Executive Summary
The Story So Far
Why This Matters
Who Thinks What?
President Donald Trump has reportedly shifted his position on the conflict in Ukraine, now aligning with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s call for a permanent peace agreement instead of a ceasefire. This pivot, discussed during a meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and several European leaders in the Oval Office, raises significant concerns among Kyiv and its allies, who argue that such a deal could undermine fundamental international law principles regarding territorial integrity.
The Legal Distinction
International law distinguishes significantly between a ceasefire and a peace agreement. A ceasefire typically involves a temporary halt in hostilities, with warring parties maintaining control of their current territories. This pause is often intended to facilitate negotiations, humanitarian aid delivery, or civilian evacuations, and Kyiv and its European allies have suggested it could precede meetings between Zelensky, Putin, and Trump.
In contrast, a peace agreement, under international law, is a formal, long-term treaty defining the future relationship between nations. Jeremy Pizzi, an international lawyer and legal adviser for Global Rights Compliance, emphasizes that any treaty procured through the use of force is inherently illegal and void under the UN Charter, which prohibits the aggressive use of force.
Implications for Ukraine
While specific details of the peace deal Putin discussed with Trump remain undisclosed, the Russian leader has consistently maintained maximalist demands, including Ukraine ceding the entire eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions and being barred from joining NATO. International law experts contend that such a deal would be doubly illegal: once for being achieved by force and again for its content.
Furthermore, Ukrainian law prohibits President Zelensky from agreeing to cede territory without a national referendum, a safeguard partly in place due to Russia’s historical interventions. Surveys by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) indicate overwhelming Ukrainian rejection of ceding territory to Russia. Pizzi asserts that even if a referendum were to pass, any agreement surrendering land gained through military conquest would remain illegal under international law, which absolutely prohibits the use of armed force to conquer territory.
Kyiv’s Strategic Position
Beyond legal constraints, practical and strategic considerations prevent Ukraine from acceding to Moscow’s demands. Russia currently controls nearly all of Luhansk and over 70% of Donetsk, yet Putin seeks even more territory. The remaining parts of the Donbas under Kyiv’s control contain vital infrastructure, including industrial cities like Sloviansk, Kramatorsk, and Kostiantynivka, which form the backbone of Ukraine’s defenses.
Analysts also point to a deep-seated mistrust of Moscow. Pizzi notes Russia’s decade-long history of armed attacks, feigned negotiations, and consistent pursuit of maximalist goals, leaving Kyiv with little incentive to trust a peace deal without a prior, good-faith commitment from Russia to cease hostilities.
International Perspectives
Kyiv, supported by its European allies, has indicated a willingness to acknowledge the current military reality on the ground to halt the violence, potentially freezing the conflict along existing front lines during a ceasefire. However, this would not imply a permanent recognition of Russian annexation.
Analysts at the Eurasia Group highlighted that European leaders would unequivocally reject any permanent annexation of Ukrainian territory by force. While open to recognizing the de facto military position, neither Ukraine nor its European partners would accept Russia being “given” more land than it has captured. Kyiv’s long-term objective remains the full restoration of its territorial integrity.
The distinction between a ceasefire and a permanent peace deal remains critical. A ceasefire may offer a path to de-escalation, but a peace treaty that legitimizes territorial gains by force would fundamentally challenge international law, a principle that, as Pizzi states, makes it “almost politically impossible to conclude a peace treaty when the victim is not winning. And my response to that is: That’s the point.”
