As Ukraine faces setbacks on the battlefield and U.S. President-elect Donald Trump promises to swiftly end the war, some of Washington’s allies are confronting a difficult reality: a potential peace deal might require territorial concessions.
While such a scenario is far from ideal for Kyiv and its supporters, an increasing number of nations, particularly those sharing a border with Russia, believe that a “land for peace” agreement could pave the way for increased security assurances from Europe for Ukraine. This could be particularly important if Trump follows through on his campaign rhetoric and opposes Ukraine’s bid to join NATO.
Estonia, a Baltic nation keenly aware of Russia’s assertiveness, exemplified this shift in thinking. Last month, Estonian Foreign Minister Margus Tsahkna voiced his country’s willingness to commit “boots on the ground” in Ukraine as part of a multinational European force. He envisioned this force potentially led by either Britain or Poland, both countries with a hawkish stance on Russia.
What are the potential long-term ramifications of a “land for peace” deal for Ukraine’s sovereignty and its relationship with Russia, even if it ends the immediate conflict?
The Estonian Foreign Minister has suggested a willingness to commit troops to Ukraine as part of a European force. This comes alongside a growing sentiment among some nations that a “land for peace” deal might be the only way to end the war. What are your thoughts on this idea? Is sacrificing territory worth it for the potential of increased security guarantees, especially if Ukraine’s NATO aspirations are seemingly stalled?