 "(File) Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Reuters")
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has rejected a proposal for a territorial swap. While there is hope for a possible ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine, with talks between the United States and Russia in Alaska likely taking place at the highest level, Zelenskyy has firmly dismissed any idea of conceding land to Moscow, citing the Ukrainian constitution.
While the constitutional argument is clear, Zelenskyy’s bigger challenge is political protecting his legitimacy at home, maintaining international support, and resisting a peace process that is increasingly being shaped by others, sometimes without Ukraine’s participation.
Trump’s proposal and Zelenskyy’s response
According to Politico, the latest controversy erupted after US President Donald Trump suggested that a Ukraine–Russia ceasefire could involve “some swapping of territories”.
Reports indicate that the Trump administration has been considering a framework in which Russia would freeze fighting along the contact line in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia while retaining the Donbas region, which includes Donetsk and Luhansk, and giving up parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia under its current control.
Trump described the idea as a practical arrangement “to the betterment of both” sides. Yet for Kyiv, such a proposal strikes at the core of national sovereignty. Zelenskyy responded by stressing that the country’s constitution already enshrines its territorial integrity and declaring that “Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier”.
Legal boundaries are clear
From a strictly legal perspective, the constitutional issue is straightforward. Ukraine’s fundamental law explicitly forbids the cession of territory. Zelenskyy has consistently stated that there is “nothing to talk about” when it comes to giving up Crimea or any other occupied regions, the BBC reported.
In legal terms, no Ukrainian government could agree to such concessions without amending the constitution — a move that is both politically explosive and procedurally improbable, especially in wartime. The legal framework thus serves as a firm barrier, at least domestically, against any territorial trade-off.
Impact Shorts
More ShortsWhy the real battle is political
Yet the reality for Zelenskyy is that the legal clarity does not shield him from the political dangers emerging on multiple fronts. The most pressing concern is that the diplomatic process is moving forward in ways that risk sidelining Ukraine.
Washington and Moscow are preparing for a high-profile meeting in Alaska on August 15, with Kyiv not included in the opening round. If discussions between Trump and Putin produce a preliminary understanding, Zelenskyy could be confronted with a finished product and pressured to accept or reject it in full. In his own words, “any decisions without Ukraine are… decisions against peace” and “stillborn decisions”, Politico reported.
Risk of diplomatic marginalisation
This dynamic creates a serious domestic challenge. If Zelenskyy is seen as acquiescing to an externally imposed compromise, especially one involving territorial concessions, he risks a backlash from a war-weary but defiant public.
At the same time, rejecting such a proposal could expose him to accusations of blocking peace, particularly from international actors eager to see an end to the fighting. The political stakes are equally high on the international stage.
Ukraine has relied on strong Western unity to sustain its defence. If the United States moves toward a separate understanding with Russia, that unity could fracture, leaving Kyiv with diminished leverage in any future talks.
Optics of the Alaska summit
The optics of the Alaska summit reinforce these concerns. The meeting will be the first between a US president and Vladimir Putin since Russia’s invasion in 2022, and it is being portrayed as a potential diplomatic breakthrough.
However, its bilateral nature aligns with a long-standing Russian narrative that the conflict is essentially a great-power dispute over influence, with Ukraine as a subject rather than an equal participant.
European leaders, including those of Britain, Germany, France, Italy, Poland and Finland, have already issued a joint statement affirming their “unwavering commitment” to Ukraine’s sovereignty and stressing that the path to peace “cannot be decided without Ukraine”, Politico reported. The very need for such a statement illustrates that the possibility of exclusion is real enough to prompt public reassurance.
Trump’s urgency and unilateral approach
Trump’s style of diplomacy adds further complication. He has repeatedly promised to end the war quickly and has imposed his own deadlines for ceasefire agreements, including an August 8 target for Putin to agree or face harsher US sanctions.
However, rather than announcing new sanctions when that date passed, Trump revealed plans for the Alaska meeting. His reliance on special envoy Steve Witkoff to conduct “highly productive” talks with Putin in Moscow shows that the White House is taking a hands-on approach, potentially moving faster than either European partners or Ukraine itself.
While Trump has expressed openness to a trilateral meeting with Zelenskyy, his vice president, JD Vance, has publicly suggested it may not be “productive” for Zelenskyy to join before Trump’s one-on-one with Putin. That sequencing effectively places Kyiv in a reactive position, responding to ideas shaped in its absence.
Putin’s unchanged demands
Moscow, for its part, has been consistent in its demands. Putin seeks recognition of Russian control over seized territories, assurances of Ukrainian neutrality and limits on the size of Ukraine’s armed forces.
His willingness to meet in Alaska appears linked to pressure from Washington and its allies, but the substance of his position has not shifted. The symbolism of holding the talks in Alaska—purchased by the United States from Russia in 1867—offers him an additional diplomatic flourish.
If the United States were to endorse even partial territorial concessions, European unity could be strained, with some capitals pressured to follow Washington’s lead in the interest of securing a ceasefire. For Zelenskyy, such an outcome would be politically disastrous, potentially leaving Ukraine diplomatically isolated.
Post-peace political reality?
If the Alaska meeting leads to a peace agreement, Ukraine would also face the constitutional requirement to hold presidential and parliamentary elections, which have been suspended under martial law since the start of the full-scale Russian invasion in early 2022.
In such a scenario, Zelenskyy would no longer be shielded by wartime unity and emergency powers; instead, he would confront voters in a politically transformed environment shaped by the terms of peace.
If the outcome of the Alaska talks leaves even a perception that Ukraine made concessions under US–Russian pressure, his opponents — both seasoned political rivals and new post-war contenders — would be quick to capitalise on public dissatisfaction. Thus, the Alaska summit is not only about Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but also about the political realities that could define Zelenskyy’s postwar future.
Politics as the decisive battleground
Ultimately, the fight for Zelenskyy is political before it is legal. The constitution may forbid territorial concessions, but if international negotiations proceed without Ukraine, the resulting agreements could still shape the political reality on the ground.
In such a case, Kyiv could be forced into the politically impossible choice of either accepting terms that violate its legal principles or rejecting them at the cost of losing critical international support. It is indeed an existential crisis more for Zelenskyy than Ukraine.