Territorial Concessions: What Russia Demands and Ukraine’s Position in 2025
The issue of territorial concessions by Ukraine has become one of the central topics of international negotiations and diplomatic pressure in 2025. Each round of discussions about peace is not only about lines on a map, but about the country’s future, its subjectivity, and prospects for millions of people. The Kremlin has not abandoned its maximalist demands for five Ukrainian regions and Crimea, continuing to pressure Western partners and Ukraine itself through harsh statements by its leaders. Russia’s official rhetoric remains unchanged: to achieve peace, Kyiv must legally formalize the “new territorial realities” that have emerged after the annexation of Crimea, Sevastopol, the “DNR,” “LNR,” as well as Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, in his September statement, emphasized: “There must be a guaranteed neutral, non-bloc, and non-nuclear status for Ukraine, as was allegedly recorded in the 1990 Declaration of Sovereignty.” The diplomat stresses that lasting peace, according to Moscow, is impossible without removing the “main causes of the conflict,” including NATO expansion and attempts to integrate Ukraine into the Alliance. Lavrov emphasizes that Russia demands not only the formalization of the status of the occupied territories but also the restoration of the rights of the Russian language, traditions, and media in the territories controlled by Kyiv. Statements by Kremlin dictator Vladimir Putin and other Russian officials remain unchanged since the August summit in Alaska: Moscow has not shown any retreat, has not made new proposals, and clearly articulates the “goals of the special military operation” will allegedly “be achieved.”
Against this background, Donald Trump’s peace plan contains the concept of painful territorial concessions, including the possible freezing of the conflict and relinquishing control over part of Donbas, specifically such cities as Kramatorsk and Sloviansk. According to Bloomberg materials and a number of expert sources, the negotiation process is actively coordinated by representatives of both sides. Special Representative of U.S. President Donald Trump, Steve Witkoff, consulted with Putin’s chief adviser Yuri Ushakov on the format of the Kremlin’s proposals. In October 2025, this consultation took place after the “successful resolution of the conflict in Gaza.” It was Witkoff who advised Putin to call Trump on the eve of Zelensky’s visit to the White House and congratulate the American leader on the Gaza agreement in order to launch the negotiation process on Ukraine.
After this diplomatic reconnaissance, there was a two-hour conversation between Putin and Trump, which both called productive, and Witkoff’s team met with other Kremlin advisers in the U.S. At that time, a draft 28-point peace plan emerged to become the basis for negotiations. Trump stated: “I am looking forward to meeting with Zelensky and Putin, but only when the agreement to end this war is final or close to completion.” The American leader emphasized that his team “has achieved tremendous progress toward ending the war,” and that the document itself has been finalized taking into account the proposals of both sides, with only a few fundamental disagreements remaining. At the same time, the United States emphasizes Trump’s meeting with Zelensky and Putin is possible only when the agreement is ready or nearly agreed upon.
In practice, Ukraine has found itself at the point of the greatest diplomatic pressure, where the fate of its territories and political subjectivity becomes a bargaining chip in global deals. Russia stubbornly defends its line, insisting on the legalization of seized territories and political guarantees for itself, while remaining steadfast on the issue of annexations. The United States is trying to balance pressure and seek compromise between Russia’s demands and Ukraine’s position. The Ukrainian delegation and the President’s Office are preparing for talks, understanding that the price of compromise may be critical for the future of the state.
Post List
The territorial issue in the Ukrainian-Russian war goes beyond simple geography or political slogans it is about the fundamental principles of sovereignty, security, and the future of the entire country. Russia does not back down from its maximalist demands, the U.S. peace plan contains proposals that can painfully affect Ukraine’s national interests. Each stage of negotiations, each leader’s statement is part of a grand diplomatic game, in which the price of compromise is extremely high. Ukraine faces a choice: to defend its integrity and principles or to make concessions for the sake of formal peace. The resolution of this issue will determine not only the political course for the coming years, but also the future of national identity and security for generations. True compromise is impossible without guarantees and security for both sides, but it is Ukraine that has the right to decide its own destiny, not becoming a victim of someone else’s geopolitical scenarios.
About the Author
Related posts:
Alaska meeting, Kyiv call: how Ukraine rejected “concessions for peace” 
No Peace in Istanbul: What Really Happened at the Ukraine-Russia TalksAnalysis | Time for Action 
War, Peace, and the Diplomacy of Ultimatums: What Lies Behind the US “Favorable Conditions” for Russia 
Peace on Whose Terms? What Russia Is Really Offering — and Why It’s Still War
