Ukraine Will Be Smaller When Peace Comes, Trump Says

After contributing to the historic defeat of his Republican Party in last week’s midterm elections, President Donald J. Trump is continuing to overturn the apple cart with his detrimental and immoral suggestions that would force Ukraine, the victim, to surrender its land to Russia, the aggressor, for the sake of unsecured peace with Moscow.

Trump’s comment reinforces his ongoing stubborn pro-Russian point of view that the Kremlin is justified in making such demands because, as its fuhrer Vladimir Putin said many times, Russian soldiers died fighting for that land, and Ukraine must accommodate Moscow’s insistence.

In an interview with 60 Minutes on November 9, Trump detailed his expectations for peace negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, discussed Starlink slowdowns, and defended his policies regarding the war.

"I think we're going to have it done and I think it’s going to happen, and they're going to end up with a little bit different shape [for] Ukraine," Trump told 60 Minutes correspondent Ross Douthat about his expectations for how Russia’s invasion of Ukraine will end.

Speaking about the upcoming trilateral peace negotiations between the US, Ukraine and Russia to be held in Abu Dhabi on November 10-11, Trump said he believes “that we’re very close to making a deal.”

“There's a very important meeting taking place,” Trump said. “I believe that that war is going to end and it's going to end soon. And the only reason it’s going to end is because of me."

When asked about what he viewed as the biggest obstacle to peace in Ukraine, Trump pointed to the relationship between President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Russian Vladimir Putin.

"It was the hatred between Zelenskyy and Putin," Trump said, repeating his asinine remark about the antagonistic relationship between Russia and Ukraine. When Douthat pointed out that Zelensky’s feelings towards Putin were "understandable" given that Russia invaded Ukraine, Trump demurred.

“When [Putin and Zelenskyy] had their first meeting, there was great disrespect shown to Russia,” Trump said. "So I'm not going to say anything.”

The American President apparently is ignorant of this one little fact: while Ukraine has never invaded Russia or another foreign lands, Russia has regularly invaded and subjugated Ukraine, violated the nation’s human rights, destroyed its culture, while starving, killing or imprisoning as many Ukrainians as it could. Today, Trump or anyone else cannot expect Ukraine to surrender even an iota of its hard fought freedom and independence.

Realistically, there is nothing new in Trump’s comments. He has previously touted that peace between Ukraine and Russia is just around the corner, but it wasn’t. Every attempt to end the war has been shattered by Russia’s ongoing bloody strikes against not merely Ukrainian military positions but most dramatically against civilian targets such as homes, supermarkets, schools, churches and energy facilities. This evidence has largely been discounted by Trump.

Not surprisingly, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, commenting on Trump’s assertion that Ukraine will take on a “little bit different shape” after the war ends, has said that “from a geographical point of view, it is already a different country,” clearly referring to territories occupied during Russian aggression. When asked what Trump might have meant, Peskov replied: “As far as the territory of Ukraine is concerned, from a geographical point of view, it is already a different country. The realities on the ground are obvious, and hardly anyone can deny them.”

If Trump’s hopes and scenario play out, it would be immoral, unjustified and a violation of international norms that have come into existence since at least the end of World War II. Accepting that one sovereign country cannot demand of another sovereign country parts of its territory, the prohibition against acquiring territory through force or aggression is not just a casual recommendation; it is one of the most foundational rules of modern international law. Kyiv does not endorse any agreement with Russia to end its war against Ukraine that foresees the surrender of Ukrainian sovereign land to the aggressor and invader Russia. If forced, Ukraine would be an unwilling partner of this devil’s arrangement. The United Nations Charter, the Geneva Convention, the Rome Convention of the International Criminal Court, the Helsinki Final Act, among other treaties prohibit such actions.

UN Charter, Article 2(4) explicitly states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…” This forms the cornerstone of modern anti-annexation law.

UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970 - Friendly Relations Declaration): Clarifies Article 2(4) by declaring: “The territory of a State shall not be the object of acquisition by another State resulting from the threat or use of force. No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal.”

Helsinki Final Act (1975 / CSCE/OSCE) Principle III (Inviolability of frontiers): Participating states agree to regard each other's frontiers—and the frontiers of all states in Europe—as inviolable, committing to refrain from assaulting or seizing foreign territory. Principle IV (Territorial integrity of states): States explicitly pledge to respect the territorial integrity of each participating state and refrain from making each other's territory the object of military occupation or direct/indirect acquisition.

Budapest Memorandum (1994), Point 1 & 2: Signatories (the US, UK, and the Russian Federation) reaffirmed their commitment to Ukraine "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," and pledged that "none of their weapons will ever be used against Ukraine except in self-defense or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations."

North Atlantic Treaty (1949 - NATO) Preamble & Article 1: Formally binds all alliance members to settle international disputes by peaceful means and refrain from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

It has come to be accepted by countries, member-states of many accords that beyond the prohibition of force, customary international law imposes a duty of non-recognition on third-party states. First established diplomatically in 1932 (in response to Japan’s invasion of Manchuria) and formally codified by the UN International Law Commission (Articles on State Responsibility, Article 41), states are legally required not to recognize as lawful any territorial gain or border alteration brought about by aggression or the illegal use of force.

Demanding land concessions from a state that gave up its nuclear weapons under explicit international security guarantees (the 1994 Budapest Memorandum) punishes the law-abiding state while satisfying the territorial ambitions of the invading state. The argument that imposing or conditioning a settlement on Ukraine surrendering land amounts to a coerced, de facto redrawing of the international order rests on distinct legal and political pillars, among them:

Rewarding Armed Aggression.The Principle: Under the legal maxim ex injuria jus non oritur ("unlawful acts cannot create law"), a state cannot gain legal rights or territory through an illegal act.

The Argument: Russia's invasion of Ukraine violates Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. If a third party—even a superpower acting as a mediator—pressures Ukraine to cede sovereign territory to end the invasion, it validates the use of illegal force as a tool for gaining land. Critics argue this transforms the prohibition against conquest into a mere negotiating position, establishing a dangerous precedent that borders can be rewritten if an aggressor is willing to use sufficient violence.

Invalid Coercion Under the Law of Treaties. The Principle: Article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) explicitly states that any treaty or agreement whose procurement has been brought about by the threat or use of force in violation of the UN Charter is null and void.

The Argument: If Ukraine is coerced into signing away land under the threat of having military assistance, economic aid, or diplomatic support withdrawn by key allies—while facing ongoing military bombardment—that consent is legally tainted. Critics argue that a "peace deal" signed under total asymmetric duress is not a free exercise of state sovereignty, but a forced capitulation masked as a treaty.

Rather than holding Russia accountable for violating those guarantees, proposing that Ukraine accept diminished borders reverses the core guarantee. Critics contend that a legal guarantor endorsing the loss of the protected state’s land compromises the credibility of security assurances worldwide and opens the door to future aggrandizement of sovereign territory by any national stakeholder. In other words, it would undermine global stability and security.

In Trump’s mind, none of this matters. He is prepared to knock over the proverbial apple cart of diplomacy and warfare for the sake of his glory, his warped beliefs, and future recognition.