv and its strongest Western backers held that Russian forces must be expelled from every inch of Ukraine before peace could be contemplated. Even those who privately judged a military victory over Russia to be highly unlikely were forced to maintain in public that Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity were inviolable. This view was rooted in a deep respect for international law but was also rhetorically popular in Ukraine and among most Western publics.

The Inevitability of Territorial Losses

Today, though, the conversation about territory has shifted in line with some unforgiving battlefield realities. Ukraine has had four years to eject Russia from its eastern oblasts but has failed to do so. As a result, there is now a realization that peace will have to precede a restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity rather than the other way around. Even worse, it is increasingly accepted that Ukraine might never regain its lost territories – that Russia’s occupation of Crimea, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk might become permanent.

Such pessimism is entirely justified. There is precious little chance that Ukraine will overturn Russia’s conquests through fighting. Nor is there any indication that Moscow will give up via negotiation what Kyiv cannot wrestle away through force of arms. The only question is whether Ukraine can be bullied into ceding even more territory to........

© OpenCanada