Ceding to Evil: If Zelensky Bargains with Putin, He Surrenders Ukraine’s Future

 

Any territorial concession to Putin would not be a strategic compromise but an unforgivable betrayal of every Ukrainian soldier lying in the grave after defending their homeland. Simply put, Zelensky entertaining any deal with Putin is akin to negotiating with a serial killer about which of your family members he should keep – it's morally reprehensible and strategically suicidal.

It seems President Zelensky is considering giving a few pawns to the devil in hopes of saving the queen, but that might just be a recipe for checkmate by Russia. President Zelensky should never cede an inch of Ukraine to Putin, even if it comes with the promise of NATO membership. The prospect of giving up Ukrainian land for a seat in NATO is like being offered a shiny life jacket in the middle of a flood – after half your house has already been washed away. What's the point of fighting, bleeding, and suffering if, in the end, your tormentor still walks away with a prize?

Ukraine’s sovereignty has always been sacred, enshrined in its very Constitution, which prohibits any cession of national territory. For Zelensky, or any Ukrainian leader, to entertain thoughts of “concessions” isn’t just a breach of legal duty – it's a betrayal of the hopes, dreams, and the very blood of countless Ukrainians who have fought tooth and nail against Russia’s aggression. When Vladimir Putin started this war, invading Ukraine under the pretext of “liberating” Russian-speaking regions, the Ukrainian people had to defend not only their land but also the spirit of independence they had fought for since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now, almost three years into a war of devastation, to even think of negotiating away parts of Ukraine is like spitting on the graves of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. The recent talks about NATO membership being dangled as a carrot in exchange for Ukraine’s acceptance of the current territorial status quo should be a non-starter for any self-respecting leader who values the blood spilled for the nation's independence. What message would it send to the families of those soldiers who defended Mariupol, Bakhmut, and Kherson if those sacrifices end up meaning absolutely nothing in the diplomatic back rooms?

The Budapest Memorandum of 1994 already serves as a haunting historical reminder of what happens when promises are made on paper but backed by nothing but words. When Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal – then the third largest in the world – they were given assurances by Russia, the United States, and the United Kingdom that its borders would be respected, its sovereignty protected. We all know how that turned out. Russia ripped up that guarantee when it invaded Crimea in 2014, proving once and for all that agreements made with aggressors are scarcely worth the paper they are printed on.

So why does anyone believe that Vladimir Putin, a man who has repeatedly defied international law, sanctioned war crimes, and presided over atrocities, would honor any kind of new agreement involving Ukrainian land? Are we to think that, just because NATO membership is now being promised, Putin would somehow transform into a trustworthy partner? Let’s not be naive. He who sups with the devil, after all, must use a long spoon. But with Putin, even the longest spoon might not be enough. Any form of land concession would be an irreversible step toward validating the legitimacy of Russia’s occupation, essentially rewarding aggression with territory.

More than 450 days into this war, we’ve seen cities reduced to ashes, civilian infrastructure torn apart, and mass graves filled with Ukrainian citizens in places like Bucha. More than 9,000 civilians have died, including hundreds of children, who will never get to grow up in a free Ukraine, never get to see a nation untouched by the boots of Russian invaders. The pain of mothers who lost their sons and daughters and the anguish of entire families destroyed by Russian missile strikes – what value do we place on their suffering? To talk about ceding territory now, after all the pain, is tantamount to saying that their sacrifice was all for nothing.

Western democracies may be tempted to view the situation as one of pragmatic compromise. After all, Ukraine in NATO would mean fewer European security headaches in the long run, as long as someone can freeze the current lines and stop the fighting. But the problem with this calculus is that it views land merely as squares on a geopolitical chessboard, while ignoring the real lives that live there and the principles that have guided Ukraine's fight. Accepting Russian control over the occupied territories not only normalizes invasion as a tool of policy, but it fundamentally shatters the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that have underpinned international peace since World War II.

Imagine if, back in the 1940s, a similar argument had been made: let’s allow Hitler to keep a portion of Europe for the sake of stability. Peace at any cost isn’t peace – it’s capitulation. And when you give a tyrant an inch, he takes a mile. We’ve seen this movie before. In 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain thought he had achieved “peace for our time” by appeasing Hitler and allowing Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland. Within a year, Europe was plunged into the most devastating conflict in human history.

Zelensky’s appeal as a wartime leader has always been his uncompromising stance. He has become an icon of resistance, famously rejecting offers to evacuate Kyiv by stating, “I need ammunition, not a ride.” To soften his stance now, for whatever pragmatic reasons, would be to tarnish that image, to let down the millions of Ukrainians who look up to him as the embodiment of their collective fight against tyranny. It would also mean bowing to Putin’s narrative that Ukraine is nothing but a “failed state” that can be split up and sold off.

And what of NATO? If Ukraine were to give up its occupied regions in exchange for NATO membership, what would that say about the alliance’s commitment to its core values? Is NATO willing to bend the rules, accept territorial losses, and grant Putin his prize, just for the convenience of an “end” to hostilities? It’s a slippery slope – today, it’s Ukraine; tomorrow, perhaps, it could be a Baltic state, or even an assault on Poland. The entire purpose of NATO is collective defense, to prevent aggressors like Putin from gaining an inch of leverage. If concessions are made here, what’s to stop the next tyrant from carving up smaller nations on the periphery of Europe?

Ukrainians deserve peace, but they deserve a just peace – not one built on their knees. They deserve to walk back into Crimea, back into the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, with their heads held high, and with the world at their back. Peace cannot come from merely letting Putin hold on to what he has stolen. Peace cannot be bought by sacrificing core values on the altar of expediency.

This is not the time for Zelensky to go soft, not after all the sacrifice, not after the Ukrainian resistance has proven itself against a supposedly superior enemy. Putin must be confronted with strength, not concession. He must be made to understand that Ukraine will not be sliced up like a loaf of bread at the negotiating table.

To cede Ukrainian land to Russia is to accept a world where might makes right, where the principles of sovereignty and freedom are negotiable when convenient. President Zelensky must remember that in dealing with a devil like Putin, there are no deals – only traps. The only way forward for Ukraine is complete liberation, not accommodation. Peace must be earned, but never by selling out the hopes, dreams, and sacrifices of an entire nation.

So, to those thinking that cutting a deal with Putin will somehow bring stability, I say this: you don’t douse a fire by handing the arsonist your matchbox.