Kyiv – Ukrainians expressed a mix of skepticism, resignation, and guarded hope on Sunday in response to United States President Donald Trump’s suggestion that a potential peace agreement with Russia could involve “some swapping of territories.” The remarks have stirred a wave of debate in a country still enduring the human cost of a war now stretching beyond three years.
The comments, reportedly forming part of a framework being considered ahead of a high-profile meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin next Friday in Alaska, have sharpened questions about what price Ukraine might have to pay for peace. The summit, which is being billed as a potential breakthrough, has also raised fears in Kyiv that critical decisions might be made without Ukraine’s direct involvement.
Mixed Emotions Among Citizens
On the streets of Kyiv, reactions to the idea of ceding territory ranged from outright rejection to a reluctant acknowledgment that the grinding conflict cannot continue indefinitely.
For 31-year-old Anastasia Yemelianova, the issue is deeply personal. Speaking to the Associated Press, she described the emotional tug-of-war between national pride and the desire for an end to bloodshed.
“As a person who loves her country, I don’t want to compromise within myself,” she said. “But seeing all these deaths and knowing that my mother is now living in Nikopol under shelling and my father is fighting, I want all this to end as soon as possible.”
Her words reflect the weary reality faced by millions of Ukrainians: balancing the hope for sovereignty with the pressing urgency to stop the human toll of war.
Firm Rejection from the Bereaved
For others, any talk of giving up territory is unacceptable — even if it means prolonging hostilities. Svitlana Dobrynska, 57, lost her son in the fighting and said that while she does not believe Ukraine has the capacity to reclaim all its occupied lands through military force, surrender is not an option.
“We don’t have the opportunity to launch an offensive to recapture our territories,” she admitted. “But to prevent people from dying, we can simply stop military operations, sign some kind of agreement — but not give up our territories.”
Dobrynska’s perspective captures a growing sentiment among some Ukrainians that peace must not come at the cost of national integrity, even if that means seeking alternative ceasefire arrangements without formal territorial concessions.
Conditional Acceptance from Others
Some Ukrainians, however, appear open to limited compromises under specific conditions. Ihor Usatenko, a 67-year-old pensioner, said he would consider ceding certain areas if there were guarantees of meaningful compensation and reparations from Russia.
“It would depend on the terms,” Usatenko said. “If there is compensation and possibly some reparations, then it might be worth discussing. But it cannot be a free gift — not after what has happened.”
Such views underscore the complexity of public opinion in Ukraine, where exhaustion from years of conflict is tempered by deep-seated mistrust of Russia’s long-term intentions.
Zelenskyy Pushes Back Against Exclusion
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy issued a sharp warning on Saturday, expressing concern that the Trump-Putin talks in Alaska could sideline Kyiv. Speaking from the presidential office, he dismissed the notion of a peace agreement negotiated without Ukraine’s participation.
“Any peace deal excluding Kyiv will lead to dead solutions,” Zelenskyy said. “We are the ones fighting this war. We are the ones burying our dead. Ukraine must have a decisive voice in any process that determines its future.”
Zelenskyy’s comments highlight the growing unease in Kyiv that Western partners could strike an agreement prioritizing an end to fighting over Ukraine’s full territorial sovereignty. The fear is that such an arrangement might not only undermine the nation’s independence but also set a precedent for rewarding military aggression.
High Stakes for the Alaska Summit
The upcoming meeting between Trump and Putin, scheduled for next Friday, is being closely watched worldwide. While the White House has framed the summit as an opportunity to “chart a new course for peace in Eastern Europe,” critics warn that any rushed agreement could entrench divisions on the ground and leave key security issues unresolved.
For Ukraine, the stakes could not be higher. Since Russia’s full-scale invasion began more than three years ago, the conflict has displaced millions, caused tens of thousands of deaths, and inflicted severe economic damage. Though the front lines have shifted little in recent months, the war’s daily toll — from artillery strikes to infrastructure destruction — continues to erode morale and resources.
International Reactions and Diplomatic Maneuvers
Internationally, the proposal for territorial swaps has met with mixed responses. Some European diplomats see it as a possible starting point for broader negotiations, while others warn that it could embolden Russia and undermine the post–World War II principle of respecting established borders.
NATO officials have reiterated that any peace process must be “driven by Ukraine” and respect its internationally recognized boundaries. At the same time, there is recognition within the alliance that the war’s prolonged nature has created growing pressure for a diplomatic breakthrough.
Public Debate Likely to Intensify
In Ukraine, the discussion over potential concessions is expected to intensify in the days leading up to the Alaska summit. Political analysts predict that while there is no overwhelming public support for ceding territory, the idea of a conditional ceasefire or “freezing” the conflict may gain traction if it promises immediate relief from violence.
Yet, as many Ukrainians point out, any agreement reached without their full consent risks deepening internal divisions and weakening the legitimacy of the peace itself.
For now, the streets of Kyiv remain a place where war fatigue and steadfast patriotism coexist uneasily. Whether Trump’s suggestion marks the beginning of a genuine peace process or simply another chapter in a long and painful diplomatic saga will likely hinge on the outcomes of next week’s historic meeting in Alaska — and on whether Ukraine’s voice is truly heard at the negotiating table.
