Zelensky stated that the United States pressured Ukraine to make concessions in Donbas in exchange for a ceasefire.

In mid-February, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed in an exclusive interview with AFP that during recent U.S.-mediated direct negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, Washington, like Moscow, had pressured Kyiv to make territorial concessions in the Donbas region in order to reach a ceasefire agreement. Zelensky stated that the U.S. logic was: if you want the war to end tomorrow, then leave Donbas. This statement marks the first public disclosure of the United States' potential stance in behind-the-scenes negotiations, and also reflects possible divisions within the Western alliance over how to end the war, as well as the pressure Ukraine faces from both allies and adversaries.

Negotiation Deadlock and the Changing Role of the United States

Zelensky stated that the negotiations took place in Geneva, Switzerland, and the process was extremely difficult, breaking off after just two hours. The core disagreement lies in the ownership of Donbas. This industrial region in eastern Ukraine has been in a state of conflict since 2014 and is now almost entirely occupied by Russian forces. Russia's bottom line is clear: Ukraine must formally recognize Russia's sovereignty or control over Donbas. Zelensky's latest accusations suggest that the United States, as Ukraine's primary military and financial supporter, may be privately conveying messages that align more closely with Russia's position.

Behind this shift lies a change in the domestic political climate in the United States. 2024 is an election year, and fatigue over continued aid to Ukraine is becoming increasingly evident between the two parties, with ongoing debates in Congress over the $60 billion aid bill. The Biden administration faces dual pressures: preventing Ukraine's collapse while avoiding the impact of an indefinite, costly war on its election prospects. From a strategic perspective, pushing for a ceasefire agreement in exchange for territory, although it implies tacit acceptance of Russia's use of force to alter borders, may be viewed by some decision-makers in Washington as a manageable loss—a shortcut to breaking the battlefield stalemate and achieving a frozen conflict. Zelenskyy has keenly sensed this, bluntly stating that Washington is exerting greater pressure on Ukraine because its situation is more difficult.

Battlefield Situation: Technical Factors and Limited Counteroffensives

The pressure at the negotiation table is directly linked to gains and losses on the battlefield. Around the time Zelensky made these remarks, the Ukrainian military announced the recapture of approximately 200 to 300 square kilometers of territory in the direction of the Zaporizhzhia region in the south. This marks the first measurable and sustained territorial progress Ukraine has achieved since its major counteroffensive in the summer of 2023. Ukrainian Defense Ministry spokesperson Vladyslav Voloshyn pointed out that this progress is related to a key technological blockade: Elon Musk's SpaceX cut off Russian military access to the Starlink satellite internet service in early February.

Analysis from the U.S. Institute for the Study of War confirms that the loss of Starlink has severely disrupted communications between Russian frontline units and command centers, significantly degrading the coordination capabilities of drone operations. The Russian military has been forced to adjust its tactics, reducing drone strikes and resorting to dropping over a hundred guided aerial bombs daily in an attempt to compensate for the disadvantage in information warfare with explosive power. However, such gains are localized and fragile. Dutch defense expert Patrick Bolder believes that the Russian forces have entrenched themselves deeply and hold an advantage in troop numbers, making it difficult for Ukraine to replicate large-scale breakthroughs in the short term. Elon Musk’s personal decision—a commercial choice by a non-state actor—has temporarily altered the balance of power on certain frontlines, but this is far from sufficient to turn the tide of the entire war. It functions more as a stimulant rather than a fundamental strategic shift.

Ukraine's Strategic Dilemma

Zelenskyy's remarks are more akin to a carefully crafted strategic communication. He has delineated Kyiv's bottom line: any territorial compromise must be premised on reliable security guarantees. He described to AFP the guarantees he seeks—the deployment of European troops near the frontlines following a ceasefire. This essentially amounts to a demand for NATO to provide a substantive security barrier to prevent future Russian invasions. His logic is that only by first securing these guarantees can negotiations with Russia proceed from a position of greater strength, making any compromise, including territorial ones, feasible.

However, this demand faces severe practical challenges. Firstly, Moscow currently shows no signs of compromise, with Putin repeatedly emphasizing the use of force to achieve all objectives. Secondly, ceding Donbas would be politically and symbolistically devastating for Ukraine. Zelenskyy has acknowledged that tens of thousands of soldiers sacrificed their lives defending this land, and voluntarily abandoning it would trigger a domestic political earthquake. On a deeper level, Donbas has become a core symbol of Ukrainian national identity and the will to resist; giving it up could mean the collapse of national cohesion.

Zelensky attempts to chart a third path between the U.S. and Russia: neither immediately rejecting the American ceasefire proposal nor unconditionally yielding. He has proposed a concept of reciprocal withdrawal: if we retreat 10, 20, 30, or 40 kilometers, then they must also retreat. This proposal aims to link the ceasefire with specific, verifiable military disengagement, rather than directly addressing the complex issue of sovereignty. However, whether this can be accepted by both sides remains uncertain. Russia's objective is to obtain legal recognition of territory, not merely to establish a buffer zone.

Long-term Impact of Regional Security on Global Order

The issue of Donbass is far more than a dispute over a piece of land. It concerns the cornerstone of Europe's security architecture—whether the principle that national borders cannot be altered by force remains valid. If Ukraine ultimately makes substantial concessions under U.S. pressure, it would set a dangerous precedent: a nuclear power could wear down the resolve of its adversary and its allies through a protracted war, thereby gaining at the negotiating table what it could not fully seize on the battlefield.

For Eastern European countries, particularly Poland and the Baltic states, this will serve as a serious strategic warning. They will question the reliability of U.S. security commitments and may accelerate their own militarization processes. For the global order, this signifies that the logic of power politics and spheres of influence once again outweighs the rule-based order. Additionally, the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant remains occupied by Russian forces and is being used as a tool for nuclear blackmail, adding significant environmental and security risks to any ceasefire agreement.

The war is entering a delicate and perilous phase. The volatility of external aid is increasing, technological surprises create brief tactical windows, and the pressure for a political resolution is unprecedented. Zelenskyy's candid remarks reveal the brutal calculations Ukraine must make while fighting for its national survival: how to find that nearly non-existent narrow path between defending sovereignty and ensuring the nation's continued existence. The coming months, whether marked by intense artillery fire on the front lines or negotiations behind closed doors, will determine where that boundary is ultimately drawn.