The Territorial Sticking Point Between Russia and Ukraine - The New York Times

The Territorial Sticking Point Between Russia and Ukraine - The New York Times FM: John Whitbeck Transmitted below is below, map-assisted consideration of the roughly 1% of immediate-post-Soviet-Union Ukrainian territory whose fate may now stand between continuing war and a potentially lasting peace. It is widely recognized that Ukraine lacks the military means to recover any of the roughly 19% of its immediate-post-Soviet-Union territory which is formally annexed by Russia and currently under Russian control and that Russia has both the incentive and the military means to continue fighting "for as long as it takes" to achieve full control of the two separatist Russian-majority Donbas oblasts which it recognized as independent states three days before launching its "Special Military Operation" (https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/02/24/the-territorial-integrity-of-states-vs-the-self-determination-of-peoples) and whose total "liberation" has always been Russia's primary proclaimed objective in this war . It would, obviously, be extremely difficult -- even potentially politically impossible -- for any Ukrainian leader to agree to the loss of territory over which Russia has been unable to achieve control after almost four years of war. However, if Ukraine were to choose to continue the war until Russia does eventually achieve full military control of the entire Donbas territory, not only will many additonal lives will be lost and wasted and more Ukrainian infrastructure be destroyed but there is a risk, particularly if the desertion-depleted Ukrainian army effectively collapses in the process, that Russian nationalists may seize the opportunity to expand Russia's territorial objectives and achievements well beyond those for which President Putin, who has said that hostilities will cease if Ukraine withraws from that further 1% of territory, appears to be willing to settle today. The practical question posed is therefore whether, even if it would be extremely difficult, it would be wise and in the best interests of the great majority of the Ukrainian people for the Ukrainian leadership to swallow a bitter pill, to accept the loss of 20%, rather than 19%, of Ukraine's immediate-post-Soviet-Union territory and, thereby, to deprive Russia of any continuing reason to prefer war to peace. If the Ukrainian leadership chose to do so, it could save face by asserting that Russia sought to seize Ukraine in its entirety and that the heroic defense of the Ukrainian people has ensured their country's survival. While the conundrum faced by the Ukrainian leadership is understandable and painful, how can the continuing efforts to ensure the prolongation of the war of Messrs. Macron, Merz and Starmer, "leaders" of the self-proclaimed "Coalition of the Willing" functioning as the spiritual successors to Boris Johnson's successful peace-prevention mission in the spring of 2022, be explained? I can envision only one explanation for how they could believe that they are serving the interests of the people they have been elected to serve by doing everything in their power to prolong the war in Ukraine and by massively increasing their countries' military spending (https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/02/27/has-the-world-gone-mad) notwithstanding their countries' budgetary crises, their frustrated fellow citizens and their own profound personal unpopularity: They genuinely adhere to the conviction that a Russian government which has been unable to occupy all of the territory of the contested oblasts which it formally annexed in September 2022 after almost four years of war has both the military means and an incentive -- indeed, even an intention -- to attack their countries, requiring their countries to continue using, abusing and sacrificing the Ukrainian people "for as long as it takes" so as to keep Russia militarily busy and bogged down elsewhere and to try to weaken Russia both militarily and economically and, thereby, to reduce their perceived risk of a Russian attack on their countries. While this conviction strikes me as clinically delusional, it appears to be widely adhered to by European élites, and few politicians or journalists dare to publicly question it, perhaps at least partially out of fear of being branded as "Putin apologists". Even if one does genuinely adhere to this conviction, it is cynical in the extreme for anyone to characterize and seek to justify these efforts to ensure the prolongation of the war in Ukraine as providing "support" for Ukraine -- perhaps for President Zelensky but certainly not for the Ukrainian people.