Ukraine's Unyielding Battle for Sovereignty: The Regions Putin Craves but Doesn't Control
The war in Ukraine has become a complex chess game, with territories as the pawns and global powers as the players. But here's where it gets controversial: while maps clearly show the regions Vladimir Putin does not hold, his relentless pursuit of them continues to shape the conflict. Recent efforts by Donald Trump's negotiating team, spanning from Kyiv to Abu Dhabi, have aimed to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia. Yet, these attempts have been met with skepticism, particularly after an American proposal was criticized for seemingly favoring Russia.
And this is the part most people miss: the so-called 28-point peace plan, later rebranded as a "concept," sparked outrage for its perceived sympathy toward Moscow. Leaks to U.S. media and accusations of bias amplified the drama, leading to a redrafted version with fewer points and more room for negotiation. However, the core issues remain: territorial division and future security guarantees for Ukraine.
Russia insists on no NATO troops on the ground, while the U.S. has proposed a NATO-style guarantee, treating any attack on Ukraine as an attack on America. Boldly, this raises a question: Can such a guarantee truly deter Russia, or does it risk escalating tensions further? Meanwhile, Trump's administration has suggested Ukraine might need to cede territory for peace, a notion Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy firmly rejects.
Analysts from the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) note that Russia's advances have accelerated since Putin's August visit to the U.S. for the Alaska summit. Yet, a military victory remains uncertain. The five key regions in contention—Luhansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, and Crimea—are at the heart of negotiations. Putin wants them all, but Ukraine's fortifications, particularly the "fortress belt" in Donetsk, have slowed Russian progress.
Here’s where it gets even more contentious: the original U.S. proposal suggested Ukraine withdraw from parts of Donetsk, turning it into a demilitarized buffer zone under Russian control. Zelenskyy and European leaders vehemently opposed this, arguing it would leave Ukraine vulnerable. The idea has since been shelved, but the implications are stark: hundreds of thousands of lives hang in the balance, and Ukraine’s defensive lines would be pushed closer to Kyiv.
Crimea and Kherson, illegally annexed by Russia in 2014, remain contentious. Putin’s treaties to absorb these regions into Russia were dismissed as illegitimate by Kyiv and the West. Yet, he insists these territories are Russian, framing Ukrainian forces as occupiers. A thought-provoking question arises: Can there ever be a peace deal that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty while addressing Russia’s territorial claims?
Zelenskyy has hinted at recognizing some areas as temporarily occupied but refuses any lawful recognition. Ukraine’s constitution, he argues, prohibits such concessions. Meanwhile, Putin views the "de facto" recognition of Crimea and the Donbas as a key negotiation point. But here’s the real dilemma: after nearly four years of war, with Russia controlling 19% of Ukraine, how much more territory is Ukraine willing—or able—to defend?
Other sticking points include Ukraine’s NATO aspirations and limits on its military size. The original U.S. proposal capped Ukraine’s military at 600,000 soldiers, fewer than it currently fields. This begs the question: Is limiting Ukraine’s defense capabilities a fair compromise, or does it undermine its ability to resist future aggression?
As negotiations continue, one thing is clear: the war’s outcome will reshape Europe’s geopolitical landscape. What do you think? Can a peace deal be reached without Ukraine sacrificing its sovereignty? Or is territorial compromise the only path to peace? Share your thoughts in the comments—this debate is far from over.
