Is it a temporary ceasefire or a shift in borders? What ‘territorial concessions’ mean for Ukraine, Russia, and the US.

 

After Ukrainian and U.S. officials met in Saudi Arabia for peace negotiations to end the war with Russia, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed on March 12 that potential "territorial concessions" from Ukraine were part of the discussions.

Since U.S. President Donald Trump took office in January and initiated talks aimed at swiftly ending the war, his administration has repeatedly emphasized that Ukraine must abandon its long-standing demand for the full return of captured territories as a condition for peace.

In recent months, Kyiv has signaled a willingness to consider some level of territorial concessions, moving closer to a potential compromise. However, significant gaps remain between the warring parties. In addition to disputes over which territories might be negotiated, there is also fundamental disagreement on how to define "territorial concessions."

“The phrase ‘territorial concessions’ means different things to different state actors,” said George Barros, head of the Russia and geospatial intelligence teams at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW). Clarifying these definitions is "key to understanding the opposing negotiating positions and the fraught information environment surrounding peace negotiations."

Russia’s Demands: Ukrainian Capitulation

Russia insists that Ukraine relinquish four oblasts—Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson—which include significant areas currently under Ukrainian control, such as the regional capitals of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. These regions provide a crucial land corridor between Russia and Crimea, the Ukrainian territory Russia illegally annexed in 2014.

Conceding these areas would amount to more than just freezing the current battle lines; it would transfer additional Ukrainian land to Russian control. In December, Russia demanded the full withdrawal of Ukrainian troops from these oblasts as a precondition for negotiations—an ultimatum Kyiv rejected.

Beyond territorial control, Russia also seeks formal recognition from Ukraine and the U.S. that these regions belong to Russia. “These demands amount to full Ukrainian and U.S. capitulation and would undermine the international rules-based order,” Barros stated.

Last month, Russia ruled out any form of territorial exchange, such as trading land it occupies for Ukrainian-held portions of Kursk in Russia. Moscow has since been advancing in Kursk, reclaiming territory Ukraine had gained in its surprise August offensive.

Russia further complicated negotiations by enshrining ownership of these four oblasts in its constitution following illegal referendums in occupied areas in September 2022—a move unrecognized internationally. According to Andreas Umland, an analyst at the Stockholm Center for Eastern European Studies (SCEES), reversing this claim in negotiations would set a precedent Moscow wants to avoid.

“If Russia compromises on territories that its constitution officially recognizes as part of Russia, it could create a model for future secessions within Russia itself,” Umland explained. “A crisis in a border region could follow the same constitutional process Russia used to annex Ukrainian territories.”

Ukraine’s Stance: No Legal Recognition of Russian Occupation

Ukraine’s position on territorial concessions has evolved. Initially, Kyiv insisted that any peace agreement must restore its 2014 borders, before Russia’s annexation of Crimea and partial occupation of Donbas. More recently, some have suggested the 2022 borders—before the full-scale invasion—as a more pragmatic goal.

However, as battlefield losses mount and the U.S. pressures Ukraine to reach a settlement, Kyiv has softened its stance. While Ukraine may tolerate the temporary occupation of seized territories, President Volodymyr Zelensky has repeatedly stated that Ukraine will never legally recognize Russian control.

“We cannot legally acknowledge any occupied territory of Ukraine as Russian,” Zelensky declared in November.

Ukraine is also not offering any land concessions beyond what Russia currently controls. Public opinion remains divided. A January poll by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) found that 38% of Ukrainians were open to ceding territory in a peace deal, up from just 8% in December 2022. However, 51% remain opposed to any territorial concessions, even if it prolongs the war.

A November 2024 Gallup poll showed a slight reversal, with just over half of Ukrainians open to concessions, while 38% remained against them. The lack of clarity in these polls—whether "concessions" mean formally ceding land to Russia or merely acknowledging its occupation—adds to the complexity of Ukraine’s internal debate.

A Transactional U.S. Approach

Russia and Ukraine’s positions on territorial concessions are relatively clear, though incompatible. The U.S. stance, however, is more ambiguous.

Under the Biden administration, Washington firmly rejected territorial concessions. “The United States will never, never, never recognize Russia’s claims on Ukraine’s sovereign territory,” Biden declared on September 29, 2022, following Russia’s annexation of the four eastern oblasts.

Trump’s administration has taken a more transactional approach, deprioritizing Ukrainian sovereignty. Trump reportedly indicated he wanted Ukraine to demonstrate its willingness to make territorial concessions before resuming military aid and intelligence-sharing, which were cut in March. Aid was restored on March 11, following a U.S.-brokered 30-day ceasefire agreement between Ukraine and Russia, though Moscow’s acceptance remains uncertain.

A Ukrainian Foreign Ministry spokesperson stated on March 7 that Kyiv had not received any official U.S. proposals regarding territorial concessions. Zelensky has since called for greater clarity on Washington’s position. Before the March 11 talks in Saudi Arabia, a source in his office remarked, “Finally hearing what the Americans want from the negotiations.”

“It’s unclear what the U.S. is seeking in terms of territorial concessions,” said ISW’s Barros. Historically, the U.S. has maintained a principled stance on wars of conquest, refusing to recognize occupied territories. One precedent is the 1940 Welles Declaration, in which the U.S. condemned the Soviet Union’s occupation of the Baltic states and refused to recognize their annexation.

“The Welles Declaration lays out a principled blueprint for how the U.S. could handle Russia’s ongoing occupation of Ukrainian land without legally recognizing it,” Barros explained. Whether the U.S. will adopt a similar approach remains uncertain.

“The stark reality is that Ukraine has offered some concessions to bring Russia to the negotiating table, while Russia has not budged and continues to demand concessions on territories it has not even secured on the battlefield,” Barros concluded.