Trump Urges Ukraine to Cede Territory for Peace, Putting Zelensky in a Dilemma | WPN World People News

In recent days, the Trump administration has presented Ukraine and Russia with a draft peace proposal containing roughly 28 points, aiming to end the full-scale conflict that has continued since 2022. Once the proposal was revealed by Western media, it immediately triggered strong reactions from Kyiv and its allies.

The first to feel the shock was undoubtedly Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. For him, this so-called “peace” proposal appears both as a possible exit from a long and exhausting war and as a knife pressed against his throat. Pressure from the United States, anxiety from allies, and public outrage at home have combined to create an unprecedented dilemma, forcing Ukraine to make decisions within an extremely short timeframe.

The Trump administration’s plan has been described as “pragmatic but tilted toward Russian interests.” It calls on Ukraine to relinquish control of parts of its eastern territory—such as Donbas—reduce its military to 600,000 troops, and abandon its bid to join NATO. Frozen Russian assets would serve as the main source of future reconstruction funds. The U.S. has signaled it wants a response within a short deadline. The core idea is an immediate ceasefire and cessation of hostilities, with conditions resting on significant strategic concessions from Ukraine. For a country ravaged by war, “peace” is undeniably tempting—but the price may be national dignity, long-term security, and territorial integrity.

Responding to the proposal, Zelensky admitted that Ukraine is facing “one of the most difficult moments in its history,” saying he is being forced to choose between “losing the dignity of the nation” and “losing one of its most important international partners.” He knows the United States is irreplaceable for Ukraine. The Trump administration has hinted that if Kyiv outright rejects the plan, future military aid and intelligence support may be reduced or reconsidered. While European allies generally support Ukraine, their military capacity and political will have limits and cannot quickly compensate for a potential U.S. shortfall.

However, within Ukraine, trading land for peace has always been taboo. Since the war began, countless families have lost loved ones, and cities have been turned to ruins. Abandoning territory not only means acknowledging gains Russia achieved through force; it may also be seen as “betraying the fallen.” Polls have consistently shown that most Ukrainians oppose ceding territory, even under dire wartime conditions. If Zelensky accepts the plan, he will face intense public backlash and fierce attacks from political opponents—potentially destabilizing his leadership.

European nations find themselves in a similar bind. Although some leaders privately acknowledge that the U.S. proposal could serve as a starting point for negotiations, they insist that any agreement must not legitimize Russia’s use of military force to redraw European borders. Germany and France argue that Ukraine’s security must be institutionally guaranteed; otherwise, any ceasefire would be only a temporary pause before renewed conflict. Excessive Western concessions now, they warn, could undermine future security in Eastern Europe and even the broader NATO framework.
Meanwhile, Russia’s stance has remained relatively predictable. Moscow has long sought Ukraine’s demilitarization and neutrality, and it aims to solidify control over eastern regions. For Russia, certain elements of the U.S. plan amount to partial realization of its wartime objectives. If Ukraine accepts, Russia could legitimize its territorial gains through a “peace agreement.” If Ukraine refuses, Moscow could exploit any rift between Kyiv and Washington to strengthen its position both on the battlefield and diplomatically.

The most likely scenario moving forward is that Ukraine will present a revised version of the proposal before the deadline—avoiding a direct rejection while seeking stronger security guarantees and adjustments on territorial issues. This would prolong negotiations and force the U.S., Europe, and Ukraine to renegotiate a less contentious framework. If the Trump administration proves willing to revise certain terms—especially regarding territory and NATO—some form of “phased peace” may still emerge.

But if Ukraine ultimately refuses the deal and the U.S. responds by scaling back aid, the battlefield situation could worsen. Over the past year, Ukrainian forces have faced ammunition shortages and compressed defensive lines. Reduced assistance could allow Russian forces to make additional gains in the short term. This would push Ukraine into even more difficult choices—potentially forcing it to negotiate later from an even weaker position.

If Ukraine ultimately accepts the agreement, the war may quickly de-escalate and open the door to large-scale reconstruction. Yet such a peace would be fraught with concerns: if Russia regains strength in the future, or if Ukraine’s security architecture lacks firm guarantees, conflict could return. Trust in the government, social cohesion, and political stability within Ukraine would also face serious tests.

The controversy surrounding this peace proposal marks a new turning point in the Ukraine war. Zelensky’s decision is not merely a strategic calculation—it is a high-stakes political gamble that will shape the country’s destiny. In the coming weeks, as the proposal is revised, allies adjust their positions, and Russia issues its responses, the entire trajectory of the war may shift. How a nation balances survival, security, and dignity will remain at the center of global attention.