Table of Contents
The ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine has brought to light the critical issue of territory in peace negotiations. President Volodymyr Zelensky has identified territorial integrity as the most challenging aspect of the discussions aimed at ending the war. Meanwhile, Russian President Vladimir Putin has proposed the Trump administration’s controversial 28-point plan as a potential foundation for a peace agreement. The tug-of-war over control of the Donbas region remains a significant hurdle, with both sides firmly entrenched in their positions.
As recent negotiations unfolded, it became evident that both Kyiv and Moscow are shifting their focus towards territory as a defining line in the talks. Meduza has undertaken an analysis utilizing maps, military theories, and graphs to illustrate the current standoff and the potential pathways to peace.
Progress and challenges in the peace talks
The latest round of discussions commenced on November 19, coinciding with reports of a new plan being drafted quietly by Russia and the United States. The release of the 28-point proposal immediately drew fire for resembling a list of demands favored by the Kremlin. Just days later, Putin suggested that this plan could be the groundwork for a comprehensive peace settlement.
Negotiations become chaotic
The negotiation process has been marked by confusion, with leaks of private communications and delegations traveling extensively for face-to-face meetings. Zelensky, along with his European allies, has sought to refine the 28-point proposal, yet the public has yet to see a revised version, and the issue of territory remains unresolved. Putin has consistently called for Ukraine to withdraw its military presence from the Donbas, a demand Kyiv has outright rejected.
Zelensky has reiterated that territorial disputes are the most formidable challenge in the negotiations. Following a lengthy session at the Kremlin on December 2, U.S. negotiators including special envoy Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were unable to extract any concessions from Putin. Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov confirmed that territorial claims remain the primary concern for Russia.
Shifting dynamics in the conflict
President Trump’s desire for a swift resolution has resulted in a fluctuating negotiation process, wherein the U.S. has been seen applying pressure on both parties. This strategy, initially outlined by Keith Kellogg, Trump’s Ukrainian envoy, has contributed to the current stalemate.
The objectives of both Russia and Ukraine in these discussions remain somewhat ambiguous. Initially, it seemed that both sides were attempting to persuade Trump that the other was the primary obstacle to peace. However, recent dialogues suggest that both parties are not fundamentally opposed to achieving peace, and their terms may be converging. Factors such as battlefield developments, economic pressures, and domestic political landscapes are also influencing their positions.
Territorial demands revealed
According to the leaked document outlining the Trump administration’s peace strategy, the issue of territories is addressed in point 21. While Putin appears steadfast in his desire to control the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, he has not completely abandoned the ambition to seize additional territories such as Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Despite these claims, he continues to urge Ukraine to withdraw from the areas it occupies.
Interestingly, there are indications that Russian authorities may be considering compromises as they assess the implications of Trump’s plan. Following a meeting between Putin and Trump, Russian officials seemed to soften their demands regarding the complete transfer of all contested regions.
Future implications and strategic considerations
Whether Putin would accept the status of territories outlined in the American proposal remains uncertain. A Russian official noted that there are three non-negotiable pillars for Moscow: the Donbas territory, limitations on Ukraine’s military capabilities, and recognition of these territories by the U.S. and its allies.
Ukraine, on the other hand, is resistant to the idea of a land swap, with Zelensky asserting that discussions concerning territory should only follow a ceasefire agreement. Conversely, Kremlin representatives insist that a ceasefire can only occur after Ukrainian troops have vacated the contested areas.
Historical context and economic factors
Historically, such territorial disputes have led to protracted negotiations. The regions under Ukrainian control in the Donbas, particularly around Kramatorsk and Sloviansk, hold marginal strategic significance compared to territories already occupied by Russia. Prior to the full-scale invasion in, less than 700,000 residents lived in these areas, and many have since fled as hostilities escalated.
The war’s impact has devastated the local economy and infrastructure, particularly in regions crucial for industrial production. The Severskiy Donetsk-Donbas canal is essential for water supply, yet capturing this resource does not guarantee an end to the water crisis for the cities in Donetsk, as the reservoirs are located in areas still controlled by Ukraine.
Ultimately, the ongoing conflict reflects a complex web of interests and strategic calculations. Both sides seem locked in a struggle over what they deem to be an indivisible good, making it difficult to reach a compromise. As the situation evolves, there is hope that continued dialogue, alongside economic and military developments, might pave the way for a resolution to this enduring conflict.