If the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, meet in Istanbul on Might 15, territory – and who controls it – might be excessive on their agenda.
Putin provided to start out direct talks between Russia and Ukraine at a press convention on Might 11. Donald Trump pushed Zelensky to simply accept this provide in a social media submit, saying that “Ukraine should agree to this, IMMEDIATELY.”
The Ukrainian president, nonetheless buoyed by a gathering with the British, French, German and Polish leaders that known as for an unconditional 30-day ceasefire, agreed shortly afterwards.
Russia has mentioned it needs to give attention to the Istanbul communique of March 2022 and a subsequent draft settlement that was negotiated, however by no means adopted, by the 2 sides in April 2022.
These 2022 negotiations targeted on Ukraine changing into a completely impartial state and on which nations would supply safety ensures for any deal. In addition they relegated discussions over Crimea to separate negotiations with a ten-to-15-year timeframe.
Russia makes use of the phrase “the current situation on the ground” as thinly disguised code for territorial questions which have turn out to be extra contentious over the previous three years. This pertains to Russian positive factors on the battlefield and the unlawful annexation of 4 Ukrainian areas in September 2022 (along with Crimea, which Russia additionally illegally annexed in 2014).
Russia’s place, as articulated just lately by the nation’s international minister, Sergey Lavrov, is that “the international recognition of Crimea, Sevastopol, the DPR, the LPR, the Kherson and Zaporozhye regions as part of Russia is … imperative”.
That is clearly a non-starter for Ukraine, as repeatedly acknowledged by Zelensky. There might, nonetheless, be some flexibility on accepting that some components of sovereign Ukrainian territory are underneath non permanent Russian management. This has been advised by each Trump’s Ukraine envoy, Keith Kellogg, and Kyiv’s mayor, Vitali Klitschko.
Institute for the Examine of Struggle.
Black Sea’s strategic worth
The territories that Russia at present occupies, and claims, in Ukraine have various strategic, financial and symbolic worth for Moscow and Kyiv. The areas with the best strategic worth embrace Crimea and the territories on the shores of the Azov Sea, which give Russia with a land hall to Crimea.
The worldwide recognition of Crimea as a part of Russia, as apparently advised underneath the phrases of an settlement hashed out by Putin and Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff, might develop the areas of the Black Sea that Russia can declare to legally management.
This might then be utilized by the Kremlin as a launchpad for renewed assaults on Ukraine and to threaten Nato’s jap maritime flank in Romania and Bulgaria. Any everlasting recognition of Russia’s management of those territories is, due to this fact, unacceptable to Ukraine and its European companions.
Donetsk and Luhansk are of decrease strategic worth, in contrast with Crimea and the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia areas. Nonetheless, they do have financial worth due to the substantial sources situated there. These embrace a few of the mineral and different sources that have been the topic of a separate deal which the US and Ukraine concluded on April 30.
In addition they embrace Europe’s largest nuclear energy plant in Zaporizhzhia and a big labour power amongst their estimated inhabitants of between 4.5 million to five.5 million individuals who might be essential to Ukraine’s post-war reconstruction.
Past the strategic and financial worth of the illegally occupied territories, the symbolism that each side connect to their management is essentially the most important impediment to any deal, given how irreconcilable Moscow’s and Kyiv’s positions are. For each side, management of those territories, or loss thereof, is what defines victory or defeat within the conflict.
Putin could possibly declare that some territorial positive factors in Ukraine for the reason that begin of the full-scale invasion in February 2022 are a victory for Russia. However even for him any compromise that might see Russia surrender territory that it has conquered – usually at exceptionally excessive price – could be a dangerous gamble for the steadiness of his regime.
Something lower than the entire restoration of the nation’s territorial integrity in its 1991 borders would suggest recognition of defeat within the conflict for Ukraine. This is able to critically threaten the steadiness of the Zelensky authorities, whose political programme rests on precisely the premise of a return to the 1991 borders.
Lengthy-term penalties
Because of this, the Ukrainian management has turn out to be hostage to its personal info technique, which has positioned the “return of all territories” on the prime of the factors for victory. This can be a objective broadly shared amongst Ukrainians, in keeping with a ballot carried out by the Razumkov Middle in March 2025. However it will likely be onerous to realize.
Other than the potential home fall-out from any territorial compromises that Ukraine could also be compelled to make, there’s another excuse why the territorial query has turn out to be so intractable.
Past any strategic, financial and symbolic worth that the occupied Ukrainian territories maintain from the Kremlin’s perspective, management over territory has all the time been an instrument for Russia to pursue its broader geopolitical agenda of exercising affect over its neighbours – from Moldova, to Georgia, Armenia and Ukraine.
Additionally it is essential to keep in mind that Russia’s territorial claims in Ukraine have step by step expanded since 2014. Till September 2022, when it annexed the opposite 4 areas, Russia laid declare to Crimea solely.
Russia’s aggression in opposition to Ukraine was not a conflict over territory as such, however was a part of Moscow’s agenda to revive the sphere of affect that it misplaced on the finish of the chilly conflict. This agenda is much from completed.
The technique of each Moscow and Washington to give attention to territorial penalties could result in a ceasefire. Nevertheless it won’t deal with the elemental challenge of the way to cope with a vengeful and revisionist autocracy on Europe’s doorsteps.
