Ukrainian Lawmakers Reject Territory Cession in Peace Talks

Ukrainian lawmakers have expressed strong opposition to any potential referendum that would concede territory to Russia in exchange for peace. They argue that the public would overwhelmingly reject such an initiative, citing a deep-seated distrust of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s intentions. The concerns were voiced during discussions in Kyiv on March 15, 2024.

Kira Rudik, a member of Ukraine’s parliament representing the opposition Holos Party, emphasized that trust is the central issue. After twelve years of conflict and ongoing atrocities, she remarked, “The question that we are constantly asking is, who or what will make sure that Putin will keep his part of the deal?” Rudik highlighted that since Russia’s initial aggression in 2014, Putin has never demonstrated reliability in upholding agreements.

Echoing these sentiments, Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze from the European Solidarity Party asserted that Russia’s ultimate aim is to erase Ukraine’s existence. “The majority of the Ukrainian population is not ready to give in on any part of Ukrainian territory,” she stated. Klympush-Tsintsadze stressed that any territorial concession would only embolden further Russian aggression.

As the Trump administration and other international actors explore cease-fire options, there is increasing pressure on Kyiv to consider compromises regarding territory. Rudik noted that any proposal resembling capitulation would likely provoke significant public backlash. “The end of the war,” she explained, “is when Russia is weakened to the point where they cannot continue.”

To achieve this, Rudik called for enhanced support from Western allies, advocating for additional sanctions, humanitarian aid, and military supplies. “We exceeded expectations in defending ourselves,” she remarked. “Give us one more game-changer, and we will change the game.”

The skepticism surrounding any peace deal is further complicated by the perceived failure of the United States and the United Kingdom to uphold their commitments under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. This agreement promised protection for Ukraine in exchange for the relinquishment of its nuclear arsenal. Although the US has offered vague security guarantees, many Ukrainians remain unconvinced that such promises would materialize if Russia were to invade again.

“The only security guarantee to prevent Russian attacks is for us to get together, ensuring Russia’s strategic defeat and Ukraine joining NATO,” Klympush-Tsintsadze stated. She emphasized that NATO membership represents the most effective deterrent against further aggression, asserting that Russia’s unwillingness to accept Ukraine in NATO stems from its desire to launch future attacks.

Negotiators from the US maintain that Russia would cease its invasion if it were granted control over the approximately 15% of the Donbas region it does not currently occupy. However, the Kremlin has not publicly committed to this condition. Following its invasion in February 2022, Russia annexed territories in the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia regions, a move deemed illegal by the international community.

The proposed US-brokered agreement would effectively freeze the frontline, allowing both Russia and Ukraine to retain control over the territories they occupy. This arrangement would require Ukraine to surrender its fortified positions in Donetsk and Luhansk. Nonetheless, Rudik warned that any temporary satisfaction for Russia might lead to renewed demands for the remainder of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

“In two or three years, Putin — or anyone coming after him — will say, ‘You know what? We changed our mind. We’re coming back,’” Rudik cautioned. She believes that a referendum framed as a choice between ceding territory and peace would likely fail, as the public would perceive it as a risky gamble without credible assurances. “Putin’s word? I seriously doubt it,” she concluded.

Rudik also raised concerns about the commitment of Western nations to Ukraine’s defense should a new Russian offensive occur. “Security pledges that promise military support if Russia attacks again basically mean that, if Russia attacks us, those countries will go to war with Russia,” she noted. “Is anybody really ready to do that?”

Klympush-Tsintsadze articulated a broader view of Putin’s ambitions, suggesting that his goals extend beyond the Donbas. She argued that the Russian leader seeks to re-establish Soviet-era influence and control over Central Europe. “We don’t even have to make it up — we just listen to what Putin says,” she asserted. “He wants to return to Cold War boundaries, claiming the right to control all of Central Europe.”

Ultimately, both lawmakers assert that the conflict is about more than territorial disputes; it is a struggle against a worldview that seeks to undermine the prosperity and development achieved on the European continent.