Abandoning the principle of a unified Ukraine would embolden aggressors by signalling that military might can reshape international borders with impunity.
Ukraine’s borders are not merely lines on a map—they represent the sovereignty, identity, and hard-won independence of a nation that has fought against overwhelming odds.
In light of recent, apparent proposals suggesting that zones of control could be established by British and French troops in the West while Russia consolidates its gains in the occupied East, it is imperative to reject any notion of partitioning Ukraine.
Negotiating away its territorial integrity in any agreement to end the war sets a dangerous precedent and undermines international law.
At the heart of the debate is the proposal apparently floated by General Keith Kellogg, a key figure in US efforts to secure a resolution to the conflict. His suggestion that a ‘reassurance force’ could be established in Western Ukraine, juxtaposed against Russian forces in the East with a demilitarised zone between, effectively amounts to a de facto partition of the country. Kellogg later took to social media to say that the article had ‘misrepresented’ what he said.
Nevertheless, such an approach would not only cement Russian territorial gains but also imply that Ukrainian sovereignty can be compromised for the sake of pragmatic military balance. Such an outcome is unacceptable—it would be an enduring concession to aggression.
Territorial concessions do little to guarantee lasting peace
The integrity of Ukraine’s borders is underpinned by international law and the fundamental principles of state sovereignty. When nations agree on borders through treaties and international recognition, those demarcations are meant to be inviolable.
To open the door to future border adjustments based on military realities is to subvert the post-World War II international order that has, for decades, been a bulwark against the arbitrary redrawing of national boundaries.
Allowing such a precedent risks encouraging similar actions elsewhere, where stronger states might coerce weaker ones into accepting territorial losses for the sake of expediency.
Moreover, history teaches us that territorial concessions do little to guarantee lasting peace. When regimes have gained ground through force, any peace settlement that cedes territory often leaves unresolved grievances that can fuel future conflicts.
The Ukrainian people have demonstrated time and again their determination to defend their homeland. Abandoning the principle of a unified Ukraine would not only betray their aspirations but also embolden aggressors by signalling that military might can reshape international borders with impunity. Peace built on compromise at the expense of sovereign territory is inherently unstable and likely to sow the seeds of future discord.
Defending the international order
Any suggestion to partition Ukraine essentially condones a status quo that favours the aggressor. If Ukrainian borders are compromised, Russia gains not only land but also a strategic foothold that could serve as leverage for further incursions elsewhere in Europe.
European security is interlinked; undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity creates a ripple effect that undermines the stability of the entire region. It is in the interest of not only Ukraine but also its allies and partners to support a peace settlement that respects international boundaries.
Furthermore, any negotiated end to the conflict that includes territorial concessions would represent an abdication of the collective responsibility to uphold the rights of nations and their citizens. The international community must send a clear message: territorial integrity is non-negotiable, even in the face of complex military and political pressures.
Protecting Ukraine’s borders is not about ideology—it is about safeguarding a framework that has maintained international peace and order for generations.
Ukraine’s borders stand as a testament to the resilience and self-determination of its people. Accepting any partition as part of a negotiated peace would legitimise a dangerous precedent where military victories are rewarded with territorial reconfiguration.
With the invasion well into its third year, it is essential that diplomacy does not betray the core principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity. The world must stand firm in rejecting any deal that divides Ukraine, for in doing so we defend not only a nation but the very fabric of international order.
Photo: Dreamstime.
Add Comment