Asked in December 2025 what the biggest sticking point was in negotiating peace in Ukraine, U.S. President Donald Trump got straight to the point: land. “Some of that land has been taken. Some of that land is maybe up for grabs,” he added.

From the very beginning of the full-scale war, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has ruled out ceding territory to the invading Russians.

Yet, when the war in Ukraine finally grinds to a halt, it seems likely that Russia will, indeed, control vast portions of Ukrainian land in the south and the east – about 20% of Ukraine’s pre-2014 landmass, if today’s line of actual control is any guide.

Ukrainians have spent years trying to eject Russian forces from occupied areas in the Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson administrative regions. Captured and fortified by Russia in 2014, Crimea has been mostly out of reach. But despite Kyiv’s best efforts, Russia is now poised to seize even more Ukrainian territory if the war does not end soon.

The pressure on Zelenskyy to accept some sort of territorial loss only increases with each new peace plan presented – all of which include some degree of map redrawing in Russia’s favor. And although a majority of the Ukrainian public is against the idea of exchanging land for peace, pragmatists in the West, and even some within Ukraine, accept that this will almost certainly be part of any peace deal.

But then what? If Ukraine accepts the de facto loss of its eastern oblasts as the price of peace, should this be understood by Ukrainians as a permanent or a temporary concession? If the latter, what measures – if any – exist for Ukraine to eventually restore its territorial integrity?

As an international security expert, I would argue that it’s essential that Ukrainians and their international backers have clear-eyed answers to these questions now,........

© The Conversation