Why Zelenskyy cannot adhere to one of Trump’s demands on how he can end war ‘almost immediately’

Since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, the war has become one of the most defining conflicts of the 21st century—reshaping global alliances, testing the resilience of democracies, and exacting a devastating toll on human lives. More than three years later, the fighting grinds on, with Russia occupying roughly one-fifth of Ukrainian territory but falling short of its goal to subdue the nation entirely. Amid this stalemate, U.S. president Donald Trump has positioned himself as someone who could bring the war to an “almost immediate” end if Ukraine accepted his demands: renouncing NATO membership and formally conceding Crimea to Russia.

At first glance, Trump’s proposal presents itself as a shortcut to peace, a way to stop the bloodshed through political compromise. But for President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Ukraine’s people, the issue is far more complicated. Ukraine’s constitution, its democratic foundations, and the lived experience of repeated betrayals by Moscow mean that such concessions are not only unworkable but also dangerous. They would risk unraveling the very sovereignty Ukraine is fighting to protect while emboldening Russia to push further.

The Legal and Constitutional Roadblocks

Donald Trump has floated the idea that the war in Ukraine could be ended “almost immediately” if Kyiv were willing to concede two things: abandon its aspirations to join NATO and formally recognize Crimea as Russian territory. On the surface, this may sound like a pragmatic shortcut to peace—one deal, two signatures, and the bloodshed stops. Yet Ukraine is not a country where borders can be bartered away through presidential decree. The notion overlooks the reality that Ukraine’s constitution does not grant its leader the power to redraw the nation’s territorial map at will. Instead, sovereignty is enshrined in its most fundamental legal text, which states that Ukraine’s borders are “indivisible and inviolable.” This makes any unilateral concession not only politically toxic but legally invalid from the outset.

Under Ukrainian law, altering national borders requires a national referendum, a process that is both cumbersome and deeply democratic. It would need to be approved by parliament and then put to a nationwide vote, a scenario that is almost unimaginable in the current climate. Ukraine has been under martial law since February 24, 2022, the day Russia escalated its aggression into a full-scale invasion. Martial law places extraordinary powers in the hands of the military and sharply restricts the ability to amend the constitution. As long as martial law remains in place—and there is little chance it will be lifted before a durable peace is achieved—any referendum to change the country’s borders is legally off the table. This means that even if President Volodymyr Zelenskyy personally agreed with Trump’s demands, he simply lacks the legal mechanism to carry them out.

The implications of this legal framework are profound. Trump’s proposal assumes a level of executive flexibility that does not exist in Ukraine, particularly in wartime. Zelenskyy’s authority is bound by constitutional guardrails that are designed precisely to prevent a leader from surrendering territory under pressure, foreign or domestic. Far from being a technicality, this structure is a safeguard of sovereignty, a bulwark against coercion, and a reminder that Ukraine’s struggle is not only against an external aggressor but also to preserve its democratic integrity. In this context, the idea of handing over Crimea as a bargaining chip collapses not just under political opposition but under the weight of the law itself.

The Legal and Constitutional Roadblocks

Donald Trump has floated the idea that the war in Ukraine could be ended “almost immediately” if Kyiv were willing to concede two things: abandon its aspirations to join NATO and formally recognize Crimea as Russian territory. On the surface, this may sound like a pragmatic shortcut to peace—one deal, two signatures, and the bloodshed stops. Yet Ukraine is not a country where borders can be bartered away through presidential decree. The notion overlooks the reality that Ukraine’s constitution does not grant its leader the power to redraw the nation’s territorial map at will. Instead, sovereignty is enshrined in its most fundamental legal text, which states that Ukraine’s borders are “indivisible and inviolable.” This makes any unilateral concession not only politically toxic but legally invalid from the outset.

Under Ukrainian law, altering national borders requires a national referendum, a process that is both cumbersome and deeply democratic. It would need to be approved by parliament and then put to a nationwide vote, a scenario that is almost unimaginable in the current climate. Ukraine has been under martial law since February 24, 2022, the day Russia escalated its aggression into a full-scale invasion. Martial law places extraordinary powers in the hands of the military and sharply restricts the ability to amend the constitution. As long as martial law remains in place—and there is little chance it will be lifted before a durable peace is achieved—any referendum to change the country’s borders is legally off the table. This means that even if President Volodymyr Zelenskyy personally agreed with Trump’s demands, he simply lacks the legal mechanism to carry them out.

