Contemporary political debates on ending the war in Ukraine have revived questions about territorial compromise. The author explores how for years there has been a consensus in the West that the conflict cannot end without territorial losses, especially when facing a nuclear power like Russia.
The Western line of thinking, including the stance of the US and Donald Trump, is clear: the end of the war means minus two regions — Luhansk and Donetsk. According to various estimates, 95% of Luhansk and about 70% of Donetsk region are already occupied or are too close to the front. The argument goes: if these territories cannot be reclaimed, why not accept the status quo to preserve the rest of the country?
However, this remains a painful and controversial topic in Ukrainian society, as it touches on issues of dignity, principles, and the future of statehood. Today, the immediate formula for ending the war depends on resolving the fate of roughly 33% of Donetsk region that remains unoccupied. Yet, despite long-term occupation, questions of territory, ethics, and political responsibility are still central for both the authorities and ordinary Ukrainians.
Thus, the discussion about "losing what is already lost" remains a key trap for both Western and Ukrainian perspectives, and the final decision will shape the fate of the country and the region.
