Ukraine has long been a crossroads of empires, a nation whose sovereignty has been repeatedly undermined by colonial ambitions. From the days of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita) to the Muscovite Tsardom, the Russian Empire, and the Soviet Union, Ukraine has been a battleground for imperial designs. Today, as the West contemplates negotiations with Russia that could result in the ceding of Ukrainian territory, it risks perpetuating this historical pattern of colonialism.
Ukraine’s history is a tapestry of struggles against external domination. Regions like Kuban and Slobozhanshchyna, now part of Russia’s Rostov and Kursk regions, are home to ethnically Ukrainian and Ukrainian-speaking populations. These lands, rich in cultural heritage, were absorbed into Russia due to imperial maneuverings, further diluting Ukraine’s territorial integrity. A settlement that ignores this historical context risks endorsing the very colonial practices the modern world purports to condemn.
JOIN US ON TELEGRAM
Follow our coverage of the war on the @Kyivpost_official.
In the ever-growing rhetoric of colonial reparations and the recent Commonwealth discussion of slavery reparations, the notion of freezing the war or reaching a settlement that falls short of returning all occupied lands to Ukraine is not merely a diplomatic compromise; it is an affront to the principles of national self-determination and sovereignty. Such an outcome would mirror the actions of colonial powers at the end of the British Empire, when arbitrary borders were drawn in India and the Middle East. These decisions sowed the seeds of prolonged tensions and conflicts, burdening future generations with the consequences of imperial expediency.
Ukraine’s Lost 40% of Kursk Region Gains Official Says
The human cost of the conflict cannot be overstated, with some 30,000 Ukrainian children having been taken by Russian forces, nearly 600 killed, and circa 1,500 injured according to official figures. To broker a deal that does not ensure the safe return of every one of these children is to disregard a grave humanitarian crisis reminiscent of historical atrocities like slavery. Such actions contravene international norms and the West’s own principles, effectively endorsing the forcible stripping of Ukrainian identity in favor of enforced assimilation into Russian culture.
President Donald Trump’s track record of unpredictability in foreign policy adds another layer of uncertainty. While he has claimed to be the president who ends wars, it is imperative to distinguish between ending a conflict and merely postponing it, leaving unresolved issues that will ignite future hostilities. Ukraine has been decisively pro-Western for at least two decades, and more generally since gaining independence, and any concession of land to Russia could reverse this trajectory, as even the most pessimistic recent surveys suggest that over half of Ukrainians support continuing the fight until all territories, including Crimea, are reclaimed.
Crimea itself is a focal point of this complex situation, particularly after the statement by a Trump campaign member on how President Zelensky’s campaign for the peninsula’s return show a “not serious“ approach to peace. A comment that the Trump camp was quick to disassociate from. Home to a significant Muslim Tatar population, it was the first region the West tacitly allowed Russia to annex. Failing to prioritize its return could inadvertently suggest that territories with predominantly white Ukrainian populations are more valuable than those with minority groups. This not only undermines the West’s commitment to equality and human rights but also leaves the Tatar minority vulnerable to continued Russian oppression.
The words of Vice President Kamala Harris resonate profoundly in this context: “There are some in my country who would... force Ukraine to give up large parts of its sovereign territory, who would demand that Ukraine accept neutrality and would require Ukraine to forgo security relationships with other nations. They are proposals for surrender, which is dangerous and unacceptable.” This stance underscores the necessity of a resolute policy that upholds Ukraine’s sovereignty without compromise.
Polish-American diplomat and political scientist Zbigniew Brzeziński, once observed in his book “Strategic Vision: America and the Crisis of Global Power” :
“It cannot be stressed enough that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated, Russia automatically becomes an empire.”
He brilliantly highlighted the broader implications of the conflict that would not manifest until the very end of his life and after the book was published. Allowing Russia to retain any portion of Ukrainian territory not only undermines Ukraine’s sovereignty but also bolsters Russia’s imperial ambitions, destabilizing the regional balance of power and rubber-stamping current Russian colonial holds, such as Chechnya.
As we wait for the inauguration of President Trump, we are only too aware that the decisions made now will reverberate for generations, shaping not only the future of Ukraine but also the integrity of international law and the global order. To negotiate with Russia in a manner that compromises Ukraine’s territorial integrity is to repeat the mistakes of colonial history, sacrificing the rights and aspirations of a nation for the sake of expediency.
It is incumbent upon Western leaders to recognize that true peace cannot be achieved through half-measures or concessions that ignore the root causes of the conflict – Russia’s deep-rooted colonial ambitions. Ambitions that cannot be undone without an era-defining moment, akin to the surrender declaration of Reims.
Upholding Ukraine’s sovereignty in full is not just a matter of supporting an ally; it is about affirming the principles of self-determination, justice, and respect for international borders. Anything less would be a disservice to Ukraine’s long struggle against imperial domination and a dangerous precedent in an already fragile world order. And just as was the case some 79 years ago, we should not look to Putin but envision a Russian version of Karl Donitz, Alfred Jodl, and Wilhem Keitel to create a new era of European and global history.
The views expressed in this opinion article are the author’s and not necessarily those of Kyiv Post.
You can also highlight the text and press Ctrl + Enter