The implications of this legal framework are profound. Trump’s proposal assumes a level of executive flexibility that does not exist in Ukraine, particularly in wartime. Zelenskyy’s authority is bound by constitutional guardrails that are designed precisely to prevent a leader from surrendering territory under pressure, foreign or domestic. Far from being a technicality, this structure is a safeguard of sovereignty, a bulwark against coercion, and a reminder that Ukraine’s struggle is not only against an external aggressor but also to preserve its democratic integrity. In this context, the idea of handing over Crimea as a bargaining chip collapses not just under political opposition but under the weight of the law itself.

Global Security and International Commitments

Even if Zelenskyy wanted to consider Trump’s terms, doing so would shatter Ukraine’s standing with its allies and undermine the credibility of international security guarantees everywhere. Ukraine’s resistance has been sustained largely because of Western support—military aid, financial backing, and diplomatic pressure on Russia. European nations in particular see Ukraine’s fight as inseparable from their own security. If Kyiv were to abandon its NATO aspirations and accept the loss of Crimea, it would send a dangerous signal that aggression pays and that international law is negotiable when powerful states apply enough pressure. Such a precedent would not only embolden Russia but also encourage other authoritarian powers to redraw borders by force.

NATO’s role in this conflict cannot be overstated. Since the Cold War, the alliance has existed to deter precisely the kind of expansionist aggression Moscow is pursuing. For Trump to suggest that Ukraine’s path to NATO membership be sacrificed is to suggest weakening one of the core principles underpinning European stability. Many NATO members, especially those along Russia’s border like Poland and the Baltic states, view Ukraine’s struggle as the frontline of their own defense. If Kyiv were forced to renounce NATO ambitions under U.S. pressure, it would erode trust within the alliance and risk splintering the transatlantic unity that has been crucial in supporting Ukraine so far.

There is also the matter of credibility for the United States itself. Washington has long positioned itself as a guarantor of democratic values and international norms. If Zelenskyy were pressured into concessions by an American president, it would not only weaken Ukraine but also tarnish America’s reputation as a reliable ally. Allies in Asia, from Japan to Taiwan, are watching closely to see whether the U.S. stands firm against authoritarian aggression. A Ukrainian capitulation would ripple across continents, leaving democracies more vulnerable and adversaries more emboldened. For these reasons, Zelenskyy’s insistence on a “lasting peace” resonates not just as rhetoric but as recognition that anything short of full sovereignty risks destabilizing the global order far beyond Ukraine’s borders.

Russia’s Strategic Motives and the Danger of Concession

Crimea is not just a symbolic prize for Vladimir Putin; it is a strategic asset that gives Russia control over the Black Sea and a launching point for further military operations. Since annexing the peninsula in 2014, Moscow has turned it into a heavily militarized stronghold, housing naval bases, air defenses, and missile systems that threaten much of southern Ukraine and beyond. If Kyiv were to formally concede Crimea, it would legitimize this military foothold and effectively reward Russia for its aggression. Far from bringing stability, such a move would cement Moscow’s capacity to launch future attacks. Ukraine has already lived through this cycle—Crimea’s annexation was supposed to resolve tensions in 2014, yet it only set the stage for the full-scale invasion of 2022.

For Putin, territorial gains are central to maintaining his grip on power at home. His regime relies on projecting strength and reviving imperial narratives that cast Ukraine as a rightful part of Russia’s sphere of influence. This makes concessions particularly dangerous because they feed into the Kremlin’s story that aggression delivers results. A “peace” based on Ukraine giving up land would not be peace at all—it would be an intermission before the next escalation. Analysts across Europe warn that if Russia emerges from this war with more territory, it will not stop at Ukraine’s borders. Countries such as Moldova, Georgia, and even NATO members like Estonia or Latvia could face heightened threats as Moscow grows more confident in its ability to bully neighbors into submission.

From Kyiv’s perspective, the lesson of history is clear: compromise with Moscow does not buy security. Zelenskyy has pointed out that Ukraine was forced to give up Crimea and parts of Donbas years ago, only for Putin to use those concessions as a springboard for new invasions. To repeat that mistake would not only undermine Ukraine’s defense but also dishonor the sacrifices of those who have resisted since 2022. For Ukraine, holding firm is not just a matter of pride or legal obligation—it is about survival in a region where appeasement has consistently invited further violence. This is why Zelenskyy insists that any peace must be “lasting and reliable,” not a temporary pause that leaves his country perpetually vulnerable.